Latest from UKIP Daily

Letters to the Editor – Saturday 13th January 2018

Today’s letters are about Leaders – or rather, the strange ‘affairs’ our current and past Leader have presented us with this week. The first letter is from our correspondent Septimus Octavius, chiming it with the article by Gerard Batten MEP in today’s edition:


Why has Nigel openly countenanced the possibility of a second referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU?

For the first time I find myself profoundly disagreeing with something said by Nigel Farage.

Until now, Nigel has on the whole proved himself to be very sound indeed on all things EU related, so of all people, I thought that he might have read and understood Article 50 – but, on today’s news, it is clear that he has not.

Article 50 has been invoked, which means that on or before 29 March 2019 the UK will be released from the Treaties of the EU; this is what Article 50 dictates, and does so as a matter of EU law – there is nothing the UK or any person or institution within it can now do to stop the operation of Article 50.

Ex-MP, Sir Nick Clegg should have shut up long ago, but who would have thought we would ever see the day when he should praise and heartily agree with Nigel?

Time for Nigel to do the Trappist thing in this regard, methinks.

Respectfully, Septimus Octavius

On that issue – Leave, and another referendum – our correspondent Roger Arthur asks this question:


Remainers often ask for a another vote on our EU membership, after claiming that referendum outcomes are advisory only.

In view of that, perhaps they could explain why they now want a third referendum.

Respectfully, Roger J. Arthur

The next letter reflects the issue surrounding the current Leader, Henry Bolton. It is from our contributor and correspondent Mike Kennedy:


Bolton’s personal behaviour in his private life and the sensationalising by the MSM would count for nothing, and might even add some valuable publicity, if Bolton was doing his job properly.

He has already shown himself to be out of his depth as party leader and that is why he should be replaced. He tells us he has been busy, since elected, sorting out Party finances, improving internal communications and organisation and the website. All laudable, but these are things which he should direct and delegate to others while he gets on with the really important stuff. He has neglected his urgent and most significant role, that of keeping UKIP in the public eye, appearing in the media and vigorously critiquing Theresa May and the Government for their complete mismanagement of the Brexit negotiations and pointing out where the British people are being betrayed.

He has had a completely open goal with plenty to comment on and criticise almost every day throughout the abysmal capitulations, failures and incompetence as May has stumbled through Phase One of the Brexit negotiations. He has not said anything about the appalling outcome of Phase One, for example. This is his most important role, to keep UKIP visible to the voting public because many now think UKIP has either disappeared or given up; whenever UKIP is mentioned in public discussion it is usually to ask where they have gone.

UKIP is expected to be outspoken and controversial yet to talk a lot of common sense. This is what Bolton should be doing every day and marshalling his large cohort of spokespeople to do the same on all the other areas of public concern. He should be stirring things up in the political circles and not allowing the Government to get away with deceiving the public on any important issues.

He says his priority is to reorganise the Party in order to be able to fight forthcoming elections, meanwhile the membership has been shrinking and by the time he has done his reorganisation it will be too late because May will have done her worst virtually without serious criticism. The silence of UKIP and its associated political threat has allowed May to survive and continue her duplicitous capitulation to the EU. It is no good starting to campaign a few weeks before an election. The Party must be in the public eye continuously if it is to have any election success.

It is his incompetence rather than his personal life which shows why Bolton should go. Sadly UKIP again needs a new leader.

Respectfully, Mike Kennedy

Finally, on the question of a new leader, here is a proposal from our reader John W Beney:

A brief but democratic proposal for Daily UKIP readers please.

Following the many letters and emails requiring Henry Bolton to resign or be dismissed as the Leader, hopefully the NEC will call time on Mr Bolton at the NEC meeting on 18 January 2018. [Ed:now officially to take place on Sunday Jan 21st 2018]

There have already been suggestions mooted of who should take over the role of Leader and several names mentioned but the last thing we need at this time is yet another expensive and time consuming Leadership election.

From the result of the last election, the correct appointment should be David Kurten who came third in this election. Anne-Marie who came second has departed to pastures new, so David is the obvious and, I would contend, the democratic choice. This principle being similar to the replacement of an MEP between elections.

Respectfully, John W Beney, UKIP Member from Eastbourne

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Vivian Evans (281 Articles)
Vivian is a UKIP patron, Vice Chair of UKIP Cardiff and Editor in Chief of UKIP Daily

53 Comments on Letters to the Editor – Saturday 13th January 2018

  1. Sir,
    A few minutes ago I listened to the interview of Paul Oakden by Emma Barnett on Radio Five Live (just before 11.00am). Emma is a first rate presenter and interviewer. Paul Oakden’s responses were word perfect. Yet again an entirely competent performance by Paul.
    We are very fortunate to have Paul Oakden as Party Chairman.

  2. Jonathan Oakton Chairman North Herefordshire. // January 15, 2018 at 2:30 am // Reply

    I wonder how many branches we will lose if Bolton isn’t sacked promptly ?
    I really don’t think that UKIP can afford to wait until the NEC meeting on Thursday….It’s not as if we will have lost any policies. He hasn’t made any.

  3. Yet again, faced with scandal and bad publicity surrounding the party following Henry Bolton leaving his wife for UKIP member Jo Marney and then Jo Marney making racist comments on social media, it is Party Chairman Paul Oakden who is charged with “picking up the pieces” and he does so with speed of thought and aplomb. Well done Paul Oakden!

    • ‘Well done Paul Oakden!’

      I am not so sure. The Telegraph reports:
      ‘The leader of Ukip has been told to choose between his job and his new girlfriend after it emerged that she sent graphic messages referencing the sexual abuse of babies in an argument with a friend.’

      But will the leader still have his job in a week’ time, for certain?

      This is the second revelation that has broken today. The first was about the Royal About-To-Be-Weds.

      At least UKIP members have only six days to go of Radio Silence.

      • I am not able to draw a connection between the body of your reply and questioning whether or not Paul Oakden did a good job or not in respect of Jo Marney.

  4. I am, technically, a member of UKIP being still paid up until my membership expires in a few weeks. I am beyond disgusted and made so furious by the myopic desire for respectability that led to the support and election of H Bolton.
    ‘I told you so’ comes nowhere near it.
    Cowardice and heading for the most acceptable face that was thought to look good to the public eye has landed you here and given rise to the letters I have just read.
    And still, some of you you are denying that the runner up would just perhaps have been the preferable choice. All the while the persistence of an inability to judge character runs through this beleaguered party you are destined to fail.

  5. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.
    If it looks like a honey-trap, smells like a honey-trap and behaves like a honey-trap, then … draw your own conclusions.
    We should accept that UKIP is potentially very dangerous – and work quickly to replace HB with an experienced brexiteer who knows what has to be done – then guard him carefully!

  6. It is VERY important for members posting here to take the extra minute or two to email ALL the members of the NEC with their views.
    HB claims that most comments he has received from the Party have been favourable to his remaining .

    The NEC must have evidence ( our emails ) to disabuse him of this fantasy of his.

    PLEASE email them.
    To my pleasant surprise I did receive a polite response from Mr Paul Oakley in which he stated, inter alia

    The thoughts of members are always welcome and we’re here to take them into account.

    So there you have it !
    The email addresses are on P 11 of the December Independence mag..

      • The content of these letters is incorrect. The key question is as follows: Dear NEC member, please tell us which was we intend to vote in the no-confidence motion, thank you

        The point is that they should not hide their intentions. They should be open and transparent so they can then face the consequences.

        • YOU may think the content is incorrect Graham, but these are my take on the situation. The post includes details of how to contact members of the NEC so that Kippers can write their own letters if they prefer.

        • The point of the email is ‘for us to tell them’.

          • No, because they have no reason to listen to you. This is the whole problem with the NEC. They are neither representatives, not delegates. A delegate attends a meeting with a clear instruction from their constituency and does what they say, with no self-choice in the matter. A representative (like an MP, say) takes into account the views of their constituency but makes their own mind up. In the case of the NEC, they are representatives but without a constituency. They don’t feel responsible to any specific group of members, there is nobody who can tell them what to do. Therefore they are less influenced by members than they are by other NEC members and the leader and chairman. Plus you don’t get to see how they vote after the event, although the meeting records (if they are ever published again) do give the voting score, i.e. 15-0. So if you want to get any degree of transparency over the NEC you need to know how they will vote in ADVANCE of a meeting, and then compare that to the actual score post-meeting (if you are lucky enough for it ever to be disclosed). Expressing your feeling to them is great, but history suggests pointless. They need to nail their colours to the mast. As usual, UKIP members are so divided that it is so easy for them to be manipulated like sheep. But keep paying the subscriptions!

      • Debbie,

        I no longer have my Independence magazine so how can I look up the email addresses of all the NEC members to send a copy of one of the above letters?

        • Dear DD – in the intro to these Letter i write that the email address format always is:
          FirstName . LastName @ ukip . org Just omit the spaces in my example, and be aware that Elizabeth Jones = Liz Jones.

  7. All our problems in UKIP emanate from the top.
    Time for Wales to go its own way possibly?

  8. It’s Sunday morning and I get up to news that Henry’s girlfriend has been rightly suspended from UKIP for rascist remarks.
    Sorry Henry, I thought you a good guy who could do the job but in politics even one big mistake can do irreversible damage to politicians and parties. I understand the temptation but you put yourself first big time, it’s no longer possible to trust your judgement. I doubt UKIP can survive another leadership election, it’s become a farce but please resign, go back to the old job and at least give the party the chance to recover.

    • Icini, not everyone was as enthusiastic for him as you were. He rose without trace, which made me suspicious.

      He was lucky to win, because those concerned about Islam (PW, JRE, AMW and DK) did not join forces and so the vote was split. I did email one of these candidate to suggest joining forces with another, however it was not to be. They could have won in my opinion if they had followed my suggestion.

      • Which, in turn, suggests an ego problem?

      • I did support him, mea culpa but I was desparate to get rid of AMW, for stability and a safe pair of hands without bad history whilst we reorganised. ( I did not expect him to rush out and acquire some brand new baggage), he seemed a better bet than anyone else. The sad thing is that whilst we still have good people, I can see no one else fit for the job of leader, not even Nigel now.
        I will soon have no party and must plough my own furrow, not something I expected over the past 5 years of membership.
        I must be honest here, I am deep into local matters, stand no chance of being re-elected as UKIP but could do well as an independent. My district desparatly need some sort of opposition to the vastly overrepresented Tories. It’s the logical conclusion of putting local people before party and I have done my share for UKIP and Brexit.
        I hope very much that UKIP recovers but I just can’t wait for them to do so and won’t be renewing in March. Locally that looks bad for my branch and I’m trying to get someone else to be chairman but I’m afraid that it will fold.

        • Icini, I am curious to know what it is about AMW that you dislike so much?

          Is her speaking style annoying for you?

          Do you dislike what she speaks about?

          Do you distrust that she came from the left wing of politics?

          What is it that annoys you?

      • The line-up for the leadership election was far from inspiring and, like Icini, I supported Henry Bolton’s candidacy. I did so primarily because I believed we needed a leader who would concentrate the party’s effort on holding the Government to account on Brexit rather than have it dissipated on fighting for a change in the electoral system, on attacking/tackling Islam or on anything I saw as longer-term aims.

        Bolton promised also to overhaul the party machinery to make it more effective and responsive to the needs of the party. I assumed that meant holding those whose job it was, to account, and ensuring they did the jobs they were paid to do. However, instead of holding either the party hierarchy or the government to account he has wasted his time moving deckchairs around while the EU has run rings round the government and the party continues to fall apart.

        Bolton’s now compounded his failings by making himself the story rather than Brexit and, belatedly, claims the right to a private life. Maybe he should have thought about that when he was being economical with the truth about the true state of his marriage and before the soap opera his life has turned into was splashed all over social media and the tabloids. He should go, and now!

        • Marie
          At 1.8% in the GE we have ZERO chance of exerting any influence on Brexit. Our weak policies made us irrelevant.

          To get any influence now we have to become an electoral force. That can be done and probably quite quickly, but only if we have bold and attractive policies. Leadership too of course, but policies, policies, policies.

    • There are times in life when ‘moderation’ is not the greatest virtue, Icini, particuarly when it comes with the rather sanctimonious slant you have put on your comments before and after the election.
      I don’t suppose anything of whatever any of us says here has the slightest effect on outcomes, but it’s the pusillanimity and above all the lack of incisive judgement of your camp which has got us into this state.
      You weren’t to know that Henry would be a dud, although the warning bells were ringing for the more perceptive. But members like you were wrong because you’re not prepared to face up to doing what’s necessary to save our country from a future which hardly bears thinking about, and you mis-judge the best chance of going about it.
      You have done neither party nor country any favours.
      Let us only hope some good can yet be retrieved from all this.

      • Very well said.

      • There are times when modertation is good. The referendum was not such a time but for UKIP, now it is.
        The message can still be got over without sounding extreme. How much for example, have we heard in the MSM about AMW recently ? People often vote for us “in spite of” not “because”.
        The party need to appeal to a wide range of the electorate, not just the few who shout loudest.
        You need to remember that the majority of the public have little interest in politics, they manage to vote occationally but that’s it. We nerds spend hours thinking abot policy detail and so on but the electorate work on perceptions, not detail.
        Without power or the threat of winning elections we have little influence. May undestands this perfectly as does Corbyn. That’s why they say one thing loudly whilst doing something quite different quietly. It’s wrong of course but it’s the way it works.
        First get elected.

        • You’re showing some naivete here Icini.
          Of course the MSM try to totally block all of us out. That’s why we have to do a lot more to get noticed, and for the right reasons, which you ‘moderates’ never seem to understand.
          Of course the electorate need to be made to wake up. See above.
          Of course we need power and influence, which is why it really is naive to think just going on about Brexit will get us anywhere – at 1.8% we are irrelevant. To have ANY influence on Brexit we have to go up in the polls, quickly.
          And of course all politicians (except us, apparently) understand the importance of power.
          To stand ANY chance of getting electoral support you’ve got to have attractive, differentiated policies.
          My advice to you is to stick to parish politics. Your prescription has proved totally futile.

  9. The news only gets worse. Bolton, who boasted about thwarting a fascist takeover of Ukip has embedded himself with someone who seems to have the views that seem remarkably nazi. This only brings the party further into disrepute.
    Someone do something! (Pronto!!)

    • I agree. Having seen the news on Sky this morning if Bolton hasn’t resigned by the end of the day I don’t know what will make him.

  10. UKIP needs to say bye bye bolton

  11. Re Mike Kennedy on Bolton, having read the letters earlier today I was walking to the shops when all of a sudden the Bond film, From Russia With Love popped into my mind.

    And this afternoon I find that film is on the telly.

    Funny old World, isn’t it!

  12. The constitution, ratified by the membership, requires a leadership election if Henry goes, unless there us only one candidate.

    • The Libdems are smarter than us. To avoid all the complexities of a leadership election, their candidates agree who should be leader, then one person stands, then done within 3 weeks. In UKIP, 9 wannabees stood, and because they were all small minded we ended up running a race under FPTP that in fact even after 4 months did not produce a leader we could all get behind. Perhaps an alternative this time is for the candidates to have a sensible discussion first, as they should have done last time.

      • Three candidates were sensible and stood aside for Jane Collins! Not that it helped 😢

        • To be fair, Bill Etheridge also stood aside….for JRE…..

        • Surely it is the job of the then-interim leader and chairman to bang heads together and convince the various candidates not to run as not in interest of party. But no, they all wanted their shot, all wanted their 15 minutes, and this is what we end up with, a leader elected on 29.9% of the vote, who had not been vetted properly, and with a hustings process undermined by the number of candidates that meant each spoke for maybe 3 minutes at each meeting and there was no time to grill any of them in detail. The questions were all very benign. The information published in Independence is misleading because there is no independent information provided on candidates, e.g. year they joined, contributions to branch, elections they have run in and results. There should be a basic set of information provided by party central which would immediately have thrown up the question ‘why has this guy not run as a PPC when he had 2 chances to since joining party and he did run for the Libdems’?

      • Perhaps the LibDems are as duplicitious as the Tories; neither believe in democracy so why not anoint their chosen leader by either standing no other candidates (LibDems) or bullying or pressuring the others to stand aside (Tories)?

  13. I agree with Mr.Beney, the NEC must call time on HB.

    However, while I follow his thoughts on the immediate appointment of David Kurten as Leader, I feel Gerard Batten is the more experienced and thus able to appeal to a wider party membership to achieve the reconstruction job that UKIP must undergo and if it becomes necessary to form a new party (as increasingly more suggest),I would also suggest he should be the person (haven`t said MAN) to do the necessary.
    I`ve no objection to DK as his deputy.

  14. Re Septimus Octavius: “there is nothing the UK or any person or institution within it can now do to stop the operation of Article 50”

    That may be what you think, and you might be right, but it is not want a bunch of lawyers said earlier this week. Their “legal opinion” is that Article 50 can be revoked under EU law.

    Of course, there would never be any civil litigation if legal opinion was infallible, but we have recent evidence as to what the highest court in the land thinks of BREXIT related matters.

    • The danger with Article 50 is that if both sides come to an agreement, then any negotiations can extend (indefinitely?) beyond the Article 50 deadline, which is two years from the date of enactment.
      What still bugs me is that Theresa May chose to delay the triggering of the Article 50 clause until ‘the end of March 2017’, apart from that date coinciding with the end of the financial year for many companies.

    • On Friday, 12th January on the BBC ‘Today’ programme, a female QC from Matrix Chambers with 5 other signatories stated that they had sent a letter to the Prime Minister informing her of the following which is correct in law. When the debate and vote on the deal which the UK has arranged with the EU reaches the Commons there are 3 things that can happen: First the deal is accepted and we leave; secondly the deal is not accepted and we leave under WTO rules; thirdly the House can legitimately vote to for the UK to “Remain”. This conversation can be accessed via the BBC website (you have to register so they can track you – but this is quick and requires no payment). Access the Radio 4 TODAY programme section; the discussion takes place at 07.21 hrs. Is the leadership aware of this situation and if so what is being done about it.

      • If that is correct, Roger, then I would have,thought it fairly obvious that the House of Commons will say they would like to remain, and therefore agree to ‘put it to the people’ in a Referendum.
        The vote will then be stitched up in whatever way is appropriate – probably with 16 year-olds getting a vote thanks to the lack of a decent Tory majority. Or double votes for Students as in the last election.
        Still, on the plus side, the future of the EU is looking dodgier by the week – fingers crossed!

        • Thank you Roger Gough for this item. Matrix Chambers confirms what I said in another comment under G Batten’s article.
          To wit:
          There will be 3 options, not two, on the table, and a referendum has to give a choice of two only.
          This will be between
          – “Leaving” on the rotten deal offered by Barnier (“rotten” as he told Farage himself when they met on Monday) – ie we will still be paying them billions, subject to the ECJ, and with our borders wide open; only with no voice in the Council, Parliament or Commission. We will be practically like a colony, governed in effect from Brussels with no say in our own affairs. On top of that Misses May and Rudd want a Security Treaty too which will give Brussels control over the use of armed force and enforcement agencies over us – European Arrest Warrant, Europol, etc. When this is in force we shall be like Catalonia under Spain, subject to Eurogendarmerie brutality if we try to vote for something Brussels doesn’t like, and with our leaders in jail or in exile if they win an election, as at present.


          – Remaining as full members, ie cancelling our article 50 notice.

          This will mean the second referendum will be: Heads they win, Tails we lose.

          Leavers will not want to campaign to support acceptance of Barnier’s rotten package. So Remainers will win this time. And when they do, this will be taken as a complete acceptance by the British people of the entire EU project for a single State, hook, line and sinker. No more opt-outs or rebates. On the contrary we will be punished heavily and hard for having dared to question their supremacy.

          We cannot “prepare” for a referendum like this!

          Why on earth didn’t Nigel think this through properly before making his suicidal statement on Thursday morning???

      • Wasn’t Matrix chambers something to do with the Blairs.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.