Latest from UKIP Daily

Letters to the Editor – Friday 13th October 2017

Today’s edition of “Letters” starts with an excellently timed letter from our correspondent and legal eagle Septimus Octavius. It is an Open Letter to David Davis, whose statement on the current Brexit talks is published here on UKIP Daily for all to read. This Open Letter ought to be handed around because the points raised are of hgue important and ought to inform our debates on Brexit:

Good Morning Mr Davis

The government, with one notable exception, has at last realised that the EU is hopelessly intransigent, incapable of rational negotiation, and is so arrogantly pig-headed that it really might cut off its nose to spite its face.

The recent moves seriously to address the distinct possibility of a “no deal” exit are massively to be welcomed, as is the long overdue marginalisation of Mr Hammond.

Let us recall the splendid provisions of Article 50, as activated by the UK. As the clock chimes midnight in Brussels on 28 March 2019, the UK is mercifully released from the Treaties of the European Union without having to pay any extra single cent or penny for it, but only if no agreement has been finalised before that moment.

That is the definitive “no deal” scenario, something which happens automatically. The Labour Party’s threat to “vote against” a no deal exit is utter and complete nonsense.

However, equally nonsensical were the comments of the Prime Minister about continued influence of the ECJ during a transition period. There cannot be any transition period unless provision for it is made in an Agreement! A deal!

Everyone knows that the most sensible solution from all viewpoints is a deal preserving free trade and mutual cooperation, and it is just possible that when we walk away from the talks, the EU might just come to its senses and so agree.  Unfortunately, I do not hold out much hope for such a happy ending.

Conversely, fortunately, no deal would be fairly painless for the UK.  Firstly, no “divorce bill”!  Secondly, because the UK is a massive net importer from the EU, WTO tariffs would be a much bigger problem for the EU than it would be for the UK.

All of a sudden, the world is looking a little brighter.

Regards, Septimus Octavius

Staying with the EU and the Brexit talks, our correspondent Roger Arthur raises another important point in this next letter:


This article suggests that we should stop “monstering” Hammond.

But he can’t seem to see that the EU is not acting in good faith. They are running down the clock, hoping that Corbyn will get into number 10. They will take all of his olive branches and then do what they did to Greece, ie kick him in the teeth.

Extending our subjugation under the  ECJ, will only give the EU comfort and take them nearer to their goal of elevating Corbyn. He should have heeded all of the warning bells, including the recent EU initiative to hold discussions with Corbyn.

There is no case to delay exit and if Mr Hammond can’t grasp that, then he surely must go.

Of course businesses might like to extend wage compression and tax avoidance opportunities, but not at the cost of seeing Corbyn in No 10 and the UK left under ECJ jurisdiction. That is not what the majority voted for.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

Then we have this letter on BBC procedures to screen their audiences – something we all have suspected but now have proof, from the horse’s mouth, as it were:


UKIP Daily readers may do well to keep an eye on the BBC in these turbulent times. This link was just sent to me for a Question Time session in Portsmouth:

It is enlightening to see the questionnaire in the link for choosing/vetting/packing the Question Time audience. There is no attempt here to disguise the level of detail they want about audience applicants, when they could just pick randomly from the group.  Now cross reference this level of detail they ask for against the repeatedly anti-Brexit/British/democratic/centre-right thinking audiences they clearly choose and the scale of their propaganda operation is revealed clearly.  

Add this to the fantastic salaries, spectacular levels of wasting money, sex scandals, the over attendance on favourite minority groups, the censorship of any pro-British matters, the failure to voice the real concerns of the British people, and the deeply poor ‘stale popcorn’ level output of the general programs, and perhaps it is time for licence payer’s revolt to call time on this corrupt “Ministry of Truth”.

Respectfully, Mike from the CSR2020

Finally, a brief note from our correspondent Felicia Catto:


I find it disconcerting, if not astonishing, that so many readers here on UKIP Daily are pouring scorn and criticism over the new leader, Henry Bolton.

Yes, we get it he may not be your cup of tea, yes we get it that not all voted for him, and yes, we get it that it’s fine to criticise. We also get it that he’s not the PM or US President, so cannot expect to get a 100-day-honeymoon period. But Paul Nuttall, faced with the same problems (about which he didn’t do much at all) was not attacked until after the Stoke by-election.

So why are so many unwilling to extend a grace period to Henry Bolton? Are they afraid he might succeed, are they afraid members who hadn’t voted for him might find they agree with him after all?

Or are they hoping he might chuck it all in and go away? Then what? AMW and her new party taking over UKIP, is that the aim?

Whatever happened to fairness? Does that not apply any longer?

Respectfully, Felicia Catto

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Vivian Evans (324 Articles)
Vivian is a UKIP patron, Vice Chair of UKIP Cardiff and Editor in Chief of UKIP Daily

23 Comments on Letters to the Editor – Friday 13th October 2017

  1. Septimus,

    A good and necessary letter but will Davis read it? Even if he does is still able to applu some common sense or has he been “persuaded” to the government view?

    Roger, good letter too.

  2. For better or for worse Henry is leader now and if he fails, the whole party will go down with him. There can be no more leadership elections for a long time. We have looked like idiots for some 18 months and in my opinion lost more members because of that, including officers in my own branch, than those who left because their candidate was not chosen.

    It comes down to support Henry and work hard or give up and leave. We cats will have to be herded somehow and faced with the alternative of the old status quo, I can live with that.

    Yes some remarks were made in the heat of the election, they always are but most of us have heard far worse on doorsteps or the media. Go look at how the Tories and Labour are treating their own colleagues right now. What happened to our thick skins ?

    The insults cut both ways, ignorant, appeasers to Islam, part of the establishment, liberals etc. were terms frequently used by AMW supporters. I do agree that the Nazi word ( which I believe HB did not actually use) was inappropriate but I’m sensitive to inaccurate comments and rubbish in the media caused by angry, shouty people too.

    • Quite so.

    • “Asked whether UKIP had avoided becoming the “UK Nazi Party”, referring to comments he made in the campaign, Mr Bolton told a press conference: “Absolutely, yes.””

    • kenneth james ogilvie // October 14, 2017 at 3:44 am // Reply

      This is like the referendum all over again, 17.4 million voted out, motion carried. More people voted for Bolton than other candidates, motion carried. He isn’t my cup of tea after 14 years in the armed forces I found a lot of officers were a waste of space how ever I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I haven’t read everything he has published but he hasn’t upset the apple cart yet

  3. Oh, yes Rob, I am a member still…….hanging by a thread which has had several strands sliced.

  4. Dear Felicia,
    For me, the answer to your question is because he and Farage took the extraordinary step of smearing A-MW and, by implication, her supporters, AFTER the election as neo Nazis and racists.
    I have been a political activist and polemicist for 42 years, Since I was a founding supporter of The Freedom Association. I am used to being called far right, fascist, Nazi by the ignorant……often Conservative colleagues. It doesn’t bother me, but I never expected it to come from Farage and Bolton. Why did they do it?
    What they have done is:
    1. Signalled to millions who are rightly concerned about Islamisation, that UKIP has joined the other establishment parties to silence critics and not speak honestly about their concerns. Why would they join us?
    And why would people like myself feel happy to stay in a party that has lost its main mojo for insurgency?
    2. And this is far more inexcusable, they have poisoned the well for all others who take up this challenge. I ask again, why would they do this? Especially since it was only a few week’s ago that Farage stood on an AFD platform, a party whose main plank is anti Islamification of Germany.
    Why would those who are smarting as I am NOT criticise Bolton Obe?

  5. Felicia, there is a material difference between a leader who won over 60% of the vote and one who got 30% (rounding up). One has a clear mandate, the other doesn’t. 7 in 10 voters didn’t vote for HB, so he needs to reach out to them and reassure them. I don’t think he has done this yet. I for one feel quite angry that, only 4 months after the general election, he has discarded the integration agenda that we as PPCs had to stand on. Many of us were not comfortable with the integration agenda and our branch chairman even quit as a result. But we stood by it out of loyalty to Paul Nuttall, who went further and talked of internment. As it turned out nobody was that interested in what we had to say anyway, but I did around 6 public hustings where at any moment I could have been asked very uncomfortable questions about the II. Now I hear the policy has been reversed back to the 2015 general election manifesto, and it is said that the integration agenda policy had not been adopted properly as policy by the party before being launched, i.e. Paul Nuttall was ultra vires. Presumably it should have gone to the NEC. And yet now we have Henry reversing that policy decision, presumably also without an NEC vote? This really isn’t the way a political party should develop policy. I am lucky, but those candidates who went on stage to defend the policy of e.g. genital inspections are now left looking pretty stupid. Our governance and policy making process completely failed, Henry should recognise this rather than perpetuate it. If he really does want to change the policy he should lay out his reasons to the membership and have a vote of the NEC before making unilateral decisions which presumably the next leader can also come along and declare ultra vires.

    • As I understand it (I’m sure I will be corrected if not), policy comes entirely from the leader and the handful of people around him. The NEC controls many things within the party but not our proposed policies. Conference can vote on resolutions but its decisions are non-binding. No-one at regional or branch level has any say at all over policy.

      • That isn’t what Henry thinks, as he stated quite clearly on the daily politics shown and also in other places, he doesn’t think the integration agenda was properly adopted as policy, despite it clearly having the backing of then-leader PN, and being devised by deputy leader PW.

        • I seem to recall Saint Terresa was anti Brexit, as were most of her cabinet. Now we are to believe she will, if necessary, push for No deal ? Henry can decide he did not like some of Paul’s ideas, quite understandable in view of what happened to our last leader.
          In politics if a policy looks like losing votes, it’s a good idea to change it.

      • 6.7 The NEC shall establish standing subcommittees for policy…

        6.2 The duties, powers and responsibilities of the NEC shall include (but are not limited to):
        d) approving the Party’s policies and manifestos;

        7.1… The Party Leader shall give political direction to the Party and shall be responsible for the development of the Party’s policies with the agreement of the NEC.

        • Thank you Rob. I have somehow mistakenly got the impression that the party leader and the small group around him make up policy on such things as the burqa and halal slaughter as they go along.

        • What a mess. In that case, neither the integration agenda (which I believe is a separate policy) nor the 2017 GE Manifesto (which was too late to be reviewed) were properly adopted. So either the NEC should adopt them retrospectively, or else they are invalid. But it isn’t up to the leader to say that the previous leader got it wrong, surely the check and balance here is that the NEC should assert its rights, formally refuse adoption, and push back to new leader to put forward a new policy, that then needs NEC approval…. it is very confusing as elsewhere I have seen John Bickley arguing that the policy has not in fact changed and the zero net migration policy still stands, when in fact it seems this was also not adopted properly…… ugh

  6. Thought this site was open to anyone to view and comment, subject to moderation by Viv and the team, has that changed?

    • Sorry should be a reply to Rob

    • Not at all, John – anyone can air their views provided they keep it short in the comments, and provided they don’t use ad hominem attacks nor language more often heard in a pub at closing time.
      Some write comment posts, some write letters, some write articles, that’s all the difference there is.

    • John: it is and I respect that. I was merely reminding Felicia that probably most of the commenters here aren’t ‘Kippers – some people maybe don’t realise or forget that. And I see no obligation on non-‘Kippers to back the leader, so why should she be surprised?

  7. Dear Felicia,

    One might well ask how many of the critics are actually/still UKIP members?

    Rob, a (Henry supporting: Jane lost; I got over it) member

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.