Latest from UKIP Daily

Result Reflections

The result of the Party Leadership election is clear and decisive. Never in the history of UKIP has a candidate received such a high share of the vote as Paul Nuttall did today. There will be no arguments over the result, no complaints of unfairness, that could possibly be justified or justifiable. We can immediately and swiftly move on to fighting the enemy rather than fighting ourselves. That’s the traditional way of winning battles.

When Paul says ‘unity’, he means exactly that. His appointments today demonstrate his commitment to it. This isn’t the leadership of a man who professes to believe in unity, then considers that unity is about slavish loyalty to himself; far from it. It’s about creating a collegiate team which brings together talent from across the board.

The appointment of Peter Whittle, a staunch ally of Nigel Farage as Deputy Leader, sends out a clear message that Paul will not in any way, shape or form be detracting from the legacy of Nigel Farage. The second-in-command remains as Faragista as ever

The one appointee to a very senior position from the Suzanne Evans wing of the Party will be Patrick O’Flynn MEP, who has often got quite an unfair press within UKIP. He’s got impeccable credentials and a CV which exudes experience. Paul has appointed someone from that wing of the Party as his Chief Political Advisor, but stopped short of giving one of the top roles to Suzanne Evans. Paul has indicated he intends to keep Paul Oakden on as Party Chairman, to provide a little stability at a time when much is changing. That’s vitally important.

It’s a clever, well-thought-out set of appointments from someone who’s clearly got a keen understanding of politics. If anyone just has no interest in Party unity, they’ll find ways to moan and snipe. But if they want to work together, there’s something for everyone in Paul’s top team.

I think we’ll see more of that in the days to come as the announcements are rolled out for other positions. There will be a reshuffle, and one or two surprises as people are placed into the roles appropriate for them. I’ve long said that Paul wouldn’t appoint Suzanne Evans as Deputy Leader; I’ve been proved correct. But there will, I’m sure, be some role for her.

I anticipate that there will be good roles for a number of people with support across the Party. I’ve long been one of Paul’s key allies and top supporters. He’s a close personal friend going back over a decade. So if anyone doubts Paul’s shrewdness and political savvy, just wait till you see what job he’s going to give me!

A ‘jobs for the boys’ leader would offer me a big promotion, rewarding my personal loyalty to him. Paul instinctively understands though that there is zero benefit to Party unity in giving me a good position. What would it do, but shore up support that he already has? Watch what job I actually get, and then if anyone doubts Paul’s ability to be ruthless when it’s called for, let them doubt no longer.

What will a Paul Nuttall leadership mean for the Party? Here are my top ten predictions for Paul’s leadership:

  1. Expect constitutional change, including regional representation on the NEC to happen over the next 6-12 months. We’re in the process of the NEC elections, and much will depend on how the new NEC functions. If it works well, we can afford for the process to take a little longer – and to make sure that we do it right.
  2. Expect Paul to mean what he says about ‘Day Zero’: a tolerant approach to what’s happened in the past, but expect a clampdown on those who continue to breach Party rules under his leadership. He won’t stand for anyone seeking to undermine the Party.
  3. Expect us to expand our focus so that we’re speaking out more on constitutional issues (English Parliament, Direct Democracy, House of Lords reform), on crime (getting tough on the blight on our working-class communities), and on extremism (ie. not opposition to Muslims or Islam, but for a robust response to issues such as forced marriage and FGM).
  4. Expect Paul to reconstitute the Political Committee in some form. I don’t know how obvious this will be to the wider membership, but this will be part of a broader team-based approach making sure that everyone works together.
  5. Expect a ‘reboot’ of the Party so that we’re more elections-focused. Paul is acutely aware that the MEPs are losing our jobs soon, and if we don’t make a significant Westminster breakthrough in 2020 we may never do.
  6. Expect a different leadership style, with media appearances being shared around much more under Paul’s leadership. We have a lot of talent in the Party, and Paul’s not afraid to use it.
  7. Expect a focus on picking up Labour votes. This isn’t about changing UKIP policies; the ones we have are easily marketable. Whereas the Conservative voters were the easiest pickings a few years ago, that’s no longer the case today. We need to ensure though that we stay true to our principles; after all, working-class Labour voters certainly prefer our principles to Corbyn’s!
  8. Expect Paul to spend a lot of time travelling around the country speaking to public meetings and events. He’s got a track record of doing this, having spoken at over 500 events in recent years. That’s his style, and it won’t be changing any time soon.
  9. Expect Paul to lead a cost-cutting drive to ensure that the central Party is on a sound financial footing, with an income that substantially exceeds necessary expenditure. We want the maximum amount of money possible available for campaigning.
  10. Expect, presuming Paul’s allowed to do the job he’s just been elected to do, UKIP to head upwards in the opinion polls!

Paul has the mandate, and he intends to use it. I truly hope that you’ll be on board as we write the next chapter of UKIP’s history. There is one thing that could jeopardise UKIP’s future, and that is if too many people snipe from the sidelines rather than accepting the democratic voice of the membership. We’ve seen the Remoaners jeopardise Britain’s future and place the People’s Brexit in great peril; let’s show that – even on internal matters – we’re better than them. Let’s work together, and let’s show what a united UKIP can do!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Jonathan Arnott MEP
About Jonathan Arnott MEP (28 Articles)
Jonathan is General secretary of UKIP and represents the North East of England as a UKIP MEP

89 Comments on Result Reflections

  1. Jonathan
    Impressed by your engagement with so many on here – everyone except me, or so it seems!
    Perhaps you don’t regard the matter as particularly relevant. I actually think it knocks everything else into almost total insignificance. It’s fundamental and should be shaping our whole policy stance; it will determine our future like nothing else.
    Grateful for response.

  2. My comment is not meant to demean either Paul Nuttall or Jonathan Arnott, both of whom have, in my opinion, done years of good work for UKIP but………there is another way of looking at things as they stand:
    Yes, Paul did get a record share of the vote, but it was from only 30% of the party membership in a disappointingly low voting response.
    And, dare I suggest that, in the same way that UKIP lost votes to the Tories in the 2015 General Election because of fear of a dreaded Labour/SNP coalition, so Paul may have have gained a boost from the reluctant votes from many members absolutey horrified by the thought of a Suzanne Evans leadership.
    Also, when Paul demands ‘unity’, I fear that he fails to recognise that ‘unity’ cannot be commanded. In the same way that respect has to be earned, not ‘insisted upon’, so ‘unity’ only comes from a party structure, organisation and policies that the active, backbone majority of the membership feel both confident in and comfortable to support. It certainly does not come from trying to include everyone, especially dissidents; trying to be everything to everybody; and then trying to paper over the cracks.
    However, we are where we are; and whilst I wish I could share Jonathan’s optimism about ‘the next chapter of UKIP’s history’, I’m afraid I take more the ‘Stout Yoeman’ and ‘Donald Duck’ view that the seriously damaging words, actions and disloyalty by a known group over the last 18 months cannot be just swept under the carpet.
    Time will tell.

  3. Sorry, in my 6th, paragraph should read ‘extent’ not ‘extend’

  4. Jonathon,

    Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply to our questions on this forum, it is a welcome thing that you do and you are the only one to have done it, as far as I know in such a comprehensive manner, so it is much appreciated.

    But it seems to me over all the time I have been paying attention to this site and other national links to newspaper articles with regard to Suzanne Evans, that many members and non-members have genuine problems with her previous words and actions.

    To me it seems this cannot just be glossed over, it is like some sort of weeping sore that will just not go away unless it is dealt with in the public domain. Obviously, you are not privy to everything that is being said and done behind closed doors, but one would hope she has received a stern talking to about her past and expected future behaviour.

    However, it seems to me that some good people have either left the party either voluntarily or have been forced out the party for much less than what this lady has done. Therefore, to heal this sore something needs to be done or some people may suspect she has some sort of hold over the party, and the resentment will continue as you can already detect from the comments being made.

    I think you will find that the comments of anger and resentment are not just on this site, I have heard them expressed outside too if I was her I would not like to be so disliked by members of my own party. It is not just criticism of her but really hard felt injustice and all that is required is a public apology, it could be done on this site if necessary.

    There is nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong and apologizing for all the hurt you may have caused, as you are probably aware contrition is a good virtue, and as long as it is meant likely to be forgiven to the extend that you will be respected for being brave enough to express it.

    I feel she should take this opportunity to finally heal this sore, as only she can do it, but at the end of the day it is up to her. She should just swallow her pride and do it, she has not even got to face the members but put the apology in writing and then hope they will accept it. Obviously, I cannot speak for them but it would suffice for me, because we are all human beings with faults and flaws, being in politics should not turn us all into unfeeling unsympathetic robots.

    Therefore, I hope this plea will not go unheeded for the sake of loyalty and unity and future cohesion of the party, and that we can move forward to vent our energy and wrath at the people out there that truly deserve it!

    • Jonathan,

      You say you are not the person to urge Mrs Evans to apologise but you are far more likely to be listened to than ordinary members (or worse, ordinary members on UKIP Daily). So please consider advising Mrs Evans on the need to acknowledge the problem, apologise, and so lay the groundwork for reconciliation and healing. Continuing to deny the past and the hurt it caused will lead to a festering resentment that could prove very damaging.

      Mrs Duck has written persuasively and I hope you reconsider your position. We are not asking you to publicly agree but to at least pass on the strength of feeling to Paul, with whom you are in touch, and to reflect that acknowledgement rather than denial is the way to go.

      It is not a mere few who feel as I do nor is it just the more tendentious type of member holding a grudge. Please do not make the mistake of dismissing these members as somehow unworthy of having their feelings respected. As I replied to you below, the facts are there. It is real and felt by otherwise quite moderate members of the party.

      This is not something manufactured by die-hard Faragists to be ignored. If you do follow this site then you will know I have written very critically in the past of the ancien regime in its distance and disregard of ordinary members. I just so want the new regime to be different. Failing to see or understand the Mrs Evans problem or to deny it is, as The Who song says, meet the new boss same as the old boss.

      Please urge Paul and Mrs Evans to be different. Think about healing not unity for unity will follow healing naturally.

    • I’m aware that some members have a serious problem with Suzanne Evans, including some who voted for Paul.

      I see other members who think she’s a massive asset to the Party, and not just those who voted for her for Leader.

      The strength of feeling, I can see online regularly. The depth of feeling is harder to judge, particularly as at meetings in my own constituency I’ve seen remarkably little of it, and even where I have seen it, it’s not such a strongly-held view as what I see online.

      Online, this kind of feeling is often amplified (compare the noise on Twitter with the actual election result, for example).

      Personally I’ve always been quite ambivalent about Suzanne: I disagree with some things she’s done, certainly. But I don’t subscribe to the view that she’s a ‘traitor’ either.

      If it were me in Paul’s shoes, would I have made some decisions differently in terms of appointments? Probably, but ultimately Paul has to put together a team that he’s comfortable with – the team has to be people he’s able to manage.

      I’m happy to engage on here, but I also have to choose my words carefully as what I say here is in the public domain. There’s a level of argument I can’t get drawn into.

      If my football team’s manager made selections I disagree with on his first game in charge, it wouldn’t stop me going to the game. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt and let him have the chance to show us what he sees in the personnel he chose…I’m asking members to see Paul’s appointments in that spirit.

      The rumour was that Paul was going to make Suzanne Deputy Leader. He didn’t do that. Yes, she got a position.

      • Good to see you debating with members, Jonathan – we need a bit more of that!
        Re Suzanne – yes, we must move on. Far more pressing is your statement on policy – have you seen my comment from yesterday? If you don’t wish to discuss it in public but are prepared to do so privately – please let me know.

      • Well, Jonathon that will be good enough for me for the moment, let’s wait and see how she performs, she might stun us all and be our star player!

        With the Carswellian’s verses the Faragista’s it is very much Ying and Yang, but they seem to be on friendly terms at the present, we should follow suite.

        Also, Nigel has got his new best friend at the moment: Donald, so presumably he is part of the team, let’s hope they all get along tickety boo!

      • Thank you for all your replies to the comments.

        The people who consider Mrs Evans an asset, or even a massive one as you choose to characterise their view, may also be the people unaware that she joined an anti-UKIP organisation and in defiance of the party leader.

        It is us southerners who noticed the most because we were questioned and challenged about it on the doorstep when campaigning for UKIP. Thus, my views were forged on the streets not on twitter or facebook (which I agree are just echo chambers).

        I have made a simple point about reconciliation, about how that process works. It would seem that some would prefer I had not raised the matter, that the facts behind it should be forgotten, that a group of lowly members (who work hard for the party in good faith) deserve no apology and that the light of Paul Nuttall should shroud Mrs Evans.

        Time will tell which approach works best but history suggests healing begins with acknowledgement.

  5. In case anybody hasn’t seen them, there are some very interesting comments on Suzanne Evans towards the bottom of the page.

    • Yes, I have seen this and Frank Field has been saying this for some time but Labour are not listening or just hoping we will go away, no chance of that! All the more reason to stick while the iron is hot, before they start to get their act together.

      What has happened to Corbyn recently he has been very quiet, is he still in mourning for Castro or has he gone into hibernation? I wonder if he has noticed that we have got a new leader, or thinks that Diane is still in charge.

      • Sorry, having real trouble today must be the cold weather, meant strike not stick. But I would like to take a big stick to Labour, having said that I quite like Frank Field for not giving up on squeezing that fat, greedy, money grabbing Philip Green.

  6. Obviously here I meant ‘hens teeth’, silly mistake but I think you will get the gist of my statement.

  7. Debate and our “factions”.
    It’s good to talk about policy and just now this is the only place we can do it, peer to peer. Do remember though that our enemies read this too and will not hesitate to use anything we say against us. Comments will be taken out of context, twisted and spun to damage us. Those of us who don’t have regular contact with activists from other parties have no idea how deeply they hate us.

    From now on we can’t afford the luxury of factions, we are too small and must appear united or we’re finished. No one will agree with every item of policy the party they support adopts. The trick is to say what you must to any senior member who lends you their ear or to your branch chairman, who should pass it on. In public, as my old mum used to advise, if you can’t say anything nice, then keep quiet. Not perfect I know but from now on winning elections must come first, for that’s the only thing that influences governments.

    If you dislike someone Paul appoints, learn to live with it or look elsewhere. The guy has started very well so give him a chance.

    • “or look elsewhere”? What if I don’t look elsewhere?

      I joined the UK Independence Party, not an English Nationalist party. What if I think it is English Nationalists who should look elsewhere?

      We know how we are hated because many of us were the ground troops in the General Election and the Referendum and battled on regardless unlike some in the hierachy.We even know that Carswell dislikes us calling us `nativists’ and that Evans wants to move the party to the centre (she said so on TV). We are not “nativists”. So we know also about the hate, or disdain at least, from within our own party. We have no right to fight that? We must look elsewhere?

      Yes, it is about winning elections but on what policies? On whatever policy we are told to adopt even though English nationalism is not constitutionally possible? See article 2.3 of the constitution.

      I agree the party will fare best if there is no internal dissent. The way to achieve that is by not putting forward divisive and unconstitutional proposals and then trying to stifle legitimate dissent by threats of go look elsewhere.

      • Stout I agree with everything you have written, and on this absolutely, as I see it, fundamental question of English Nationalism it is imperative that we argue against what I hope, at this stage, is just a policy proposal. It goes against everything that UKIP stands for, surely, even against the party name?
        I understood that UKIP’s aim was to return Sovreignty to the United Kingdom. To return the ability of law-making to our sovreign Parliament. To return the fishing rights to Great Britain from John of Groats to Lands End. Or do we support the Cornish wish for self determination too? it’s not just a slippery slope it is, in my opinion, very dangerous to further weaken the United Kingdom.
        If the new Leader wants this as policy, I hope he ballots members before it is adopted. United we are stronger doesn’t just apply to the ‘unity’ party, I believe it applies to the United Kingdom too.

        • Much depends on who is elected to the NEC next week. All policy changes must go before the NEC with more fundamental ones (such as art 2.3 of the constitution) having to be voted on by the whole membership.

          But Nuttall is unequivocally in favour of an English Parliament with the House of Lords becoming a federal chamber. He should be smart enough to know that his personal views need to be kept private when representing the party but we’ll see.

          If, as he now says, the focus needs to be on winning council elections, and parliamentary by-elections as they come along, then he and the party need to stay away from issues as divisive and explosive as English Nationalism. It is worrying that we are even discussing it with two days of his election albeit via his sidekick.

  8. Well, I`ve just finished reading through all the comments and I still haven`t got an answer to the Question I asked on the Nuttall “breaking news thread”
    “Which Faction won?”
    I divided it into the “Vote LEAVE” and the “Leave.eu” mobs
    I am particularly interested because I think Vote LEAVE are more likely to have the ear of David Davis and his cohorts and they might not be as solid on TOTAL/COMPLETE/HARD Brexit and thus dismissive of real grass roots opinion. i.e. we will end up with a “soft” or No Brexit at all (too difficult old chap and it would have left the dear old EU in a helluva mess anyway).

    I am not in favour of a Federal England set up, I have two daughters 50% Scottish, I have said this before, in fact we all knew Nuttall was on this tack when the old forum was alive.

    ,,,,,,,, and by now you should all know my views on the reset/re-engagement with the COMMONWEALTH, which in my opinion is vital to the nation`s next stage into transmission into becoming once more a global player/force, as we must be if our necessary increase in trade is to come from that quarter
    Didn`t get a mention.
    Sorry, I refuse to shut up on this one!!!!!!!!!!
    Am I undermining unity? or have we quietly, shamefully re-dropped the COMMONWEALTH?

    • Roger, to be honest I don’t think the commonwealth is going to save us as we unceromonially dumped them 40 years ago. All those New Zealanders of British stock, we turned our back on them and put up tariffs. THEY all had no choice but to go global, and now most NZ lamb exports go to the middle east. Us going back to them 40 years later on bended knee is too little, too late, they have all moved on. Sure we can work with them to the best we can, but it isn’t like they are sitting there waiting for us any more.

  9. Jonathan
    “Expect a focus on picking up Labour votes. This isn’t about changing UKIP policies; the ones we have are easily marketable”.
    This is the crux of the moment – and I’m afraid you are seriously mistaken. Of course we have to go after Labour – it’s our ONLY chance. But we must not expect a fairy godmother to just make it all happen on current policies. Whatever else we do, if we want that vote we’ve got to offer ECONOMIC POLICIES friendlier to the working class – radical and imaginative enough to get their attention and then their vote. This is absolutely basic, and the free-market libertarians of all hues in the Party have to see this or there is no future for us.
    This isn’t just good politics – it’s also right that we pursue social and economic justice for the less well-off in our country. The People’s Army should mean just that.
    For the sake of the Party and the Country – WAKE UP AND ACT NOW.

  10. Suzanne Evans has been given a major role in policy making, that’s it for me folks, we won the referendum, but now I see UKIP as becoming no different to the parties already in parliament, I am putting my time and energies back into my business life.

    • Steve,
      OK.
      Hope you still have a business to run if we don’t come out the EU.

    • Means I have to await joining for a bit longer until I see those policies. There are millions of us out there who voted to leave the EU. UKIP needs to attract us to grow; the present level of membership is pathetic for the party that forced the referendum.

    • I can’t stay in the party now either. As a committed member and activist who worked hard, donated as I could. Leafleted, blogged. I feel betrayed.. I have to work for something I can believe in and I can’t believe in plotters..and self centered careerists. UKIP no longer cares about its members as it should IMO.

      • Barbara,

        Although I agree with your sentiments on this and understand how hard we have all worked, it seems to me that once you go up a notch it becomes a more vicious game. Unfortunately, we need the plotters and careerists because that is what we are up against, and more.

        Are you saying that Nigel Farage is not a plotter, careerist or self centered person, because if you are I beg to differ. Don’t expect to be acknowledged too much, for me the reward will be getting UKIP councillors and MP’s into power and that they represent us properly.

        The people I think you talk about never learn due to none self awareness so they keep on the same path, but these days they are in the spotlight more they get caught out, and eventually trip themselves up. We the members to not have to be like them but we do need them because they enjoy the power and the limelight so much, I just don’t want them to keep putting their foot in their mouths like some do.

        I am hoping that if we can attract some more good public speakers to come through the ranks we will be able to replace some of the people you are referring to, but at the moment they are mostly all we have got to work with I am afraid. Please Barbara don’t go yet it is just getting exciting!

  11. Looking thru Nuttall’s selection for 1st team appointments, it’s struck me how – apart from Batten – lacking in real quality players UKIP’s senior echelon is now. A priority of Nuttall’s captaincy must be to bring new serious level national talent through from the lower echelons ASAP.

  12. In his first speech as Leader, Paul spoke of it being his ‘duty’ to contend for the leadership role. This reminded me that he didn’t want to take it on a few months ago, was getting some of his own life back, including studying for higher qualifications, and perhaps relieved that he didn’t need to worry so much about threats to his own security and his family’s.

    But in the end he didn’t want to let the Party, or the UKIP voters and supporters down and saw that he was probably the only one able to take the helm successfully. So he put his personal and family life on hold and took the bull by the horns. I hope he will always be glad he took that decision.

    In return, he asked members to see it as their ‘duty’ to put the past behind us, support him, support unity, and work hard for the voters and supporters of UKIP who had put their trust in us. I don’t think that is too much to ask; it IS our duty to be the political home of the millions who find no representation within the legacy parties.

    Personally, I don’t care who said what about whom anymore. We have a leader who asks us to do our duty and work toward achieving better things, and that is good enough for me.

    Too many political leaders are out for themselves, wanting power, wealth and influence more than they want the good of the country and its people.
    It is reassuring to have a new leader who didn’t leap to grab the role, but took time to consider whether he was the best man for the job.

  13. So ….. English Nationalism and no opposition to Islam? Forced marriage and FGM are, to my way of thinking, a token gesture (uncontroversial because who doesn’t oppose those) – the real and rapidly increasing danger is Sharia Law, which is the foundation stone upon which political Islam is built. Opposing that should be where UKIP starts, and it could be argued that English nationalism in the broadest sense would allow Sharia Law to flourish eventually since it will not be long before parts of England are able to achieve a Muslim majority.
    I also agree with Stout – I wasn’t aware that English Nationalism was something UKIP wished to achieve. In fact, I understood it to be the United Kingdom Independence Party and I very much hope that it stays that way. I would rather have heard of our new Leaders determination to fight for the restoration of the UK’s fishing rights, so shamefully given away by Heath and getting almost no coverage from UKIP since the referendum.
    Everyone here knows that Paul Nuttall is not the leader I wanted – but I too am a democrat and wish the new Leader well. However, that hopefully need not mean that I cannot criticize where I feel it is valid to do so.

    • Dee,

      Paul has spoken out about Sharia law, well he did at the hustings but I agree he does need to keep mentioning it. In fact, like you say it threatens our way of life much more than retaining our ‘Englishness’ against the Scots. It seems to me that the all the Scots get lumped in with the SNP, it is them who are racist against the English but let’s not get like them and become racist against all Scots. There are much more recognizable forces out to destroy all our heritage and culture.

    • English nationalism can only be predicated upon ethnic/cultural Englishness which does not include islamic ideology.
      Some black and asian people can easily be accomodated as when they themselves accept a normative Englishness. Sharia is opposed to ethnic/cultural values distinct from its core message, submission to the will of the Prophet.
      Open door immigration particularly from non European parts of the world is destroying British identity and reducing us to a mere piece of real estate.
      Unless the Scots Welsh and Irish come to a rapprochement with England then UKIP will disappear as the English ressurect their own brand of nationalism.
      This is the future, it cannot now be stopped. Very soon we will see extraordinary events that will give rise to nationalist forces that will brook no challenge.
      The MSM and the political elites are going to reap the bitter harvest they are responsible for.

      • CK I am struggling to understand what you mean.
        When the EDF tried nationalism it didn’t work for various reasons. Britain First is condemned by many, though I think Jayden is very brave to do what she does. Anne-Marie is also looked down on by some even in UKIP, yet they all have tried to stand up for Nationalism in their different ways. As has Tommy. Most have been called extremist, admittedly by the MSM, but they have had little support from,the public, who don’t seem to have the appetite for any form of nationalism. PEGIDA was unsupported here to any extent that would make a difference, so I can’t see how it will happen, especially as the Shires have not yet felt the impact of anything.
        So the danger, as I see it, of an English parliament is that fragmented we have even less chance of standing together against a common enemy, and if you include London in the English bit, the battle there is already lost as far as votes are concerned. Add Luton and other cities in,the North and the electoral battle might be over very quickly?
        So surely UKIP should be saying no to Sharia Law and other alien practices throughout Great Britain, rather than encouraging further fragmentation?

        • Tommy Robinson and Anne-Marie Waters and Jayda Fransen are all heroes who deserve our respect – we do not have to agree with their methodologies nor even their politics. They have stood up to be counted on the fundamental principle of rule solely by English Law and the enforcement of English Law rather than a politically inspired amnesia and blindness regarding certain/many crimes by a significant ethnic minority who think they are untouchable as they will make your life unpleasant if you stand up to them.As a matter of fact I was in Nuneaton last Saturday and I met briefly Jayda for the first time as They had an anti Sharia street demo. She is a striking personality/woman and deserves thanks for the Rotherham demos.I would like to shake Tommy’s hand for his remarkable stand against anti English racism. Eventually our paths will cross.
          My point above is the sad recognition that perhaps we cannot stop the fragmentation of the British.
          This is how the elite deal with us
          1)they ignore you completely 2) If you persist they will ridicule you and organise lies against you. 3) If you persist and gain traction then they will use the law against you and be warned they will single you out to ruin your life. 4) If you make a serious breakthrough and begin to win expect death threats burglaries and financial social pressure along with the bbc running stories about you of hair raising proportions. 5) If you win they will try to buy you off. At the end after various martyrdoms the system is changed. Not for the faint hearted. They tried to kill Tommy Robinson, and I am not mad nor a member of a tinpot group nor mentally ill. This is the awful unpleasant truth.

          • CK, I have read your words and also from Dee with agreement and appreciation of your understanding of what is happenning to the UK. I’ve also put in my own occasional comment over the last few weeks. I hoped that UKIP would look at Trump’s victory and believe that they could forge ahead by telling it like it is.

            Unfortunately with a team that comprises O’Flynn and Evans and with Carswell in the background. I don’t think that will happen but I may be wrong, time will tell.

            Anyway CK and Dee keep up the good fight.

        • Dee,

          I live in London and hate to think that the battle may be lost but alas, I think you may be right. But having said that we all seem to bump along together at the moment, but if you look into the future things may not be so good. Therefore, it would be better for the whole country to stick together and try to unite against anything thrown at us, but it seems to be that indigenous Britons are under threat and becoming an endangered species.

    • Dee,

      I could not agree more. We need to keep the pressure up to save our country from the invader.

    • Paul attacked sharia law by saying that there is no place in 21st century Britain for courts in which a woman’s word is only half the value of a man’s.
      He did not name muslims, but everyone knows who he’s talking about and the muslim councils can’t start making a big fuss without Paul saying ‘If the cap fits, wear it.’ He is the ONLY politician I have heard so far to say this kind of thing upon becoming leader, thereby signalling that he has these abuses in his sights to fight against.

      There is far too much unnecessary sniping on this site; having elected a new leader, the least we can do is give him a chance before laying into him as not having done this, or said that.

      • Here here Panmelia, talk about stabbing the poor man in the back before he has had chance to do anything, and then they complain about all the bitching that goes on. It reminds me of playground antics, no wonder some members get fed up and leave, these moaners make it such hard work and we already have the ‘remoaners’ to cope with.

      • Sorry, Panmelia and DD. I thought the idea here was that someone posted an article on UKIP Daily which was then up for discussion. I have always enjoyed hearing what other people have to say, and it would be boring if we all agreed with everything. Surely we can say what we would like to see happen, or point out where we disagree with the main article, as well as where we agree, depending, without it being called sniping? Or what is the point of a discussion site.
        The more comments numbers I see at the top, the more I look forward to a lively debate and a variety of views.

        • Dee,

          I am not saying we all have to agree, but does it have to be so negative? Paul was only voted in yesterday and seems to be getting a lot of flak already, are the people knocking him saying they could do better. In UKIP at the moment we have to make the best of the talent we have, I don’t think people realize how close to the wire we actually are.

  14. Mr Arnott’s gushing tribute goes too fare in point 9 (in addition to the others mentioned in earlier comments). At the end of 2015 the party had a deficit of over £800K that was turned into a small surplus this year by 1) the party’s biggest loan converted into a donation by a generous patron and b) extensive and ruthless cost cutting wiht some very difficult decisions taken. As a result the party only has Lexdrum House left as an office which is run on a shoestring by a few hard working dedicated staff.

    What cost cutting does Mr Arnott imagine Mr Nuttall going to lead? I can understand Mr Arnott wishing to commend Paul Nuttall to us but don’t do it with fabricated arguments. It is disrespectful of the work done by the treasurer and NEC already and to the staff who were made redundant to save the party. There is not fat to trim left behind by the treasurer and NEC that needs Mr Nuttall to come along because, by implication, they are not good enough to do what Mr Arnott suggests only Nuttall can do. Show some respect Mr Arnott. That there is a party to lead at all is down to the work that has gone before. Don’t turn `day zero’ into `year zero’ and Paul Nuttall into Pol `Pot’ Nuttal.

    • Indeed, the point should be to raise income, not to cut costs as there is almost nothing that can be cut. In this respect, Paul has to stand out as a leader to attract sponsors like Sykes and Banks in the way that Nigel did. Banks is clearly gone (not even able to comment on Paul’s election), but similar donors urgently need to be found, and fund raising taken to a next level. That’s why I am particularly concerned that some branches (which are considered to be unwinnable in 2020) are being told that their funds will be transferred to head office. We didn’t work hard to raise those funds and plan how to spend them for them to be whisked away, and the net result is that the branch is demotivated and many people vow not to raise funds for UKIP again. Where do these ideas come from?

    • In that case, on point 9, I think there are things you’re clearly unaware of. Nothing more I can reasonably say in the public domain.

      • Your point was based on secret information you are unwilling to share? Thanks for the tip.I have the accounts issued at conference in front of me. Certain headings are not itemised so I have to guess. Is it Nigel’s security costs and that fact that he refuses to change to a cheaper company perhaps? Or is it the Chairman’s salary?

  15. I see Mike Hookem has been made the Fisheries spokesperson, is that because he has a brilliant left hook?

  16. SEVEN STEPPING STONES TO FREEDOM
    First came Brexit which surprised and shocked the whole world.
    Then came trump which rocked the world.
    Hold on to your hats because nationalism is a tiger of good hope that is about to be set free…
    Step One Norbert Hofer becomes President of Austria in five days time. Hurrah
    Step Two Matteo Renzi loses the Constitution referendum and resigns. 2017 UKIP ally 5Star (disliked by Mr Arnott) becomes Italy’s largest party.
    Step Three 2017 Geert Wilders becomes prime candidate as Dutch Prime Minister when his party wins the General Election irrespective as to the verdict of the political trial he is facing right now. (On Netherlands TV a Chief of Police on a political discussion programme suggested the murder of Geert Wilders as the best outcome – like Pym Fortuyn 12 years ago – he has not been charged or indeed criticised by the political elite).
    Step Four UKIP ought to pay attention to what is happening in Europe because
    all the Visegrad countries are marching towards ultra nationalism and we are ignoring it and just like 1989 ( when I predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall)this is impacting on Germany where AfD will begin to become a real political power.
    Step Five Summer 2017 Italy goes bankrupt. The €uro goes into freefall.
    Step Six Sweden burns under severe racial and ideological conflict. The message is not lost in one country.
    Step Seven ( I have put money on this happening) LA GLOIRE!!!
    Marine le Pen against all the MSM and the elites storms to victory and declare the EU at an end.
    So can UKIP wise up and start supporting the FN instead of pussyfooting around. UKIP should be in a co-alition of patriotic nationlisms comprising Denmark/Sweden/Italy/France/Poland/Czech Republic/Slovakia/good old Hungary/Poland/Austria.
    Smell the coffee and be prepared to be brave and say no to sharia law NOW.
    No to all migration from the 3rd world NOW. No to Turkey NOW including boycott their manufactured goods and going on holiday there. Turkey is our enemy.

    • CK before you put all your Trump winnings on Le Pen is it worth considering that her opposition is now far more formidable than it was? I still think UKIP should support FN, but I think Marine has a harder task than she had. However, she does have huge support among the French youth, as I understand it.
      I posted my plea for Sharia opposition before your post came up – I hope we aren’t whistling in the wind.

      • I stand by my statement – Marine le Pen is going to lead the FN to victory in France next year. Marine is a modern day Joan of Arc with a remarkable series of talents the least of which are her command of the French language and her fearlessness. Thank God the EU is doomed for all our sakes.
        Note to those who did little or nothing on 23rd June – you have 9/10 months in which to be part of the greatest crusade in European history since the Gates of Vienna 1683. Do not be a spectator idly watching your tv. Make sure UKIP or similar is battle worthy and make sure that support for the FN is vital if we are to destroy the EU – and for that matter the stinking rotten filthy dung smelling labour party.

    • The destruction of the EU should indeed be a prime objective of UKIP; only that will ensure that some corrupt future government can not take us back in.

    • You say that I ‘dislike’ the 5 Star Movement. I get on very well with our 5 Star Movement colleagues in the European Parliament, and work with them on committees to raise EU waste etc.

      But their philosophy is different to ours, and very different indeed to yours.

      Their success is based upon a social-democrat, progressive, centre-left brand of euroscepticism. I’ve always said that UKIP shouldn’t seek to emulate that, and I stand by it.

      • WEDNESDAY 10TH AUGUST 2016 WAKEFIELD HUSTINGS
        I was there and in response to a written question from the audience you along with most of the panel and the Chairman of the meeting spoke deprecatingly of 5Star and in particular their policies. You were also a bit iffy about their direct democracy politics. Please don’t bombast me about the difference between my ideology and theirs, I am fully aware as an Italian speaker of their programme, that is not the point, The point is that it will be Beppo Grillo who will bring down Renzi’s proEU government.
        You were wrong about Trump and you are wrong about Marine le Pen.

        • I responded to a question which asked about whether UKIP should become more like the 5 Star Movement.

          The answer to that was a resounding NO, for policy reasons.

          Please don’t twist that into suggesting I hate them, or the positives they’ve achieved. I just don’t want UKIP to become them.

          I don’t recall saying anything in public about my opinions of Marine Le Pen’s chance of winning the Presidency so I’m not sure how I can already be wrong about that…

  17. I would like to see the deselection of Carswell and the sacking of Hamilton neither of them are UKIP they are just professional politicians. Evans can also be given an ultimatum, toe the party line or ship out

    • Dear Ken (Ogilvie),

      I would like to put an alternative point of view.

      I campaigned 8 days in Clacton, in the by-election, and I found that Carswell was much liked and respected on the doorsteps. He and his staff have a system for handling complaints which ensures that there is (in all cases) a resolution … seen as satisfactory by the complainant. Very few MPs achieve that.

      Carswell, Reckless, and Suzanne defected to UKIP, thus putting their political careers seriously at risk. Both Mark and Suzanne found themselves unelected as a result. All deserve enormous respect.

      How you can say that Carswell is “not UKIP” is a mystery. Carswell is a professional politician. “Professional” refers to someone who professes to be good at it. He is good at it.

      Hamilton is a dedicated UKIP man. He joined around 2003. He is an entertaining speaker. How you can accuse him of being “not UKIP” is a mystery.

      Suzanne Evans is a great asset in the party, very good on policy. She wrote the best manifesto we ever had. She also wrote the book “Why vote UKIP?”. When you imply that she has NOT toed the party line, I wonder what you are referring to.

      Regards, Toby, 01932-873557

      • Without coming to any verdict about Carswell, your point about being good with constituent complaints is irrelevant. MPs of all views can be good at that! It keeps them in office and does not go to what they stand for nationally. You can be ‘good at politics’ as anything from communist internationalist to ultra nationalist.

        • Mike,

          I have an idea why don’t we just cut off our only lifeboat to Westminster and deselect Carswell, that’s going to help solve all our problems, whilst we are at it we can ask all our MEP’s to resign from the EU because we don’t like that either. I don’t know why no one else has thought of that, we would be onto a winner!

          • I did not suggest any of that! Only that working for constituents does not tell you what people stand for politically and whether it’s any help. That is a different judgement.

        • Mike,

          Sorry, got you mixed up with Ken above who wants to deselect Carswell and sack Hamilton because they are professional politicians? Do you understand that because I don’t, surely some constituents should have some understanding of where their MP’s are coming from politically? In Carswell’s case they must know he defected to UKIP and have some inkling why he decided to do it or what UKIP stands for.

      • Toby,

        I think these people say these things about these ex-Tories because Nigel fell out with them for what some may see as valid reasons, but was’nt Nigel an ex-Tory ppc at one point? So it all seems very petty and silly as you say. It is also very vindictive and about time we got over all this, I will admit to having my gripes with Carswell in the past, but he has been very good just lately and actually come much more on board. If we keep falling out with our own people we will have no one left to fall out with!

      • Suzanne Evans did not write the manifesto. It was written by Mark Quinlan with sections by MEPs. Evans acted as compositor.

    • Ken,

      Sorry to get ‘nit picking’ but don’t we need professional politicians, would you rather we had unprofessional politicians like the other parties?

  18. Dear Jonathan,

    You did a great job as General Secretary.

    The tenor of your article is that those on high ought to give the members a good spanking, but that they will “take a tolerant approach”. I see things differently.

    You say “more election focussed”. The branches (35,000 members) have always been “election focussed”. And we have just missed the whole autumn 2016 campaign because of chaos at the top.

    It is amongst the professionals (about 100 people) that there has been breaking of rules and bringing the party into disrepute (e.g. by publicly criticising the NEC and each other, resigning, fighting, etc).

    The professionals, as a group, should apologise to the members.

    We welcome Paul Nuttall as leader. We in Surrey are now looking forward to a good spring 2017 campaign.

    Regards, Toby, 01932-873557

    • Glad to hear you welcome Paul’s leadership, Toby!

      But I suspect we’re actually in agreement, though you seem to have a different perception of my tone than I do. When I say we must be more ‘election focussed’ actually I’m referring to the central, professional Party. It’s been so focused on fighting each other instead of fighting our enemies – there should be more support provided to the branches on the ground.

  19. Islam:

    I do hope that the opposition to Islam covers more than FGM and forced marriage.

    After spending the last month in the UK I am appalled at the degree of their taking over of our northern towns. It has already been allowed to go much too far and needs not only to be stopped but to be reversed.

    Of course it will lose UKIP the Islamic vote (if there were one to be had, which is doubtful) but will surely attract many more of the real native Brits, especially in the North, who voted out in the referendum.

    Islam and its practitioners should have no place in our society.

  20. It is good that we have a new leader who is unlikely to buckle under pressure and resign and who was elected by a clear, indisputable majority (of the reduced number of members who voted).

    At the Bournemouth conference a motion to regionalise the NEC was defeated. Conference motions are not binding but are the membership sending the leadership a signal. Interesting that Mr Arnott makes no mention of this when telling us to expect regionalisation of the NEC and in paragraph that includes reference to “direct democracy”! Is this, or will it be, like the EU and the referendum – party democracy is OK provided we vote `the right way’? It is not the leader’s decision as to whether the NEC is regionalised (whatever that means given the uneven membership distribution across the UK).

    I cannot find in the party’s manifesto any mention of English nationalism. When did party policy on this change?

    We all want party unity but `unity’ is not defined. Does it mean the leadership uniting with the membership when that membership does not want regionalisation beyond the already regional chairmen? Or the members forgoing their democratic preferences in favour of leadership fiat?

    Direct democracy is part of the problem in the Labour party and its opposite, the cult of the leader we are saying good bye to, was part of the problem in UKIP that led to so much in-fighting. Mr Arnott and Mr Nuttall might be advised to exercise caution before getting carried away with constitutional change.

    • Stuart, have no fear! Any proposal for NEC reform requires constitutional change, and that requires a two-thirds majority of Party members to vote for it.

      If it doesn’t get over 66% in a postal ballot of members, it doesn’t happen.

      The Constitution needs a general update anyway (the subject of a much longer piece which I may write another time) and I would suggest that regional representation should be put as a separate question on the same ballot. That way, there’d be a very clear decision of the members on regional representation and the issue can be put to bed.

      I note, though, that Paul has advocated regional representation for many years. I may be wrong. He may drop it. But more likely than not, I’d predict that he’ll want to hold such a ballot.

      • Mr Arnott,

        Regionalisation of the NEC was debated at the Bournemouth Conference and the motion for it defeated. So, like the EU, we must vote again until we get the right answer? That’s the kind of leader we have just elected? And you want it voted on again as well? Well, well. You’ve clearly spent too much time in Brussels. If the conference is just an irrelevant sideshow may I please have my money back as this was not explained on the invitation to attend.

        UKIP is already regionalised with Regional Chairman. How’s that working?

        Membership is not evenly distributed across regions. How would you deal with what are probably large imbalances?

        Consider two branches either side of a regional boundary. Let’s say I know an NEC candidate, whom I believe to be excellent say, who happens to be from the neighbouring branch in the other region, but I do not know the candidate on the other side of the potentially large region my branch is in. I could not vote for an NEC candidate in another region? I’d be stuck with the plonker standing for my region?

        To remind you Mr Arnott, the issue of regionalisation was debated at conference. You were not there to either witness it or contribute but that is your failing.

        I will be implacably opposed to your EU style of disregarding the demos. I joined the UK Independence Party and I am not an English Nationalist. I note that none of this came up in the hustings when Nuttall sought our votes.

        • Much to be said on both sides of this and I don’t want to spend all day arguing backwards and forwards on it. Paul may not even propose it. I was at Bournemouth, but unfortunately had to leave before the motions.

          The one point I would make is that ‘regional’ doesn’t necessarily mean we have to stick to the EU’s regional boundaries…and that might help answer the question about different region sizes.

          • Much was said at the conference debate including discussion of what is a region. There was a clear majority against regionalising the NEC.

            If regions are to reflect population density, which I take to be an implication of your point about region sizes, then population densities change, and quite rapidly with the current and continuing immigration levels, and rebalancing the economy to outside London as may yet happen, will be a further driver of change. The regioanlisers will be forever implementing boundary changes.

            Wise up. Regionalising the NEC is a distraction, would consume resources,a and solve nothing.

            Some of us took the trouble to a) attend conference and b) participate. As I say, I want my money back as I appeared to have wasted my time.

  21. I think Jonathan is right about a couple of things, that it is having MEPs and the funds that go with them that currently allows UKIP to punch above its weight (although the first-past-the-post offsets this by denying us Westminster seats). The financial situation is already precarious and losing those incomes and the platform given means that winning seats in 2020 is an existential must. Hence need to target lowest hanging fruit and that means labour voters in north, which means taking UKIP in a patriotic left direction. But we should also learn lessons from Trump, and saying “not opposition to muslims or islam” is absolutely not the way to go about this, it is mealy-mouthed appeasement of the type that voters are sick of hearing all main parties repeat. Indeed, these words could come out of Corbyn or May’s mouths. What voters in the north in particular care about is change in their communities, and we have to be the party that confronts this head-on. This is the lesson of Trump. He didn’t win by being mealy-mouthed.

  22. Jonathon, thank you for the insight. I certainly wish Paul and the Party well even though I didn’t vote for him. But I am a democrat so no issue there. I have a question though.

    Your point 4 above mentioned the possibility of reconstituting a political committee which ‘may not be obvious to the wider membership’. If so I suggest that would be a great pity because there is much wisdom expressed here and I for one would be more impressed, knowing that it was being heard by the leadership group.

    Will you encourage Paul to follow this site?

    • I follow this site, and I act as a go-between between Paul and the editors. You can be sure that I keep him informed about what’s going on here.

      The ‘Political Committee’ was previously a group which was there to ensure we were responding to current events in the right way, and which did some of the confidential internal planning that has to be done – plans which must not fall into Labour or Conservative hands! Essentially it was there to advise and counsel the Leader.

      The nature of it was something that wasn’t particularly public-facing.

      Again, it’s just a prediction, but I think it’s something that Paul will want to reintroduce. He hasn’t explicitly said to me that he’s going to do it, but I know it’s been under active consideration.

  23. I fully agree with this, at last we have the new leader most of us wanted from the day Nigel resigned.
    I hope we all climb back on board and get on with winning now, especially those who voted for other candidates.
    Congratulations Paul and thank you.

    • icini

      I second everything you have said, and it is such a relief that we now have Paul in the post he should have been in from the beginning, phew! we got there in the end.

      But Jonathon I am curious as to what role you will be playing in Paul’s new team,are you going to be appointed our shadow Ambassador to the USA by any chance or possibly Cuba? Only joking obviously.

    • I share in everyone’s delight at Paul Nuttall’s election. However, we cannot know if he is the new leader `most of us wanted’. To know that we would have needed an election first time round with Steve Woolfe v Paul Nuttall. Paul Nuttall was elected by 29.37% of the total ballot papers issued.

      I would have liked to have seen John Rees-Evans get 20.1% of the vote thereby leaving Suzanne Evans last and the only candidate to lose her deposit. Nearly three thousand members voted for her, someone who joined a referendum campaign that was openly hostile to UKIP. Looking forward to the new rule Jonathan mentions about the party not standing for members who undermine it. It’s the rule Nigel wanted. Actually, he thought that rule already existed, a rule that didn’t stop Mrs Evans shafting UKIP. Why will the `new’ rule work better than the old one?

      • Stout,

        What is the point in keeping on looking back at what might have been? It’s over now and Suzanne Evans has not been given a major part in Paul’s new team. Should she decide to be disloyal like she was before, then she is out it is as simple as that, I do feel she should be given another chance.

        I have heard that Farage and Nuttall did not always see eye-to-eye on everything, Farage’s support for Donald Trump being one of them. The party has been through a very hard time, but now we need to show some forgiveness, unite and move on. Surely, you can see the sense in this otherwise we are back to factions fighting each other again.

        • Dear Mr Duck,

          I do see the sense of this. If Suzanne Evans made a simple apology, just saying she made a mistake that she now regrets, then we could indeed move on.

          Out `as simple as that’? Even the charismatic Nigel could not get her out. I shall swallow hard (i.e. stay in the party) if she gets a position in Nuttall’s `cabinet’ but unless and until she apologises I shall continue to remind members of what she did and for which she sees no need to apologise. It is one thing to leave the party (in effect) and rejoin but quite another to campaign against it and undermine ordinary kippers working hard for the referendum vote. So, forgive anyone who treated us with contempt and suspend even the courtesy of an apology is the message? We are supposed to set aside our feelings but she is not required to set aside her vanity or her pride? The UKIP class system at work. That’s not unity.

          • Stout,

            Just for your interest I am a Mrs. Duck, (but you were not to know this)

            I do understand where you are coming from re Suzanne Evans past behaviour, she has a habit of not always engaging her brain before she speaks. Funny enough I do not think it is intentionally malicious though, if it makes you feel better why don’t you ask her personally for an apology.

            My own view is she has ‘shot her bolt’ and will probably never be put in a very senior position again until she proves she can be trusted, which may be never. But she is keen and we can use her, plus she is very friendly with both Patrick O’Flynn and Carswell, both also very useful to our party.

            Politics is a nasty business and we will have to work with people we may not like or trust one little bit, but that is the way it is if you want to gain power, nobody plays by the rules I think you will find.

          • Dear Mrs Duck,

            True, I was not to know your status but I made an assumption nonetheless for which I apologise.

            I can forgive anyone for utterances not first checked by the brain – for who of us is not guilty of putting our foot in it at some point in life – but that is not the issue with Suzanne.

            She held a fringe event at the Llandudno conference, pursuant to Matthew Elliot’s anti-UKIP agenda, at which she alleged we risked losing the referendum if we mentioned immigration and that even kippers should not mention Nigel as he was “toxic”. She wanted us to join Vote Leave and abandon UKIP. That’s somewhat more than not engaging her brain before she spoke.

            As it happens, I wrote to her (and to Nuttall) suggesting that she make a simple apology. It would suffice to say she regretted campaigning against the party and would not do so again. That would allow some of us to accept her in a senior role. But she has chosen not to do that.

            So, Mrs Evans can not only say what she likes but also do what she likes. Very well, I will unify with her and do and say as I like too.

            Irrespective of all that, not sure and ex-Tory is going to win over traditional Labour voters in the north. They are likely to be repelled by her vanity and evident careerism.

            Forgiveness and reconciliation (South Africa, Northern Ireland) begins with acknowledgement not denial.

          • That’s OK Stout, I now understand why you are angry with her and perhaps you and many others have every reason to be, especially as she has refused to apologize. She should have done that and apologized to Nigel too more so really, but it looks unlikely to happen now. I am not sure what we can say or do about it to be honest, perhaps she is due a mighty fall.

            But a politician who is not vain, careerist and arrogant, are as rare as hens eggs, so we will have to keep her down in the south and train her up in good manners and decency to go anywhere further north than Watford!

            Quack, Quack, Mrs Duck.

      • The question isn’t to do with rules or lack of them, it’s about evidence. Complaints must be backed up with proof.

        (And indeed, wasn’t Suzanne Evans suspended for 6 months due to an earlier incident?)

        I think perhaps there’s work to be done on the procedures, but if you want to change disciplinaries in a fundamental way…well, you need constitutional change (see my comment to another of your posts).

        • I can supply proof of 1) a fringe event at LLandudno at which Evans argued against UKIP 2) that she joined Vote Leave while UKIP joined Leave.eu 3) that Vote Leave saw fighting UKIP as one of its objectives 4) that Evans considers many members are racists (of which she has supplied no proof but made the accusation anyway on national television), and 5) that she wants to move the party to the centre.

          I do understand that you and Paul want unity. I want that too. The unite or look elsewhere threat was noted in Paul’s acceptance speech. The problem is that you cannot eradicate memory. I will accept the choice of Evans and forgive her if she apologies. Reconciliation begins with acknowledgement of the past not denial. If you try and institute a regime of denial then resentment and disappointment will fester. If you truly want unity (rather than a coercively obtained silence) then urge Mrs Evans to say she regrets her mistake. Members are owed that over and above her ego or vanity needs. A little humility by the leadership would encourage the healing needed in the party. Disappointing that you and Paul do not see the need for healing.

          • I was just thinking the same, about the lack of any apology or contrition from Suzanne Evans.

            She didn’t just support Vote Leave, many of us did that in the best interest of Brexit. She was on the Board of Vote Leave as they actively tried their damnedest to sideline UKIP and Farage. They released a policy document calling for an alternative to Article 50 that works for the EU, and for a new EU-UK Treaty.

            In support of all this Evans told journalists at Spring Conference that Farage is less trusted than Tony Blair. And then there’s the small matter of her lawyer, on her instruction, threatening to claim Farage was a wife beater if her suspension case got to court.

            None of that suggests to me a woman with either good judgment or with the best interests of UKIP at heart. That she is now Deputy Chair and in charge of UKIP policy is totally unacceptable. Not only have we had no apology from Suzanne, all we have had is denial of observable facts and weasel words designed to revise recent history.

            Of perhaps more concern is the likely policy direction of UKIP under Evans, O’Flynn and Nuttall. I suspect the UKIP I joined several years ago, the UK’s only low tax, small government party, is a thing of the past. Expect more policies along the lines of the WAG tax. We already dropped the pledge to scrap inheritance tax. Tax & spend UKIP.

            But I guess our only choices are to suck it up or walk away. Some “unity”.

          • 1 – I’ve heard of this (though I was informed that she didn’t argue against UKIP as such) but obviously can’t be acted on now given that she’s been suspended and reinstated since then.

            2 – not disciplinary in nature. Many, many UKIP activists up and down the country worked with Vote Leave in one way or another, and they were – rightly or wrongly – designated as the official Leave campaign. No rule breach there.

            3 – That’s a matter of opinion; remember immediately after the designation UKIP as a party pledged to support Vote Leave though. The relationship between VL and UKIP was tetchy to say the least, but getting involved with VL isn’t disciplinary.

            4 and 5 – I’m not entirely sure that either of these are specific rule breaches. 4 is a matter of opinion, and the Party has disciplinary rules to kick racists out. It’s certainly not something I would have said on TV! Likewise, there’s a lot of policy grounds where I would disagree with her, but having different opinions isn’t grounds for disciplinary.

            I don’t know Suzanne Evans very well, I don’t have her contact details and I doubt I would be the right person to do the urging you recommend.

          • 2) It is disingenuous to equate ordinary members campaigning alongside or with Vote Leave with Mrs Evans joining Vote Leave’s board. They are two quite distinct things and of a different order.

            3) Is NOT a matter of opinion. It is in Vorte Leave’s written records and re-iterated by Matthew Elliot on the Daily Politics (21st July) and referred to again in the book “Brexit Revolt”. While I accept that Mr Arnott is unaware of all this that does not render those in possession of facts as merely expressing opinion.

            4) There is the rule about not bringing the party into disrepute. That calling members racists when on TV does not count as this is duly noted.

            5) Really? You don’t know how to contact her? Try the email address on her website. Better, ask Paul Nuttall – you say you are a go-between for him and UKIP Daily so presumably you know how to contact Paul at least.

            I want to see healing within the party. That way lies true unity. Suppressing the views of ordinary members hurt by Mrs Evans is not unity. She should apologies. If you and Paul really want to see unity then think about healing not bullying.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*