Latest from UKIP Daily

Letters to the Editor – 22nd October 2016

Today’s letters adress topics very much in our minds: the state of our Party and how it relates to Brexit, which is being more and more debated to death by Government, Parliament and the MSM. The first letter is by our contributor Antony Nailer:

Sir,

According to Isabel Oakeshott, on 17th October 2016, UKIP was £800,000 in debt and with no Leader. They have now been evicted from their London office, presumably for non payment of rent. There is no money for a leadership campaign and, according to Ms Oakeshott, none of the previous 3 rich donors is willing to continue pumping money into the ‘pressure group’ known as UKIP.

There is to be an election for NEC members, but I haven’t looked at the small print yet and it might be that NEC members are liable for a portion of UKIP debt in the likely event that the company is declared bankrupt!

The party has baggage and any potential leader has more than a mountain to climb. There is quite a good constitution, (I actually read it yesterday). What a pity those at the top do not abide by it! I had suggested that maybe the NEC should hire & fire, and the constitution gives them that power.

Anyone attempting to take over the party from Nigel will always be compared in the MSM to him. No one but an idiot might plough money into a debt ridden foundering ship from which the captain, first officer and most of the lieutenants have already set themselves adrift in the only lifeboat.

The headless chicken comes to mind again – only this time in the form of chicken and egg. Had the leadership stayed in place and launched a campaign for replacement for Nigel the donors might have stayed with it. To get the sponsorship you need to have functioning party.

Alternatively there are donors out there who have supported UKIP in the past and no doubt still wish to use their money to support a good political objective. Maybe now Aaron Banks will walk well away from the hole that UKIP is steadily sliding into and start a new party with new objectives in addition to making the UK (or disunited kingdom) sovereign again.

How about NUKIP. Silly – but I just couldn’t resist it.

Respectfully, Antony Nailer

The following letter looks at the same problem, from the point of view of grassroots and local councillors:

Dear Sir,

There seems to be an idea in parts of UKIP that a change to a “Five Star” type mass movement, using social media, is the way forward and the Italian experience is certainly tempting.

Unfortunately this would immediately exclude older people who do not have internet access or use it for essentials only. It also tends to work from the top down, input from the grassroots not getting adequate attention. We desperately need one united party built on our existing foundations, not a new direction or a split.

We also already have a situation where UKIP is afraid to allow open public comment in case a tiny number of unwanted “supporters”, who of course we can’t control, make inappropriate comments. I would prefer to see the few paid staff we can afford monitoring web comments rather than telling branches how to run elections. We know what’s best in our own constituencies, one size does not fit all and campaigns must be run according to available resources. Better use of the internet is essential but not to the exclusion of member input. For example: at least allow an up and down arrow system for articles written by senior members, who should use UKIP Daily to communicate more often, fly flags to see who salutes and then weigh the responses.

We certainly have to move on from our pre-referendum position, highlighting domestic policies, taking maximum advantage of our councillors to make a positive local impact, reminding the public we have not yet left the EU and warning of the Brexit extra-lite the establishment would dearly like to implement. Above all we have to demonstrate that the only way to achieve permanent change to the rotten political establishment is to continue and increase public support for our party. It’s also a fact that unless we all get behind whoever leads us, we have no future. That’s a big responsibility for both the grassroots and the leadership and will require compromise, common sense and the dumping of over large egos. Let’s show the nation we are up to it.

Respectfully, Cllr. Paul Foyster, Chairman, UKIP South Holland and the Deepings.

The last letter asks the questions our Party representatives ought to ask whenever they appear in the media, and which members should debate at every opportunity. It was submitted by one of our readers:

Sir,

Is article 50 designed to ensnare any country that dares to try to leave the EU? When a member government notifies the EU of its decision to leave there is a maximum of two years to negotiate withdrawal, but this negotiated plan has to be approved by all the remaining member states (which for some will mean a vote in their own parliament).

Why would certain states chose to approve the leaving terms of a major contributor to European funds, unless that country continued to finance the EU system? A unanimous approval of the negotiation terms seems impossible in the case of Great Britain leaving.

So we reach the end of the two year period with no agreement – then what?Here is the trap: the two year period can be extended indefinitely, yes that means forever. Article 50 states that the negotiating period can be extended if the EU council and the leaving state agree.

Do you think that the present (or future) government would want to carry on negotiating? Both negotiating teams would be pleased to keep their jobs. The EU has been negotiating a trade agreement with China for ten years.

Many of our politicians and civil servants would relish the prospect of never ending opportunities to continue talking about a deal.

Article 50, as an exit tool, requires that we trust our politicians to carry out our wishes.

Do you trust them?

Respectfully, Anthony Rayner

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

13 Comments on Letters to the Editor – 22nd October 2016

  1. Dear Anthony Nailer,

    You wrote “According to Isabel Oakeshott, on 17th October 2016, UKIP was £800,000 in debt”. Yes, but John Bickley wrote “Absolutely wrong by a country mile. I’m the treasurer….”.

  2. I tried to get elected onto UKIP NEC from Enfield & Haringey Branch – to highlight considerable anomalies pertaining to compliance and the so-called Constitution itself – but did not get enough votes.
    UKIP’s NEC was designed to take responsibilities if and whenever things go financially etc. wrong – their existence continues to be cosmetic to delude the public and the gullible – it has no management and administrative powers, it does not have a substantive Chairman, and, it cannot hire and fire.
    Farage, Crowther, and, Oakden are good public speakers and simultaneously in-exemplary “managers”! It would help UKIP if all three at step aside as soon as possible – giving appropriate notices.
    We need a lot of changes; and, the challenging management of the changes.

  3. Looks like we are not going to be allowed to see these poor little children coming from Calais this time, why? what’s to hide. I have a better idea why not just bus them straight up to Scotland to ‘little Jimmy Krankie’, she just cannot get enough of them up there supposedly.

  4. Paul complains that UKIP is frightened of open comment. They are dead right! Any party having open comment will be sabotaged by people wishing you no good. No ifs or buts.

    Two sound rules are these for political party comments. Have a separate forum for comments which is not officially party. Everything cannot then be laid at the party’s official door. IT HAS TO BE MODERATED while allowing fairly broad opinion. This site does the job very well.

    • Naturally, a party site would soon be filled by comment from the usual nut cases and if moderated retrospectivly some may attract the attention of the media before they can be deleted or the poster banned. I agree this site is excellent since it pre-moderates posts and manages to cover, in a sensible way, issues that the party seems to find to handle. There is nothing to stop UKIP officials and spokespersons using it however. They are happy enough to talk to national media media when it is convenient and I understand very well that such opportunities often arise without notice. It’s just that policy issues or highly controversial opinions should perhaps be aired here first and of course one senior member should not brief against another and never knock the party in public. We of all parties have to think hard before we open our mouths, if it’s possible to take anything the wrong way , that’s what will happen.

    • I agree, Mike, it does do the job very well – well enough for the higher-ups to take more regular notice of it and contribute to it. You have to be a reasonably committed member of the Party or a strong supporter to read and/or post on this site on a daily or weekly basis, therefore it is a means of checking the pulse of the party membership and gauging reaction to developments. Valuable research I would have thought!

  5. Regarding the Article 50 end stops. Of course May should make it publicly Britain’s policy right now that should the negotiations remain unfinished, deadlocked or rejected by the EU Parliament, when the two year period is up, Britain will not extend and will simply revert to WTO trading rules. Heading into the 2020 GE, which will be looming, having effectively postponed Brexit indefinitely would be electoral suicide. In practice she needs to get us out well before then, so that the full benefits can kick-in and become irrefutable.

  6. Yes, Mr. Rainer, I do think, as I commented yesterday on another site, that May will still be ‘negotiating’ in 2030 – we will still be paying money into their coffers and it is likely that the EU will collapse before we extrracate ourselves. Meantime immigration will continue apace.
    The financial state of UKIP is very worrying. If there was an appeal for funding I would contribute what I could, as I am sure others would, but it is necessary for us to be sure that there is a properly constituted body capable of sorting out the financial mess that, according to Mr. Slivnik, seemed to be impossible for the NEC to get a handle on. (If I read him right – I have no knowledge of these things).
    Incidentally it might be because I am a Welsh member, but I never get and have never had any contact from UKIP England, nothing about an NEC election, can anyone tell me anything about whether I should be included, and if so, what I should do about it? I am the lone bag-carrier for the Brecon & Radnor branch!

    • Dee, I live in England and have had nothing about the NEC election yet. I don’t think any differentiation is made between UKIP in England and UKIP in Wales or elsewhere in terms of communications from HO, sending out of election material and ballot papers etc.

      The financial state of the Party IS very worrying, and no one wants to throw good money after bad. The Party needs a good, strong, convincing leader to haul us out of the doldrums and set a firm course. Only then will it find willing big donors and receive more cash support from the members. We can’t afford much more time of stalling and drifting. Labour stalled for months over their leadership, but they have vast contributions from the unions to cushion them. Unfortunately, UKIP has no such source of reiable steady income.

    • Nominations were invited on ukip.org and MyUKIP. (http://www.myukip.com/national-executive-committee.html)

      Once nominations have closed, a bumf pack will be sent to all members – Welsh ones included, (but not Welsh translations – you’ll need to ask the editor or Neil Hamilton for help with that 😂)

      • Dear Spon,
        Thank you for giving us your response on this forum. (I cannot see any other NEC members on this forum).

        Perhaps (in future) consideration could be given to sending notifications by email to such persons as have given Newton Abbot an up-to-date email address. That would surely cost almost nothing?
        Regards,
        Toby

  7. Two comments, Anthony N:

    1) The Great Smith Street deal was always intended to be a short term rental, and we knew from the outset we wouldn’t be renewing. A new leader provides a chance to think afresh on our office-space strategy.

    2) The Elected NEC members are directors of UKIP Ltd., and can be liable IF THEY GET THINGS WRONG: http://www.begbies-traynorgroup.com/articles/director-advice/understanding-directors-liabilities-towards-company-debts is a good place to start.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*