Latest from UKIP Daily

Letters to the Editor – Sunday 14 May 2017

Today we have part 1 of an open letter to our leader, Paul Nuttall, from one of our regular correspondents Dr Tomaz Slivnik

 

Dear Paul,

I’ve known, and liked, you for many years. I had the privilege of working with you on the NEC policy sub-committee when you were the Deputy Leader and its chairman. I enjoyed being a member of this committee. It was the best part of my NEC responsibilities. The committee was well managed, and worked as a team, which was largely down to you and was in sharp contrast to how the NEC itself was chaired.

I was happy when you stood for Leader. You had been a loyal, and universally well-liked member of the party and an excellent Deputy Leader (in my opinion) for many years. Unlike many who have been aspiring for high office recently, you were not a last-minute carpetbagger, demanding the right to go from nowhere straight to the top, never having done anything for the party. Although no one can replace Nigel or come close to his ability as a great orator, confidently and honestly saying it as it is, or matching his ability to think on his feet, I saw you as having strengths important in a Leader in areas in which the party had been lacking, e.g. in picking and managing a good top team. I knew your and my world views were not entirely the same, but I saw you as broadly sharing UKIP’s values, those held by most of our members and codified in our party constitution.

You promised to unite the party. Not that, historically, the party was disunited. Until a few years ago, party conferences felt like family reunions of like-minded people. But things changed over the past few years due to the deliberate and premeditated actions of a few recently joined carpetbaggers, mostly chancers and failed politicians from other parties seening a quick way to a salaried elected office, being otherwise unemployable, but some overtly associated with the Fabian Society whose agenda is not at all aligned with the party or its best interests. Parenthetically, I would – and I know that I am far from alone  really like to know why the leadership of a firmly libertarian party has abdicated its responsibility to uphold our party constitution and has for so long done nothing about such shameless and overt infiltration by our enemies.

In 2016, weeks before the Welsh Assembly elections, we still had not selected our candidates and the organisation of our other elections was similarly shambolic. I asked why we had not selected our candidates years in advance and I was impressed and encouraged when you shared my view and, later on, when considering standing for Leader, you said that one of the first things you would do as Leader would be to ensure exactly this.

In the last Leadership election, party members – most of whom believe in traditional British values, enshrined in our party constitution, including the beliefs in individual initiative, personal liberty and small government – saw you as the defender of the party’s traditional values. They overwhelmingly endorsed you and contemptuously rejected the alternative, Red UKIP, vision of envy, jealousy and negativity, albeit dressed up, as per the usual formula, in the stolen clothes of ‘compassion’.

I was saddened and disappointed, therefore, when instead of being a Leader of unity and clearing out the party’s Augean stables, which your very large mandate gave you every authority and opportunity to do, you promoted to all the key posts people of questionable character and members of the minority Red UKIP clique, sidelining the party’s traditional and honest majority. Even people of no consequence, no following, no ability, no employability, to whom you owe nothing, have been kept in important posts or promoted.

Party spokesmen and the MEPs complain that they cannot get stories into the media because they are blocked by the press office, who in turn tell them that they need approval by secret ‘powers that be’, which powers that be turn out to be one Patrick O’Flynn and one Suzanne Evans.

Party spokesmen and MEPs complain that they are not consulted on what is going into the upcoming manifesto, but are nevertheless (and merely) asked to provide their recent high resolution photographs so that they can be put next to the policy content associated with their portfolios (thus signifying endorsement of the same), while such content is being prepared by Suzanne Evans in secret and will not be made available to them until the manifesto has been finished and it is a fait accompli.

Spokesmen and MEPs are merely being fed ‘lines to take’, which emanate from the same secret unelected cabal. NEC members complain that policy is being announced to the press without the NEC ever having heard of it or having had any involvement in the making of any of such policies.

As a traditional member of UKIP, I feel betrayed. I know many others do too.

Was the leadership election a stitch up, a sham? If it was really a contest between Red UKIP and Red UKIP, between Suzanne Evans and Suzanne Evans, why were we not told? Who voted for Red UKIP to run the show? Why is a dark, secret, unelected cabal of Fabian infiltrators deciding the policy direction of the party, making the most important decisions that need to be made? At the same time as those people who under our party constitution are supposed to be making those decisions (the NEC) and who we members democratically elected, together with the party’s senior spokesmen and MEPs (except those who themselves are members of this cabal) are deliberately bypassed and ignored. Would it be too much to say that an undemocratic coup has been carried out and the party is secretly being run by our enemies who have infiltrated us?

I will not dwell on the Stoke election, as it must have been a painful enough experience for you, other than to say that it was not good and that I do not believe the public will accept that, whether true or not, so many stories were the fault of ignorant researchers. Your initial reluctance, after Ms May called the snap election, to confirm that you would stand tells me your own gut is giving you the right advice.

Of more concern to me is what came next …


[To be continued tomorrow in Part 2]

Print Friendly

59 Comments on Letters to the Editor – Sunday 14 May 2017

  1. I heard Ian Kealy(UKIP North Somerset)strive manfully for our cause in a live Radio 4 debate this morning with Molly Scott-Cato (SW Green MEP)broadcast from Bath University. The usual baying mob of an audience were present but he managed to put his point across with reserve and facts and figures, thereby talking them into silence. Well done Ian. Let’s hope you gain a higher position of responsibility within the Party.

  2. Delphine Palmowski // May 15, 2017 at 8:09 am // Reply

    Unfortunately Paul Nuttell’s credibility is all shot to pieces after his comments about having lost ‘a good friend/relative’ at Hillsborough, and saying he had a degree when he hadn’t. I believe there was a third comment which I can’t remember. People don’t believe in him or trust him. He should have won Stoke on Trent but focused on the NHS there when he should have focused on Brexit. I know, by personal experience, that there are rogues at th top of UKIP. Whilst they are there the Party is doomed.

  3. Dr. Slivnik,

    Thank you for an enlightening article; I am looking forward to more tomorrow. I have long wondered why it is taking Evans so long to come up with a new manifesto which should have been open for discussion at a party conference weeks ago.

    I have no confidence that its content will in any way reflect what is necessary to save our country. We are already effectively at war with an invader invited in and supported by our own government, including police action against any who dare to speak out. A comment from Nuttall published by Anne Marie Waters says it all:

    “He also said that her suggestion that “Islamic culture does not fit with ours” goes “way above and beyond party policy.”

    Either he has his head in the sand or he is another politician taking the side of the enemy. As such he is totally unfit to lead a party which, from what I see, is composed of patriots.

    He has had his chance and been found wanting. I is too late to get rid of him before the election but a way needs to be found afterwards. Maybe that will come from a dramatic loss of voter support for UKIP. I might even join if that were to give me a chance to vote against him.

  4. The Thomaz comments sadly reflect my own observations, feelings and conclusions.

  5. Well at least people somewhere are discussing the issues fearlessly unlike UKIP’s leaders.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/14/prominent-populists-meet-in-milan-to-discuss-future-of-eu-making-europe-great-again/

    • @MN
      This link provides the new word that we have needed for some time: INDIGENOPHOBIC (from ‘indigenous’ = ‘native’)

      Who is indigenophobic? Well, muslims for a start, but also Libtards, Leftards, the government, Whitehall, HoL, PC-ists, police, MSM, BBC, Corbyn, internationalists, the EU …. every individual and organisation that cares more about foreigners, immigrants, muslims than they do about the indigenous British people. The indigenous people of Britain are white, Christian heritage, English, Welsh, N Irish and Scots whose antecedents have lived in, developed and created the history and culture of the British Isles ever since the Ice Age was over and these islands became habitable again.
      This country is our country by birthright and heritage, something that parents should teach our children so they don’t grow up being brainwashed by indigenophobe Leftard teachers into believing it belongs to anyone and everyone who decides to come here.

  6. Apparently Direct Democracy has been launched today for members by JRE. Are members aware? Do you think it will work?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Zk3Z2clWBE&feature=youtu.be

    • Interesting but far too late.

      • It will be used post election when hopefully we sort UKIP out. It has I Think been launched at local level – could be with our only Councillor.

    • Read the comments. I know they may be few, but that is how to inspire people to work for a Party, John has kept plugging away in spite of being sidelined for so long. I know he wouldn’t want me to ask just now pre-election what we are to do about Nuttall, because he is very loyal, but I hope he sees the necessity for change at the top. Without that his efforts will be in vain.

    • Re JRE video:
      WHO IS IT that insists on putting plinky-plonky ‘music’ soundtracks behind videos of people speaking?? I want to hear the voice, not be distracted and irritated by the meaningless, endless muzak of the kind you get in lifts.
      The same happened with Anne Marie’s videos – swelling patriotic tunes that were at odds with her no-nonsense approach to politics and the truth being fearlessly – NOT sentimentally – stated.
      The medium is the message: the human voice speaking with commitment and conviction. Lose the music on these videos, for goodness’ sake!

      • Panmelia,

        I agree wholeheartedly, I stop listening when that monotonous music starts, it reminds of the awful music they used to play in shopping malls.

        • When I was a college lecturer, there was an ‘A’ level Communication Studies course. It was for students who wanted qualifications that would take them into journalism, radio, TV – the media in general. Although I didn’t teach it, I knew the content and one of the basics was ‘barriers to communication’. This covered a range of things including MUSIC being played in conflict with the human voice in narration, dialogue, speeches and interviews, distracting the listener because different parts of the brain are used to register speech and music.
          I believe that very few people who work in the media and programme-making these days are aware of ‘barriers to communication’ because they routinely drive us mad playing music over dialogue in every kind of production from documentary to drama. When it gets too bad, I just switch off and switch over.

  7. patriotic_ally // May 14, 2017 at 7:28 pm // Reply

    In my opinion, the problem with the type of people mentioned by Tomaz is that they’ve essentially swallowed cultural Marxism, particularly in their approach to the family and immigration from Islamic cultures. They’re too PC, socially liberal (note that such liberals aren’t libertarians but impose their new morality) and want the state to intrude into areas where it has no business doing so.

  8. The Conservative Party is not libertarian. There is no such party in the UK since UKIP was taken over by the mindless salary seekers of, what Tomaz calls, Red UKIP.

    We have a huge role to play but the current leadership does not want to play it. They seem to think that attacking Muslim veils and shouting about a few narrow issues will get out the vote: it will not and should not.

    • Everything’s relative, but if the Tories weren’t pursuing libertarian market economics we wouldn’t be having wage stagnation, a growing wealth gap, unaffordable housing, most of our energy providers foreign GOVERNMENTS, the French and Chinese building our power stations. These are the consequences of Thatcherite economics.

  9. Tomaz’ solution is Blue UKIP – libertarian and totally sidelined by the Tories. That way lies oblivion.
    It should be perfectly obvious that there is a gaping void to be filled by any party which combines true patriotism with care for the common people.
    Is this really too much for the posters on here to understand?

    • The party should be promoting and creating conditions in which the common people can have the dignity and self-respect of caring for themselves. The party’s constitution already includes caring for those who genuinely cannot care for themselves. A burgeoning, patronising and intrusive state is ultimately detrimental to `common people’.

      Cameron identified himself as the heir to Blair and May appears set to be even worse. There is neither room nor need for yet another centrist social democratic party.

      It is said 100 or so Labour MPs will form a new party after the election. I suggest you join it and spare us the endlessly repeated conceit that only you understand what policies UKIP should adopt. And take O’Flynn and Evans with you.

      • Sounds like my kind of Party, Stout.

      • No – I am a patriot and Labour are not.
        I might just as well suggest you go and join the Tories, because that’s the home of the failing libertarian economics you clearly espouse.
        And if you think the working people are going to vote for them, you are sorely mistaken.
        Conceit? I am putting a cogent and realistic alternative, against which you seem to have little coherent argument.

        • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 14, 2017 at 11:25 pm // Reply

          Well, Quercus, you still think that the state knows better than the individual and has a right to tell her/him what to do. I call that fascism.

          • Then you are looking at things in a one-dimenional and rather blinkered way, TFT.
            We are in an existential war of economic, environmental, cultural and racial survival, and all you care about is the the mythical individual.
            We’re not troglodytes. We live in a nation, otherwise known as ‘the state’.

        • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 14, 2017 at 11:27 pm // Reply

          Quercus, when did the Conservative party last, if ever, attempt to employ libertarian economics? Do you know what ‘libertarian’ means?

          • Ask some poor soul trying to survive on the gig economy, on slave wages, no security, high rents, no prospects – all the direct consequences of Tory neo-lib market economics.
            Difficult word. See my article ‘On Libertarianism’.

        • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 14, 2017 at 11:55 pm // Reply

          Quercus, you say that thinking that working people are going to vote for a Conservative Party with classic liberal policies means that one is sorely mistaken. Yet how do you account for the fact that Margaret Thatcher won three outstanding elections, with 43.9%, 42.4% and 42.2% of the vote — and would have gone on to win a fourth had she not been stabbed in the back by the pro-EU Howes and Heseltines in her own party — with precisely those policies? The Conservative Party could not have attained victories of those sizes without a very considerable number of working people voting for it. The only prime minister to have secured four terms of office, William Gladstone, pursued exactly those policies. He believed that the role of the (minimal) state is to support the individual in whatever he/she chooses to do and will, in consequence, reap the rewards of individuals freely pursuing their own ends and employing their own talents in their own way. Your “cogent alternative” — giving the state unfettered powers over the lives of individuals, even telling them how to think or not to think (political correctness) — has been tried and failed by the Labour Party every time it has been in office.

          • We’ve moved on since the 1980s, TFT. Of course we’ll get some of that vote – but nowhere near enough to do anything.
            Working people aren’t going to vote for it en masse again. Why should they, when it’s clearly not working?
            We have to think laterally.
            As for Gladstone! Originally a Tory, which speaks volumes.
            And giving a greater role for the state is nothoing to do with political correctness.

      • Stout, surely there is nothing wrong in having differing views on the economy etc. Doesn’t mean the party has to accept Q’s suggestions

        • Quercus dismisses anyone who questions his views or promotes alternatives as “Thatcherite”, his blanket term of dismissal. He believes the Tories are libertarian when they have not been that at all since 2010. Differing views are one thing. Ill informed ones quite another especially when always accompanied buy something self-congratulatory or self-flattering as Quercus’ views usually are.

          • Your epithets could equally speak for yourself.
            ‘Thatcherite’ is certainly a term of convenience – but no less useful and descriptive for that.
            Most thing are relative, and libertarian economics is one of them. Mrs May in her usual way is clearly trying to shift perceptions now, but the gig economy, the failing economy, is indeed the results of the Tories’ relative libertarianism. Did not Cameron accuse Miliband’s proposed energy price cap of ‘Marxist fantasy’?
            The essential point is that our problems are now so severe that only greater use of the state’s power can begin to solve them.
            We are at war, if we did but know it.

      • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 14, 2017 at 11:21 pm // Reply

        Hear! Hear!

  10. After the GE, when we have the task of electing a new leader, we must ensure that it is someone who will make the necessary radical changes in UKIP’s leadership personnel. Why is it necessary? UKIP needs a leadership which does two things; listens to and informs it’s members.

    • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 14, 2017 at 11:56 pm // Reply

      And truly involves its members.

    • William, it is not just the leader, it is the whole dung-heap of carpetbaggers who have now collected at the helm of the party to steer it into a “nice” liberal elite party that the papers won’t savage any more… except they will still savage UKIP now, rightly so, for lack of leadership, incompetence and irrelevance

  11. Thank you Thomas, this so needed saying. You certainly speak for me, although I can truthfully say I urged people on this site not to vote for Mr Nuttall, who, as I saw it, let down the country and Party by resigning the Deputy Leadership of UKIP at far the most crucial time in the history of both, thus squandering, without explaining his reason for doing so, the historic efforts made by UKIP members in achieving our ambitions.
    Had UKIP stayed strong, the country and UKIP might have now been in a very different place.
    To my mind Mr Nuttall was elected on a false prospectus of ‘unity’ when he has done nothing to bring the Party together – in fact I hate to be blunt but it has fallen apart.
    I have no confidence in him – he is destroying UKIP.
    I am completely devastated that any group of people could have so comprehensively destroyed what UKIP stood for and achieved, and done it so quickly, answering to no one.
    Once again, thank you Tomaz. B tw I am still plugging vote for UKIP the Party for all I am worth – May will sell Brexiteers down the river I am almost certain.

    • Many apologies, Dr Tomaz – as you may guess, I was somewhat over wrought when writing this (instead of mowing the lawn) – and my updated (unasked) spellcheck needs checking which I didn’t do.

      • Apropos of nothing, Dee, your ‘over wought’ statement in your post above brought back memories of a fine ‘Yes Minster’ episode back in the mists of time.

        It was the one where Jim Hacker was photographed having fallen into the gutter and was nervously reviewing the newspapers with Sir Humphrey and Bernard the following day…

        Jim: Do any of them say anything other than tired and emotional..?
        Bernard: William Hickey said you were overwrought, Minister.
        Jim: Just overwrought, nothing about being drunk…
        Bernard: Just overwrought.
        Sir Humphrey: Overwrought as a newt actually.

        Not that I am suggesting you were similarly ‘overwought’ for a single moment Dee!

        I hope you didn’t mind my moment of levity; couldn’t resist it…!

  12. Very good letter, Dr Slivnik. I look forward to reading the second part tomorrow.

    I do think, though, it’s a bit rich of spokesmen and MEPs complaining that they are being blocked by the press office. As I understand it, many of these people were the ones who blocked Diane James implementing any of the reforms she wanted to make when she was elected leader (yes, I know members may say she was a complete let-down but I think she was banging her head against a brick wall). They were just being bloody-minded because it wasn’t their buddy, Nuttall, who was the leader even though he didn’t stand in the election.

    Well, now they know what it’s like and their buddy hasn’t turned out to be the inspiring leader they expected (except for the ones he’s favoured who think he’s marvellous or laugh at him behind his back for his weakness).

    But, why, why, why has he made Evans so powerful? It just doesn’t make sense. Unless she knows something about him? It makes you wonder.

    • Thomas, I fear it may simply be that Suzanne is strong and Nuttall is weak, unsure and easily persuaded. Our Chairman has also a great deal to answer for imo.

  13. So far this letter from someone in the know confirms every suspicion I had. What a waste of all the good work done by loyal foot soldiers who love their country. Betrayed seems to be the only appropriate comment

  14. Interesting insight as to what’s going on behind the scenes with the party’s administration, but I’m not sure Suzanne Evans is a Socialist, I have her down as a Bow Conservative.

    Also, UKIP being a ‘Libertarian’ party is tricky, as Libertarianism believes in no government control of foreign immigration, & I’m not sure how that would go down with UKIP’s supporters, be they members or voters.

  15. The Manifesto is already a failure, because 18 working days before the GE it’s nowhere to be seen. I asked back in March why it wasn’t ready and was told ‘we’ll get it sorted if there’s a GE’ – well, that was daft, a GE was expected to be called and it was. But regardless, a party needs clear, stated policies AT ALL TIMES because out here, at grassroots level, where we design newspapers and leaflets and run party websites, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT OUR POLICIES ARE not find out via those who happen to find The Sun at the chippy and ‘hey, look, Patrick O’Flynn telling people what our economic policies are’; how about emailing the members??? That’s what we’ve all been begging for. The last few weeks have been appalling, NOTHING coming out of HQ on policy, no manifesto and it’s 18 days to the GE. My committee have just had to rush through a leaflet, guessing the detail of the integration policy. Now, in fairness, HQ heard my plea for a national newspaper and I was invited to produce one with Redvers Cunningham, the job was done in record time but half of it we had to guess because we have little in the way of policy detail. This must change!!

    • Russell, good points.
      The manifesto really needs to be a living document, with inevitably a hierarchical structure divided according to policy areas.
      This structure however then masks inter-dependencies. Opponents can spot inconsistencies and pick on them. (for example: why are you anti-Sharia but pro-Halal?)

      For it to be a living document, it needs to be accessible publicly, so that members and supporters, and indeed the public can comment on each item. In other words it needs to be a website. At election time, then the printed policy document would simply be collated from the web pages, and suitably formatted. A straightforward clerical task.

      The website could have the same structure as this marvelous one, or maybe in the form of Wikipedia style. If comments are pre-moderated, as they almost certainly need to be to avoid spam, then the editor needs to be truly independent of factions in the party.

      The Green Party website used to have all their policies listed out, with reference numbers. It was a great way to do it. Their website structure has changed and I cannot immediately see this any more. This is telling us that the policy website needs to be a separate one from the main party website, so that all that effort does not just disappear on a whim.

      What do you think?

      • I agree Hugo, exactly what I have said before, a website with up to date information is immediately useable for further output of newspapers, leaflets etc.

  16. Calling Evans and O’Flynn ‘Red’ might appeal to your sense of moral outrage, Tomaz, but it doesn’t hold up. Nothing they have said is out of keeping with standard market economics as defined by the centre-right.
    Of course they don’t go anywhere near enough the sort of eye-catching popular policies we need in my opinion, but we need as broad an alliance of patriots as we can get – and to call them Fabians, who are international socialists and an even worse sort of globalists than you free-marketeers, is a gratuitous insult.
    The irony is that Carswell and Reckless are actually very much your sort on the economy – the neo-lib Tory approach which ends up with our utilities being owned by foreign governments.
    Farage subverted the original UKIP and tried to turn it into a Thatcherite party economics-wise, and it didn’t win us many elections, did it?

    If we want to stop the biggest threat to our country, mass immigration and all that goes with it, we have to stop this obsession with Thatcherite economics and so-called libertarianism. The country has moved on since 1980s Essex man – the working class will simply no longer support gross wealth and privilege.

    And if you voted for Nuttall then your mistake indicates how many of us still don’t get it. J R-E gave us the only chance of doing that, but you ‘sophisticates’ and ‘libertarians’ couldn’t see it.

    • I may have misunderstood but to me RedUKIP means , authoritarian; anti-democratic UKIP run by a closed cabal rather than referring to specific economic policies

      • A misinterpretation, John. The ‘miscreants’ are no more authoritarian or anti-democratic than their detractors. It’s mostly about the economy and the slightest degree of worker-friendly policies, plus, in some cases, weakness on immigration – tho they’re not alone on that.

    • Quercus,
      To be fair, UKIP did win the 2014 Election. You know, the one to the parliament they never wanted to be a member of.

    • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 15, 2017 at 12:10 am // Reply

      Quercus, where is your evidence that the “country” (?) has moved on since “1980s Essex man”? British people — with the possible exception of those such as yourself — are not envious and quite happy to live in the midst of gross wealth and privilege and to emulate it where they can. Freedom to work hard and to keep the outcome of their labours is what they thrive on. Socialism does not permit that.

  17. Tomaz,

    I think you speak for all of us in the frustration you feel at the way things have gone and continue to happen in ‘Red’ Ukip, but what is worse is that no one at the top is listening.

  18. Spot on Tomaz. Why have we been misled in 2 senses? 1. Not being told the truth and 2. Not being led in the right direction in the right way set against the party constitution, the views of the majority of members and the legacy left us by Nigel?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*