We are about to vote in a critically important leadership election. There is a real choice of candidates with very different views on offer. If the right candidate wins, I firmly believe UKIP’s future can again be very bright. If the wrong candidate wins, not only is UKIP finished, so is any possibility that an honest Brexit will happen. So is any chance of any real opposition to the social democratic consensus in the UK, for a very long time. So is any hope for the cause of liberty in the United Kingdom, and, in light of the importance of the UK, so is the cause of liberty across the Western World and indeed the world over.
For years, UKIP was dismissed as a single issue party, although we never were. We were dismissed as racists, fruitcakes and loonies, although we never were. We were always a party of ordinary decent people who merely wanted to free themselves and their fellow men of the oppressive rule by a predatory socialist elite and return to the days of individual liberty, small government, rule of (limited and sensible) law and a world driven by honest dealings and entrepreneurship by private individuals, unhindered by oppressive regulation and taxation. Getting out of the European Union was merely a necessary first step towards achieving this goal; without it, the United Kingdom would forever remain enslaved by the Euro-Soviet.
We believed in the control of the UK’s borders being returned to the UK, and to a level playing field, so that Canadians, Americans, Australians and other nationals of countries with close historical links to the United Kingdom are not discriminated against in favour of citizens of European Union member states, many of which historically were (and in my view, many of which remain) enemies of the United Kingdom. But we never were racists or bigots. If I thought we were, I never would have joined the party.
Just as the public realized the truth and our electoral support peaked at 27%, under the misguided direction of Patrick O’Flynn, Suzanne Evans etc. the party started to change into precisely what we had been accused of being but never were. Our support dropped to 13%. Then, under the catastrophically misguided manifesto of religious bigotry driven by our Deputy Leader Peter Whittle, our support plummeted to below 2%.
The public demand for a sane, libertarian, small government, alternative to the social democratic consensus of LibLabCon (and add to that the Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru and virtually all the other major and minor parties) is at an all time high. Yet, faced with this open goal – all we needed to do was stick to our traditional values – our professional footballers at the time preferred to run with the ball and score an own goal instead.
With turnout in general elections at historical lows, the biggest voting block is still those who do not vote. Those people had given up, came out of their hiding places to vote for us when we offered a libertarian agenda, and went straight back home to not voting when we betrayed them.
If UKIP is to survive, it is essential that the next leader elected is a libertarian and someone who is more interested in doing the right thing than their own vanity.
If UKIP can achieve this, UKIP will thrive.
Now a few words about some of the candidates.
When Anne Marie Waters‘ candidacy was legally challenged, I vocally supported her right to stand – if she meets the criteria for membership of the party (which in my view, she doesn’t, but our wise Party Chairman disagrees), she is entitled to stand. We cannot manipulate our election rules and cheat to ensure the candidate we want to win is elected, or the candidate we don’t want to win is improperly excluded. Nevertheless, it is my firm hope that Anne Marie Waters is defeated by the intellectual arguments of the other, much better, in my opinion, candidates.
Her election would mean the end of the party. Members would leave, donors would leave, elected representatives would leave, our major creditors would pull the plug, our voters would leave. Membership would be replaced by former members of the EDL and the BNP, UKIP would become EDL/BNP in all but name, and our electoral support would never exceed the <2% we achieved when we pursued the integration agenda during the last general election. That is, assuming our major creditors (i.e. our major donors) would not call in their loans on day one and put us in administration – which I believe would be the case.
No self-respecting businessman could remain associated with the party if AMW were to be leader. I know I could not. What I find most striking about AMW is that she has been able to whip some traditionally very sensible members into an anti-Muslim frenzy. Sensible people – who are entirely aware of the danger of jihadi invasion and want to take a tough line against it – are accused of being politically correct, pandering to the left and of being Muslim appeasers. I have personally been accused of all the above. By sane people. Extraordinary.
It is no use explaining that the real cause of the problem is the corruption of the public sector institutions in the United Kingdom by the KGB agents of influence, placed there during the Cold War, to work for a foreign power and destroy the UK from within, who, and whose disciples still remain there and continue to pervert the law and its application with socialism. 1400 rapes in Rotherham would never have happened if the socialist-corrupted police and child protection services had done their jobs and started making some arrests when the first 14 rapes had taken place, instead of covering them up and colluding with the criminals.
This is not the fault of Muslims, it is a home grown problem – it is a problem of socialism, which a socialist candidate like AMW will never solve. Yes, jihadi invaders are a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom, but they wouldn’t be a threat if the public sector was not corrupted; they are merely taking advantage of the opportunity so created. There is no use explaining that the need for a tough response does not justify turning the majority of Muslims who are law-abiding into second class citizens by virtue of their religion. I deal with CEOs of world leading technology companies who are Turkish and private equity investors from the Arab world on a daily basis. They have PhDs and are polite and decent people. To be able to whip up sensible people into such a frenzy, AMW must be a very dangerous and capable demagogue.
If Anne Marie Waters is the Quick Death candidate, Peter Whittle is the Slow Death candidate. While standing on essentially the same platform as AMW, he is perhaps not quite beyond the pale in the same way as far as our donors are concerned, but under his leadership, the Party would continue to linger on <2% where he personally has pushed us to.
In my opinion, he not only should not be standing at all, but should have joined Paul Nuttall and resigned when he was proven to be the architect of the electoral disaster which was our last general election. Whittle is also the only candidate who has promised to keep Paul Oakden on as Party Chairman and with him the rest of the clique, and the influence of Steve Crowther, which the Party most urgently needs ridding of. This alone should be reason enough not to vote for him.
So long as neither of those two candidates is elected, the party will, in my opinion, survive. I will remain a member of the party and support whichever leader is elected, as long as it’s not one of those two. But if we are looking for a leader who has the chance of making the party thrive – which I think we should be – I believe the short list comes down to two candidates.
Those two options in my view are Jane Collins and her UKIP United team and Henry Bolton. Here I will say that I spent much of this leadership campaign (and other campaigns before it) encouraging all the libertarian candidates to join forces, to put forward a single libertarian ticket so that a libertarian candidate can win and UKIP can forge ahead into a bright future. I urged the candidates to set aside their personal vanity and their personal ambitions, to stop thinking only of themselves being leader, and to form a strong team which can win.
Initially, I was persuading Bill Etheridge and David Coburn to so work together, and then also Ben Walker. Bill then withdrew from the race and endorsed John Rees-Evans, which I was surprised and disappointed by because I had hoped for a more comprehensive deal involving all the libertarian candidates. I was hoping Jane’s team and Henry Bolton would also join forces.
It is very important, in my view, that the next Leader is not only a libertarian, but is someone who can put together a team, appoint the team members to the right positions, and successfully manage this team. Nigel – the greatest hero of our movement, a magnificent orator, someone I admire greatly, a person who can carry the public with his honest and decent message, in my opinion had one failing, and it is this failing which in my view stopped the party from continuing to grow when it did. And that failing, in my opinion, was that while he was a great solo performer, he was never strong at building a team around him and then working with that team. All the people who have done the party such harm were initially Nigel’s proteges. If UKIP is to go from strength to strength, we need a leader who has proven to be able to build a team, to manage a team, to listen to his or her team and to be a team player. Also someone who is willing to set personal ambition and vanity aside for the good of the party and our cause.
I know that Jane Collins was prepared, when forming her team, to not be the top of the ticket, as have all the other members of her team who have stood aside for her, despite the fact that I know many of them really wanted to be leader, and many of them had the potential to be leader. This demonstration that Jane and her team are in it for the cause, and not for themselves, and because they seem to have demonstrated a better ability for team play, is what has persuaded me that they are the right team to be given the chance to lead our party.
Although I wish any other leader, if they get elected (other than the two which I have made clear are beyond the pale for me), the best of luck with their job and I will offer them whatever support I can give them, I nevertheless believe that we the libertarians should unite behind one ticket so that that ticket can win and the party can survive and I believe this ticket is Jane which is why I will vote for her and why I am endorsing her and I hope that some of what I have had to say may persuade you to do the same.
Warmest regards, Tomaž