Latest from UKIP Daily

My day at the Leadership Count: a report

It was an honour and a pleasure for me to represent Anne Marie Waters at the count undertaken at the premises of Electoral Reform Services Ltd in Wood Green North London on Friday 29th September.

I left Milton Keynes before 8am and took my place in the customary congested M1 motorway traffic. Arriving at the ERS Clarendon Road premises just after 9.30 am, I found I had just been pipped to the ‘first to arrive’ honour by Susie and Frank, Henry Bolton’s reps, how prophetic for what was about to emerge.

A little after 10am Adrian, the ERS manager, showed us witnesses, now including John Rees Evans young colleague Johnathon and our main man Piers Wauchope, the wheeled cage containing sealed envelopes with what would soon to be known as containing nearly 13,000 ballot papers. Swiftly these sealed, purple-flashed envelopes were being opened by an impressive, automatic envelope-opening machine. These opened envelopes were then quickly distributed amongst the 10 ladies sitting nearby whose first job was to remove the ballot papers and separate the unnecessary covering letters that some members had posted back. Piles of A4 ballot papers were then placed in 6 padlocked ballot boxes. The time was now noon. An hour or so’s lunchtime was called.

I took the opportunity to depart the premises, stretch my legs with a walk in the London air to Wood Green town centre now accompanied by my previously confiscated mobile telephone. Answering some business calls whilst walking I came across a local authority sign in the centre of the High Street saying “Free Speech area”. I smiled, I had never seen such a sign before, and my imagination kicked in with thoughts of my right shoulder displaying a placard stating “Mrs May is weak, she is betraying the British people and she is a rubbish negotiator” and on my left another saying “Islam is killing British culture”. I trundled back to Clarendon Road, most impressed with the London Borough of Haringey’s noble effort to protect our most cherished and presently threatened right.

The actual count began at 1.15.

First job was for us reps, by now including Joe, Peter Whittle’s man, and Katherine, Jane Collins lady, to verify the handful of proxy votes that Piers had received from members who for one reason or another had not received a ballot paper. Agreement was soon reached.

The 10 ballot separators were now at beaverish work, separating the papers into 7 piles whilst looking out for anything suspicious or ambiguous. The atmosphere took a tense turn. For me, with what I was seeing whilst walking between the separating personnel during the first 20 minutes it was a neck and neck contest between Anne Marie, Henry and JRE. It seemed to me various parts of the room had one or other table with a bigger pile, or was I employing hopeful imagination again?

After an hour or so it was obvious who was going to be the winner, not with a great number, but it clearly emerged. What also emerged was that Aidan and Jane were going to be a distant 7th and 6th. Politics is a cruel game! The atmosphere between all in the room remained friendly, respectful and professional.

The counters now jumped into action at the counting tables. It was clear who had the bigger pile. Piers unofficially measured the piles with a standing pencil, Henry won by 5 pencils to 4! Forlornly I stood over the lady counting Henry’s pile hoping that inadvertently one of those pencils’ worth was lurking at the wrong counting table. They were not.

The last job was to jointly decide what to do with the small numbers of spoilt or ambiguous papers. Again, decisions were quickly and happily reached. The final numbers were then agreed between Piers and Adrian, acknowledged by us witnesses. Piers then made the phone call, to, I assume, Paul Oakden.

We all then sat down in a meeting room to watch the live feed to Conference and kill some time before the World would know what we already knew. I took this time to congratulate Susie and Frank on their man’s victory and jointly commiserated with the others reps who were left in a similar position to me. The winner takes all. Finally the World knew. Piers distributed our confiscated telephones back. Our quarantine was over. We were free to face the new World.

Driving back to Milton Keynes I listened to LBC Radio. The presenter was joyful that my girl had not won, he was also joyful that his work colleague Nigel Farage had come on his show to also speak some unkind words about Anne Marie. Some would say that Nigel’s words were those of a control freak speaking immediately after finding out his potential hefty slap in the face turned out to be a lighter-than-expected slap in the face. Another big moment for me: from rarely ever being critical of Nigel’s words I was sitting driving my car utterly disgusted with his chosen words.

I must confess I did not expect Henry to win. 3874 members do not see it like me and 2754 other members see it. For me, UKIP has missed the opportunity to secure the services of a shrewd, capable and popular politician. I am sure Henry is a nice man, Susie told me so. But rather than being an effective pressure Party on two important contemporary issues, Brexit and Islam, UKIP members have chosen the safe route of not facing up to the growing big issue.

In my view British politics is already over populated with middle of the road, provincial Home Counties golf club member types (yes, I know that I am one). UKIP is nothing if it is not radical. Henry is a non-radical person from an establishment background.

I am entirely satisfied that the manner in which ERS Ltd handled the member list it was given by HQ was wholly professional. The final numbers announced were accurate. I trust that other ordinary members somehow verified that the members data initially given to ERS ltd was also accurate and fair with no hint of chicanery.

For me, with what I saw on Friday 29th September in Wood Green North London, I can say that on the surface, democracy and free speech are alive and kicking in Britain.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

60 Comments on My day at the Leadership Count: a report

  1. The friendly operatives at UK Column News provide a cameo of the new Leader:

    (3rd October, at 35m 24s on).

    Not very complimentary.

  2. The bitchiness has begun. UKIP now dIvided. The hostile press will be filled with glee at members divisive attitudes. Why cannot we accept a Democratic result of the leadership election. Let’s get behind HB and let’s show the vulture press some solidarity and singing off the same hymn sheet. There is a lot of dead wood to be pruned from the senior officers and many branches which have been infiltrated with self interested failures from other parties. Onward and upward. We must be together to beat May and her ilk.

  3. The current thinking is that AMW will leave. I hope she stays. all party`s have their mavericks whether they are to the left or right. She clearly has a lot of support within Ukip. It would a shame to lose her determination and campaigning skills. If Ukip gravitates to the centre then we will need a radical wing.

  4. Where is my post of 1/10/17? It was accepted, but said it had to be moderated. Will I get any feedback if it is not to be posted after moderation? There was nothing abusive or scandalous about it.
    Geoff Markham

  5. Let me ignore (for the moment) the carping from the losers who don’t want to accept the result of the election and address the business of zero immigration.

    When leafletting a year or so ago I got into conversation with an ex soldier who was limping very badly. He’d been in the Balkans and had been shot in the leg. He’d left the Army and had settled down to civvy life, but he had one major problem –his future wife was from South America somewhere and she couldn’t join him because she was a foreigner. She’d be no burden on the country, she was marrying a man who’d put his life on the line at the behest of HMG but that didn’t count. She wasn’t one of the privileged, not one of those who can waltz in and out of the UK without so much as a by-your-leave, not one of those who can be given a passport by any EU state and then shuffled off as someone else’s problem. A zero immigration policy would make that sort of situation even more impossible to address.

    What if you have a policy which is based around need and ability, the need for the abilities of the immigrant concerned? If the country is full up then we don’t need more people except those with very specific skills. So the limit sets itself without an arbitrary ceiling. Points-based, needs-based immigration. And since there is no rigid limit the future wife of a retired hero cannot be rejected on a whim by some jumped-up jobsworth.

    That’s why we don’t need a rigid target for immigration.

    As for HB being too… what is it, Home Counties? Ye Gods. Flat caps and regional accents are not wanted, Barbour jackets and the Queen’s English are too middle-class. Apart from the toffs then who is left? OK, so he’s a tankie, but it could be worse, he could be a gunner.

    I wonder if Cameron’s free.

    If it’s HB’s haircut that people object to then I am available — lots of hair. (I’d convinced the Labour leader on SCC that it’s a wig — when I knew he was watching in the council chamber I’d furtively ‘adjust’ it and then look round guiltily. He was middle-class like so many of the Labour group, rigid as a poker and no friend to the working classes, so it was a pleasure to mock him.)

    • Julian, I agree although the same criteria for speaking English, having means of support and being free of TB should apply to all. It is also a costly business for non-EU legal immigrants. Maybe some relaxation is required for true asylum seekers but, given their country of embarkation to travel to the UK, expect that they could probably be counted on one’s fingers.

    • Julian,

      The issue with no cap is that Anti-Brexit elements will seize upon it. They will ask, well if UKIP don’t believe in a cap, then why not stay in the single market, in fact, why bother leaving the EU at all?
      They would be right to ask that too and this will free the Tories to get rid of their 10’s of thousands cap pledge. They will also ask why have UKIP beat the migration drum all these years if they don’t care anyway? UKIP will have basically got the Tories off the hook and given them(and Labour) a blank cheque on migration numbers. You can be sure they will worm their way out. Big business will seize upon this position and the transition period will last indefinitely. Ergo, we well remain in the EU and/or single market.

      The migration issue is more to do with no political will to reduce it rather than the migrants themselves or the visa system. Year on year most migration to the UK comes from OUTSIDE the EU, if my memory serves be correct 2/3’s are non-EU. The UK government could reduce migration by two thirds, legally and within the EU treaties overnight if it wished, it has not. Because it DOES NOT wish to do so and thats my point.

      With regards the ex-service man, the visa criteria was toughed by the Tories, primarily due to immigration becoming a political issue (in part due to UKIP and Nigel).
      If the gentleman meets the criteria (below)then there is no reason why his spouse cannot get a visa. A points based criteria that you suggest, would in fact probably make it more difficult, unless she had exceptional skills.

      Australia has now advocated an ‘Australian First’ policy with regards work visa’s, Canada does the same. Should we in the UK not look at utilizing our 1.8 million unemployed? This would increase taxation and reduce the welfare bill. Maybe we need to look at inside the UK too and train those we have?



    • ‘Zero’ will do very nicely as shorthand. Of course there will always be exceptions, especially for deserving cases with, say, British grandparentage.
      Unless we close the door nothing will change, and this is not Australia, we just haven’t got the room. We have to start doing things differently, training our own people, saving our precious land from yet more concrete.

      If you continue with your crowing, Julian, you will get what you obviously want, an exodus of many members who have given so much to the Party. If you think that’s for the best then you are much mistaken. Your way will lead to total irrelevance for the Party and even less chance of an independent, secure, prosperous and recognisable Britain.

      • Exactly.
        Australia and Canada have policies which suit THEM ~ and both of them have populations less than half that of the UK yet they also have, comparatively, limitless land on which to build new housing. WE JUST DON’T. The Green Belt is already being encroached upon with abandon. To talk about immigration as if the country had some kind of duty to all those in the world who wish to come here ( easily half a billion ) as opposed to a duty to the current longstanding population and societal cohesion……… is just seeing things through the wrong end of the telescope.
        Thus my preferred policy of a Total ( or almost ) Moratorium on all new Immigration from whatever country or source for five years…………whilst we try to sort out the dire housing shortage.

  6. There is only one reason why AMW did not win: the rule that only members extant when the election was called could vote. This restricted the vote to people who were content to remain members of a party that had been rudderless for over a year. When the possibility of an invigorating leader, willing to address the greatest threat to our culture since WWII provided the impetus for a mass membership drive, the people who care the most are prohibited from voting. So what do we get? The “safe” vote – someone who calls Islam a “problem” along with the general idea of “multiculturalism”… not someone willing to speak the truth (a virtue almost unknown among politicians!) about the most dangerous ideology on the planet.

    • Brian, the solution is in your hands. Form your new anti-Islamisation party and voters will flock to your banner if you have judged the situation correctly. If you are wrong they won’t.

      Time’s wasting. Go for it. Keep us posted.


  7. Frankly, I’m shocked.

    It is no surprise to me at all that the election was fair and honest; I expected nothing less.

    But, with thousands of people biting their fingernails and watching the clock every few seconds, the counting team took around an hour’s lunch break. Were they young people, to whom work ethic is an alien concept?

    • or members of a trades union perhaps

    • Grummy they were ordinary workers just doing their job. They started at 9 am, by the looks of it switched to the UKIP job around 10 ish, finished the job around 3.15 for us, went on to do some other gainful work after and had a lunch time hour when our job suited. Just another day for these people.

    • Do you think our election is the only one they do? They are counting elections EVERY SINGLE DAY. They work for many organisations, each one will consider its election the most important. Should they never eat lunch?

  8. Many thanks Jeff Wyatt for a first class report which confirms the integrity of the election. I accept HB won and also that he would have won under the STV system, although I can’t prove this.
    There are two things which are worthy of consideration. First all future UKIP elections should operate on STV or other system of proportional representation.
    Second the membership should have a say on the new logo. At the very least the new logo needs tweeking.
    HB is the leader and the party needs leading; only a titanic effort by the many not the few will bring UKIP back up in the polls.
    By the way ALL MEPS MUST TITHE THEIR EU INCOME AS AGREED BEFORE 2014. This includes ‘retired and living in France’ James and torylite Woolfe. At the moment only 5 of the extant MEPs are contributing.

  9. Thank you for a good and valued report Jeff. It is good to hear democracy is still in action.
    Whilst I do not think AMW would have been leadership material, she would be invaluable to UKIP and I challenge HB to include her in his shadow cabinet.

    • ….how HB handles this issue will define the man as far as I am concerned and I am sure, also a large number of the other 2754 members that voted for AMW.

      So HB what is to be ? ….

  10. Useful report on the count. Unfortunately, with HB barely a day into his new job, and without waiting to see what he actually does, Jeff, you declare you know the future: “But rather than being an effective pressure Party on two important contemporary issues…”

    If you had watched more than the instant press conference you would have heard him, in others less frenetic, outlining, off the top of his head, broad strategies and detail that the government should be following, for Brexit, and his aim to harness the whole party countrywide to project, his word, Ukip into the national and media consciousness as a force. In fact “being an effective pressure Party” to use your words.

    You then say you feel he is the wrong type of person. But if that is to be used as a criterion, I, and perhaps many others, must be free to say that whilst agreeing wholeheartedly with AMW, her rationale and her aims, and indeed her talks, her on screen persona grates. I watched her on a talk show alongside Douglas Murray. He talked quietly and learnedly using facts and figures to back up his points, holding the audience’s attention, whilst she, making essentially the same points, sounded shrill and whiney. So – unpalatable as it is to say so – she would be too easily smeared and marginalised by the MSM and opponents. She already is, but driving a party like Ukip the floodgates would really open. Unfair, undoubtedly, but that’s the practicality.

  11. The voting process was conducted fairly and honestly.

    It wasn’t fiddled. End of.

    Freddy Vachha
    UKIP Regional Chairman – London

    • …and it must be acknowledged that Freddy bent over backwards several weeks ago to do his bit to make sure that the Party did not shoot itself in the foot by allowing the mischievous moves to throw AM off the ballot paper to succeed.

  12. A lot of you folk are starting to sound like Remoaners, because your selection lost the leadership race. FOR PETE’S SAKE bury it now…you LOST, get over it… if ordinary non-member folk like me discover UKIPDaily online and read it, they aren’t going to consider joining when all they see is members whingeing that AMW lost.
    If people really are that concerned that something went wrong with the ballot, then get it investigated..NOW. If Bolton is a “plant”, you’ll soon know, there are enough discerning people in membership, I’m sure. And if the vote is genuine, then he is the democratic choice of the membership and you’ve got to go with him until (unless) something nasty rears its head. To be honest I’m getting fed up coming here reading about how everyone’s going to resign if AMW doesn’t win/hasn’t won. I’ve got better things to do with my reading-time.

  13. I did not vote for HB. My vote went to DK for what it is now worth. However i do hope that now the dust is settling, all sections of UKIP at least attempt to pull together to progress the two main issues that do in fact unite the Party.
    Brexit and mass immigration, mainly from Muslim areas’ of the world.
    HB seems to have his detractors, and he does come across as an establishment type figure, however i think it is vital that he incorporates the talent available to him within UKIP and that includes his fellow leadership contenders.
    That obviously includes people like DK, & PW. However, i also feel that HB should make every effort to include AMW in his future leadership framework if at all possible.
    I understand that some harsh words and comments were made during the leadership campaign. However it is incumbent on real leaders to show real leadership. AMW represents a deeply held view amongst many UKIP members and supporters, and her drive and commitment should be seen as far too important to lose. UKIP needs people like AMW to keep moving in the right direction. She might not be everyone’s view of a leader of our Party, but surely everyone can recognise her ability to identify key issues UKIP should be pursuing as policy and her drive and determination in pursuing them. Time to put personal matters aside. Leaders of UKIP now MUST pull together as one, to ensure that we deal effectively with the issues that matter to us all.

    • …good points well made John, it will be interesting to see how HB handles AMWs obvious talent and popularity. So far, let me say … I am thoroughly underwhelmed.

    • I will be surprised if AMW and her followers stay in the UKIP now, surely the creation of a separate new party would be the simplest solution?

      • She is due to speak on the Jon Guant show today. The show starts at 4pm and AMW is the special guest due on at 4.30. It’s possible she may give some clues as to her future plans. Check her twitter feed for clarification.

  14. Leaf on the Wind // October 2, 2017 at 9:40 am // Reply

    Following the leader election there was a press conference. The 1st question (asked by Michael Crick) was… Mr Bolton, You have worked for the EU, you have stood as a LibDem. You look like a Tory. Are you not the establishment mole, sent in to tame UKIP?..”

    This was all about the question (Henry’s answer was immaterial). Much like the smear tactic’s Henry used to attack AMW during the campaign, mud does unfortunately stick. Crick scored a bulls-eye and Henry will now have great difficulty expelling this image. Especially if he is perceived to be unclear, or back-pedaling over hitherto important policies.

    • I beg to differ. I was at that press conference, in the room, and HB’s answer was not ‘immaterial’. HB burst out laughing (watch the video) and that, IMHO, set the tone: showing Crick and the rest that he’s not going to be flustered by ‘gotcha’ questions. That was a marker put down by HB.
      We’ll see how he goes on in future.

  15. There is talk of missing ballots, derived from 47pc turnout of the membership (15,980) against recorded ballots (12,915).

    This leaves more than 3,000 ballots unaccounted for.
    Are you so sure that there isn’t a problem?

    • …I am 100% sure that every member who’s details were sent by HQ to ERS Ltd to send out a ballot paper were sent a ballot paper and, I am 100% happy that every ballot paper sent back to ERS was counted on Friday.

      As I said in my post, I trust other members verified all was straight and above board with the data sent to ERS.

    • Can you provide a source for this?

      The writer of the above has given a detailed account of the proceedings. I would, in particular, refer you to his penultimate paragraph.

      He also is quite clear that he supported AMW, so I would imagine he’d have been looking out for her interests at the count….that is why he was there!

      I happen to know J Wyatt is very outspoken, sometimes too much so. Be assured that had he suspected anything amiss he would have said so at the time, no doubt LOUDLY.

      Therefore his report can be taken as accurate.

    • Quite sure. You are quoting from a fake news tweet.

    • Martin has a genuine concern and it is quite correct for him to share it. But, as the returning officer, I can assure him that the missing ballots point is both unfair and untrue, and based on false figures. As I have set out elsewhere, all those members entitled to vote on 23rd June were sent a ballot by ERS. The eligible membership on 23rd June was 27,666, and that is the number of ballots sent out by ERS. ERS recived back 12,970 ballots, which is 46.9% of the ballots sent out. If anyone cares to look at my Facebook page “Piers Wauchope; UKIP NEC member” you will see a photograph of the Voting Report from ERS which gives all the relevant figures.

      • Piers – the large number you quoted ends in “666”. Let us set at rest any who feel that Revelation 13:18 has relevance here!

        Various candidates and/or their representatives had discussed these matters with me (temporarily wearing, as I was, the hat of a retired invesitgative auditor) in the weeks prior to the count. They were well appraised of what to look for, and there’d have been hell raised had there been any evidence supporting this.

        The page to which Piers refers is:
        and the implausible photographs at the top are, I confirm, indeed of him, taken before his damascene conversion to the ranks of the hirsute, putting him in peril of arrest for wearing a face covering in a public place…

  16. Good clear account. Thanks for writing it and for it being published.
    I regard the result as a lucky escape, since I don’t see any benefit from a face off with a major religion and suspect that giving that issue priority would make us unelectable. Certainly these results indicate that. AMW would have won a landslide if her views were so popular, this is UKIP and we are all very aware of the threat that fundamental and extreme Islam poses.
    Members who did vote for AMW can perhaps take consolation in that Henry has made it perfectly clear that he too recognises the problem of strong religious and cultural beliefs clashing with the standards of a modern, largly secular western society. There is more than one way to solve a problem.

    • …the poll proves that Henry secured 1,119 more votes than Anne Marie from UKIP voting members’. I believe this small number would have been dwarfed by those people who would have joined the Party if she had become leader.

      • Not realising that I could not vote for her, I was one of those foolish joiners. I likely will not be renewing now.

    • Either somebody faces down that major religion (and it won’t be UKIP now), or its followers will be a majority across western Europe by the middle of this century.

      The average western European woman has 1.4 children; tha average Muslim woman in Europe, 3.5. Assuming a 10% Muslim minority now, that disparity in birth rates means Muslims will be a majority in 60 years even if western Europe stopped all immigration tomorrow, which it won’t.

      What’s the point of worrying about whether we are in or out of the EU when on current policies the European Islamic Union is a demographic certainty by the middle of this century?

    • Let us hope we hear about it soon then.

  17. It is too early to say that Henry will not be ‘radical’.

    However I will say , most reluctantly, that I was disappointed , listening to his interview yesterday with Nigel on LBC ( available on YouTube ) that he was not prepared to put a maximum number on new immigration………..

    That is exactly the same as Tory party policy.
    It is illogical and frankly incoherent ( unless your actual belief is that we need as many as possible newcomers from around the world – as might, for example, have been a reasonable policy for the United States in its push westwards in the C19 – ) to say on the one hand, ‘current numbers are too high’ but then not be prepared to say what your preferred number is .
    For a military man, it comes across as timidity and imprecision ( one expects the opposite ).

    For what it’s worth, my preferred number is ZERO – at least for a five year Moratorium period.
    And yes, of course it is do-able – you just have to want to do it.

    • AMW proposed zero which I also agree with. You say HB came across as a timid on that interview. Well we could argue as many have on this forum that he has form on that front. He challenged AMW’s legitimacy to run as a candidate but when she threatened him with lawyers who specialised in those fields of law he backed down within 24 hours.
      He’s a Nigel puppet who is just willing to take orders from his hero as many have said on social media. It’s his psychological make-up from the little I’ve seen.

    • He said he did not believe in an arbitrary figure as a cap because needs and circumstances would change each year. That is not the same as no cap at all. He did say he wanted to start with zero while we assess the situation. You misrepresent him by omission.

      I too believe immigration is way too high and I hold that belief without having a figure for a cap which you say is “illogical and frankly incoherent”. If I say we should cap immigration at 38652 each and every year – or is he being asked for one particular year only – do I suddenly become logical and coherent? (Question is rhetorical).

      • My point is that having endured ( and ongoing ) the huge numbers of new people coming in over the last 20 years ( I believe Govt. figures, scarcely believable , admit to 6 million ) the only sensible course now, in late 2017, is to advocate a total ( or almost total ) Moratorium for at least five years.

        The figure you postulate in theory ‘38,652’ could indeed be logical and coherent if you could provide specific evidence showing that the country needed that number of ~eg ~ brain surgeons / physics professors / Big Issue sellers ~whatever categorization of professions which you would be arguing the UK’s existing population could not provide.

        Unless one can demonstrate, with persuasive evidence, that a particular number of new persons from abroad is, indeed, needed, then the housing crisis and general overcrowdedness of the country points strongly to the need for ZERO immigration for the foreseeable future.
        It does indeed remain ‘illogical and incoherent’ to state that
        A] current numbers are too great; but
        B] I cannot tell you what my smaller number ought to be.
        That combination, of the statements contained at [A] and [B] leads, for example, to the conclusion that current numbers minus 15 might be the appropriate number.

        • Some of us think that needs should be assessed first before announcing a cap. Nothing illogical about that. We agree the starting point is zero and work up from there as the country’s needs for immigrants, if any, arises.

          We do not agree that one cannot say immigration is too high without also announcing a cap. Bolton said he would start with a ban while needs are assessed and which are likely to vary each year. He would not commit to a figure for a cap at this stage and rightly so.

  18. There was a report that a couple ballot boxes went missing for 2 hours before resurfacing again – do you have any info where that report may have originated?

    • …Rob, its complete rubbish. I assure you all that Adrian at ERS and his team of diligent people wanted to do was get the job done swiftly and properly, and then go home for tea.

    • From the gullible and other sources of fake news

    • Rob, I’m London Chairman.

      I’ll go further – ALL the ballot boxes went missing.

      This is because there were no ballot boxes. It was a postal election.

      If I didn’t realise you were kidding, I’d tell you I’ve a folding bridge to sell. Bargin price, payment in pre-shrunk plastic fivers only.

      • Freddy, ballot boxes, smallot boxes, whatever the things are – I wasn’t kidding, I was relating to you a report I had heard, that’s all.

        I am getting really fed up with the flippancy longstanding UKIP officers treat anyone with a serious question or grievance. I got the same treatment from Crowther the other day when I had a, literally unique, chance to ask him a question, here on UKIPD.

        UKIPD is the ONLY way for us scum at the bottom of UKIP membership to actually have a chance of contacting anyone above branch chairman level, and this is as much a reason for longstanding scum like me leaving, as not getting the leader we wished for in the most contentious election this party has ever had.


  19. Thanks Jeff and completely agree with your reaction. Opportunity lost I fear.

    • I second that. I personally have lost all respect for Nigel Farage. I’m beginning to think when Nigel talks about the ‘establishment’ what he’s really saying is those ‘more establishment than me.’

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.