Another UKIP question. Doesn't Cameron's promise to hold an EU in or out referendum during the next parliament's term amount to a giant move toward the very essence of what UKIP wants? This being the case, does it make sense for UKIP to be running candidates in tory marginal seats where the main effect of its candidates might be to allow the victory of an anti-referendum labour candidate. UKIP could still run candidates everywhere else, and against every prominent pro-European Union MP, but stand aside in all marginal tory seats where there is a likely tory pro-referendum sitting MP or MP candidate.
UKIP's purpose seems to be somewhat up in the air, not least because it actually means different things to different groups of potential UKIP voters. Some see it as a general protest against Cameron's seeming left-turn on policy on a host of social issues unrelated to the EU, others as a revolt against his heavy-handed management of the party and candidate selections, others not as a revolt against the Tories or even as a right-wing movement at all but as a protest against the take-over of the Labour party by a group of Oxbridge PPEist researchers who are contemptuous of blue collar concerns.
The problem with any tactical cooperation with the Tories is not only would it send right-leaning UKIP voters cascading to the Tories in more than just marginal seats, but it would also alienate anti-Tory Labour defectors.
Ultimately Nigel Farage is not canny enough to steer this ship and this crew, which I suspect will also be the judgement on Nicola Sturgeon and her crew of accidental MPs post-election.
