UKIP will not stand in all wards at local elections

Warrington Guardian: UKIP will not stand in all wards at local elections UKIP will not stand in all wards at local elections

THE UK Independce Party will stand in 15 of the 19 wards in Warrington in May's local elections.

The group is hoping a surge in membership, which has seen a rise of 13,000 in the past year to bring the number of members to 32,500, will be replicated at the polling booth.

Geoff Siddall, from the UKIP Warrington branch, said: “UKIP are gaining strength as the British people wake up to what’s really going on in the country.

“UKIP is the right choice for town and country with its common sense values.

“At a local level we want to give the people of Warrington a choice.

“The choice to vote UKIP.

“When elected UKIP councillors will scrutinise and challenge the Labour controlled council and support and represent the people of Warrington.”

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:28pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Nick Tessla says...

Out of 32,500 members - they couldn't find 19 willing to be candidates who passed their fruitcake test?
Out of 32,500 members - they couldn't find 19 willing to be candidates who passed their fruitcake test? Nick Tessla
  • Score: -12

3:58pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Nick Tessla says...

Now I know this is possibly bad reporting by the W Guardian but the report appears to show Mr Siddall claiming a LOCAL group membership of 32.,250 while the national membership was declared, at the end of March, as 35,000. (If the 32,500 is a national figure have the national party lost nearly 3000 members in the last two weeks?)

Either the paper or Mr Siddall needs to get their facts straight.

I have noticed that previous claims from UKIP's local lodge seem to be contradictory, and on occasions resembling double-think with a declared increase actually a reduction on previous claims, re their membership figures but never to this extent.
Now I know this is possibly bad reporting by the W Guardian but the report appears to show Mr Siddall claiming a LOCAL group membership of 32.,250 while the national membership was declared, at the end of March, as 35,000. (If the 32,500 is a national figure have the national party lost nearly 3000 members in the last two weeks?) Either the paper or Mr Siddall needs to get their facts straight. I have noticed that previous claims from UKIP's local lodge seem to be contradictory, and on occasions resembling double-think with a declared increase actually a reduction on previous claims, re their membership figures but never to this extent. Nick Tessla
  • Score: 3

6:32pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mick17 says...

I would have thought as one of those who constantly has something to say then you may put yourself forward? Or is it just easier to shout from the sidelines?
I would have thought as one of those who constantly has something to say then you may put yourself forward? Or is it just easier to shout from the sidelines? Mick17
  • Score: 1

9:16pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Nick Tessla says...

Mick17 wrote:
I would have thought as one of those who constantly has something to say then you may put yourself forward? Or is it just easier to shout from the sidelines?
Why would I want to stand for UKIP , a misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted, party with outdated and reprehensible attitudes that I despise - or are you saying that only those who stand for election have the right to express an opinion?
[quote][p][bold]Mick17[/bold] wrote: I would have thought as one of those who constantly has something to say then you may put yourself forward? Or is it just easier to shout from the sidelines?[/p][/quote]Why would I want to stand for UKIP , a misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted, party with outdated and reprehensible attitudes that I despise - or are you saying that only those who stand for election have the right to express an opinion? Nick Tessla
  • Score: -8

9:46pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mick17 says...

At what point did I suggest you stand for UKIP? My point is purely you seem to have an opinion on virtually everything published in the WG and if you feel your opinion is so worthy of the masses, why don't you actually stand and represent rather than your preferred option of continually pointing out what's wrong with everyone and everything and disagree with.
At what point did I suggest you stand for UKIP? My point is purely you seem to have an opinion on virtually everything published in the WG and if you feel your opinion is so worthy of the masses, why don't you actually stand and represent rather than your preferred option of continually pointing out what's wrong with everyone and everything and disagree with. Mick17
  • Score: 18

9:54pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mick17 says...

At what point did I suggest you stand for UKIP? My point is purely you seem to have an opinion on virtually everything published in the WG and if you feel your opinion is so worthy of the masses, why don't you actually stand and represent rather than your preferred option of continually pointing out what's wrong with everyone and everything you disagree with.
At what point did I suggest you stand for UKIP? My point is purely you seem to have an opinion on virtually everything published in the WG and if you feel your opinion is so worthy of the masses, why don't you actually stand and represent rather than your preferred option of continually pointing out what's wrong with everyone and everything you disagree with. Mick17
  • Score: 4

10:06pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Nick Tessla says...

Mick17 wrote:
At what point did I suggest you stand for UKIP? My point is purely you seem to have an opinion on virtually everything published in the WG and if you feel your opinion is so worthy of the masses, why don't you actually stand and represent rather than your preferred option of continually pointing out what's wrong with everyone and everything you disagree with.
I choose to express my opinion on here, as you do. I'm sorry if I don't happen to hold the same opinions as you - actually I'm not sorry - I neither care one way or the other whether you agree with me..
[quote][p][bold]Mick17[/bold] wrote: At what point did I suggest you stand for UKIP? My point is purely you seem to have an opinion on virtually everything published in the WG and if you feel your opinion is so worthy of the masses, why don't you actually stand and represent rather than your preferred option of continually pointing out what's wrong with everyone and everything you disagree with.[/p][/quote]I choose to express my opinion on here, as you do. I'm sorry if I don't happen to hold the same opinions as you - actually I'm not sorry - I neither care one way or the other whether you agree with me.. Nick Tessla
  • Score: -13

10:14pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Nick Tessla says...

Mick17 wrote:
At what point did I suggest you stand for UKIP? My point is purely you seem to have an opinion on virtually everything published in the WG and if you feel your opinion is so worthy of the masses, why don't you actually stand and represent rather than your preferred option of continually pointing out what's wrong with everyone and everything you disagree with.
So, leaving aside the apparent, absurd suggestion that I stand for UKIP is one of the wards they have no candidate for 9despite previous votes) - do you think that only those willing to stand fro election have the right to express themselves on here - unless they agree with you and/or UKIP?
[quote][p][bold]Mick17[/bold] wrote: At what point did I suggest you stand for UKIP? My point is purely you seem to have an opinion on virtually everything published in the WG and if you feel your opinion is so worthy of the masses, why don't you actually stand and represent rather than your preferred option of continually pointing out what's wrong with everyone and everything you disagree with.[/p][/quote]So, leaving aside the apparent, absurd suggestion that I stand for UKIP is one of the wards they have no candidate for 9despite previous votes) - do you think that only those willing to stand fro election have the right to express themselves on here - unless they agree with you and/or UKIP? Nick Tessla
  • Score: -1

10:15pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Nick Tessla says...

Correction

"....wards they have no candidate for (despite previous vows to stand for every seat)..."
Correction "....wards they have no candidate for (despite previous vows to stand for every seat)..." Nick Tessla
  • Score: 1

10:18pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Mick17 says...

At no point would I ever be so crass as to expect anybody have the same opinion as me. You really should get a life rather than nit pick every story produced. (Or are you on the WG payroll as some sort of inadequate Simon Cowell designed to provoke reaction?)
At no point would I ever be so crass as to expect anybody have the same opinion as me. You really should get a life rather than nit pick every story produced. (Or are you on the WG payroll as some sort of inadequate Simon Cowell designed to provoke reaction?) Mick17
  • Score: 4

10:25pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Nick Tessla says...

I can't be bothered wasting any more time on your hypocritical criticising of someone who dares to express an opinion on here.

No I am not on the WG payroll - another pathetic suggestion.

Are you one of the supposed legion of UKIP's local members?

If so , perhaps you could respond in a sensible manner to my original remarks.

Was Mr Siddall or the WG being misleading in the membership numbers?

With such a supposedly massive growth in support why aren't they able to field the previously promised candidates?
I can't be bothered wasting any more time on your hypocritical criticising of someone who dares to express an opinion on here. No I am not on the WG payroll - another pathetic suggestion. Are you one of the supposed legion of UKIP's local members? If so , perhaps you could respond in a sensible manner to my original remarks. Was Mr Siddall or the WG being misleading in the membership numbers? With such a supposedly massive growth in support why aren't they able to field the previously promised candidates? Nick Tessla
  • Score: -1

10:26pm Mon 14 Apr 14

Nick Tessla says...

Mick17 wrote:
At no point would I ever be so crass as to expect anybody have the same opinion as me. You really should get a life rather than nit pick every story produced. (Or are you on the WG payroll as some sort of inadequate Simon Cowell designed to provoke reaction?)
Not every story - hyperbole and hypocrisy. You are doing well.
[quote][p][bold]Mick17[/bold] wrote: At no point would I ever be so crass as to expect anybody have the same opinion as me. You really should get a life rather than nit pick every story produced. (Or are you on the WG payroll as some sort of inadequate Simon Cowell designed to provoke reaction?)[/p][/quote]Not every story - hyperbole and hypocrisy. You are doing well. Nick Tessla
  • Score: -1

9:31am Tue 15 Apr 14

Mick17 says...

Missed the point completely haven't you? In this case the actual story is irrelevant. The point is simply your apparent need to enlighten the masses with your self righteous opinion on virtually every story produced by the WG and woe betide anybody who dare to challenge you, at which point you will enter into an endless stream of diatribe to try and belittle anybody who doesn't agree with you. If you feel that isn't the case, you simply need to look back over several months and count to see just how many comments you have made. There is a difference between making a one off comment on a story, which everybody is entitled to do and many people happily do and, someone who feels that the they act as the readers social, political and moral guide! I do also find it amusing how many times you have a pop at the WG for shoddy reporting, yet it is the very newspaper that you clearly read every day but you feel able to accuse me of hypocrisy! That's enough from me, as unlike some I don't enjoy pontificating from the sidelines.
Missed the point completely haven't you? In this case the actual story is irrelevant. The point is simply your apparent need to enlighten the masses with your self righteous opinion on virtually every story produced by the WG and woe betide anybody who dare to challenge you, at which point you will enter into an endless stream of diatribe to try and belittle anybody who doesn't agree with you. If you feel that isn't the case, you simply need to look back over several months and count to see just how many comments you have made. There is a difference between making a one off comment on a story, which everybody is entitled to do and many people happily do and, someone who feels that the they act as the readers social, political and moral guide! I do also find it amusing how many times you have a pop at the WG for shoddy reporting, yet it is the very newspaper that you clearly read every day but you feel able to accuse me of hypocrisy! That's enough from me, as unlike some I don't enjoy pontificating from the sidelines. Mick17
  • Score: 7

11:03pm Tue 15 Apr 14

PageA says...

Mick17 wrote:
Missed the point completely haven't you? In this case the actual story is irrelevant. The point is simply your apparent need to enlighten the masses with your self righteous opinion on virtually every story produced by the WG and woe betide anybody who dare to challenge you, at which point you will enter into an endless stream of diatribe to try and belittle anybody who doesn't agree with you. If you feel that isn't the case, you simply need to look back over several months and count to see just how many comments you have made. There is a difference between making a one off comment on a story, which everybody is entitled to do and many people happily do and, someone who feels that the they act as the readers social, political and moral guide! I do also find it amusing how many times you have a pop at the WG for shoddy reporting, yet it is the very newspaper that you clearly read every day but you feel able to accuse me of hypocrisy! That's enough from me, as unlike some I don't enjoy pontificating from the sidelines.
How can the story be irrelevant when that's what Nicks initial comment was about? Also just because he decides to voice his opinion in his local paper doesn't mean that he cant criticise the way it conducts itself. I dont always agree with what he says but I personally value his input, i think it's you that needs to find a different forum
[quote][p][bold]Mick17[/bold] wrote: Missed the point completely haven't you? In this case the actual story is irrelevant. The point is simply your apparent need to enlighten the masses with your self righteous opinion on virtually every story produced by the WG and woe betide anybody who dare to challenge you, at which point you will enter into an endless stream of diatribe to try and belittle anybody who doesn't agree with you. If you feel that isn't the case, you simply need to look back over several months and count to see just how many comments you have made. There is a difference between making a one off comment on a story, which everybody is entitled to do and many people happily do and, someone who feels that the they act as the readers social, political and moral guide! I do also find it amusing how many times you have a pop at the WG for shoddy reporting, yet it is the very newspaper that you clearly read every day but you feel able to accuse me of hypocrisy! That's enough from me, as unlike some I don't enjoy pontificating from the sidelines.[/p][/quote]How can the story be irrelevant when that's what Nicks initial comment was about? Also just because he decides to voice his opinion in his local paper doesn't mean that he cant criticise the way it conducts itself. I dont always agree with what he says but I personally value his input, i think it's you that needs to find a different forum PageA
  • Score: -5

5:19pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Freeborn John says...

I reckon that UKIP will cause one heck of an upset come polling day and all this hissing from the usual suspects won't change that a jot.
And while I personally don't think Farage could manage a whelk stall, if it shakes the mealy mouthed, self serving swine in Westminster up then UKIP will certainly get my vote.
I reckon that UKIP will cause one heck of an upset come polling day and all this hissing from the usual suspects won't change that a jot. And while I personally don't think Farage could manage a whelk stall, if it shakes the mealy mouthed, self serving swine in Westminster up then UKIP will certainly get my vote. Freeborn John
  • Score: 2

8:00pm Sun 20 Apr 14

PageA says...

Freeborn John wrote:
I reckon that UKIP will cause one heck of an upset come polling day and all this hissing from the usual suspects won't change that a jot.
And while I personally don't think Farage could manage a whelk stall, if it shakes the mealy mouthed, self serving swine in Westminster up then UKIP will certainly get my vote.
What is it that you want to change with your shake up?
[quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: I reckon that UKIP will cause one heck of an upset come polling day and all this hissing from the usual suspects won't change that a jot. And while I personally don't think Farage could manage a whelk stall, if it shakes the mealy mouthed, self serving swine in Westminster up then UKIP will certainly get my vote.[/p][/quote]What is it that you want to change with your shake up? PageA
  • Score: -3

9:45pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Freeborn John says...

PageA wrote:
Freeborn John wrote:
I reckon that UKIP will cause one heck of an upset come polling day and all this hissing from the usual suspects won't change that a jot.
And while I personally don't think Farage could manage a whelk stall, if it shakes the mealy mouthed, self serving swine in Westminster up then UKIP will certainly get my vote.
What is it that you want to change with your shake up?
Change? That's a bit much to expect, but a reality check for the three sets of gravy sucking pigs who, with not a fag papers difference between their policies, currently run this country like it's their own personal cash cow, would be nice.
Yup, I'd be content with that.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Freeborn John[/bold] wrote: I reckon that UKIP will cause one heck of an upset come polling day and all this hissing from the usual suspects won't change that a jot. And while I personally don't think Farage could manage a whelk stall, if it shakes the mealy mouthed, self serving swine in Westminster up then UKIP will certainly get my vote.[/p][/quote]What is it that you want to change with your shake up?[/p][/quote]Change? That's a bit much to expect, but a reality check for the three sets of gravy sucking pigs who, with not a fag papers difference between their policies, currently run this country like it's their own personal cash cow, would be nice. Yup, I'd be content with that. Freeborn John
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree