Latest from UKIP Daily

What has Henry Bolton done wrong?

I support most of the policies UKIP stands for and I believe profoundly on the need for Britain to regain its independence.  I joined UKIP about five years ago and started to contribute regularly to UKIP Daily.  I gave up contributing when I realised that nothing I wrote would ever have any influence on policy.  I was increasingly disillusioned with the party during the sequence of failed leaders which followed Nigel’s departure.  And when finally, it looked as if UKIP was going to become an anti-Islam party, I didn’t bother to renew my membership.

Then Henry Bolton was unexpectedly elected and I renewed my membership after all.  He was an unknown quantity, but first impressions were good and, by overcoming the threat of anti-islamism, he had already brought UKIP back from the brink in that respect, anyway. I am an old man, my legs are no longer good and I haven’t been able to play an active part in UKIP, so I could only judge Henry Bolton by what I saw on the internet. He looked to me like a very honest man, not a natural politician but undoubtedly a natural leader. For a man who had had no previous exposure to the media, he seemed to me to handle them brilliantly.  He was quite imperturbable under fire. He looked like a man of great determination and personal courage. And his diagnosis of what was wrong with UKIP looked right to me.  He was not and never would be a Nigel Farage, but he might yet succeed in achieving what Nigel never managed to achieve – to turn UKIP into an effective political party which can survive and develop and prosper even without a charismatic genius at the top.

He has not yet been leader for six months.  Yet already, a very serious situation has arisen.  An EGM has been called for the sole purpose of ejecting him from the leadership. What, then, has he done wrong?  There has been no election, he cannot have failed there.  He has not basked in idleness, enjoying the glory of national attention while doing nothing to justify his position.  On the contrary, he seems to have been quite busy. Did he make unjustified claims on his CV?  Even if he did, we are none of us perfect in that respect, and he is in office now, he must be judged by his present performance, not his past.  He has refuted the allegations in detail on his website, but it never mattered anyway.

Ask the media what he has done.  They will tell you that he has had an affair with a girl who made some rather silly comments some time before they met. Good material for an anti-UKIP smear – we have had plenty of those in the media in the past and we have rallied round and learned to ignore them until they died down naturally.  Surely, an episode in his private life cannot explain the emergency situation which seems to have arisen. Surely, it would have made more sense to have offered him every possible support.  But no, the opportunity offered by the media scandal has been take to mount a campaign to expel him from the leadership.  The situation is so serious, his continued position as leader has become so intolerable that a party with no money which has already gone through what UKIP has gone through since Nigel’s departure must make a desperate and expensive attempt to prevent him from doing any more damage than he has done already.

So what has he done? It must be pretty bad, to justify going through an EGM and another leadership election with no money in the bank, members leaving in droves, everything already going wrong. Mr Bolton has been properly elected, he claims confidently to be able to put things right. Would it not be better to give him a fair chance?  Say six months, maybe even a year?  No, Henry Bolton must go, anything else would be impossible.  But why?  Who will lead for the prosecution at the EGM and what will they say?

I am an outsider.  I don’t see the minutes of the NEC even if such minutes exist. So I have no way to judge what the intolerable offence is that Henry Bolton has committed.  But judging as an outsider, with a combination of experience elsewhere and a bit of guesswork, I suggest that the only explanation which fits this situation is that Mr Bolton has in a very short time accumulated the reputation of a man who has the courage to actually start making the changes which are needed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Mike Munford (58 Articles)
Mike Munford is a member of UKIP, a retired businessman and a lifelong student of English history.

92 Comments on What has Henry Bolton done wrong?

  1. Whilst we are all busy commenting on Henry, in the real world, could someone say what ukip reaction is to the costs order made against ukip by Mr Justice Warnby in the case of Barron v Collins at the High Court today? We are found to be more than a pure funder as someone expressed it, as I would have thought a reading of precedents would predicted. And although we are liable for a short period of costs incurred by Jill Collins and for the costs of the assessment itself, does anyone know how much that is?

  2. (Comment on Mike Mumford’s letter to Daily UKIP 11Feb18. After comment by Keith // February 12, 2018 at 3:56 pm //)
    I agree with Mike Mumford that Henry Bolton should stay and accept his arguments.
    The one area I disagree is the “threat to UKIP of anti-Islamism”. He is too sanguine about the growing influence of Islam. It is true the mainstream media maligns ‘Islamophobia’ and banning the burka brought no votes to UKIP in the volatile June 2017 general election, but there is abundant evidence that, long term, Islam will attempt to replace the Judeo-Christian / Liberal ethos in Britain and Western Europe. The evidence is historical, political, social and demographic. Better than sleepwalking like the majority of voters, who would always rather have re-assurance than calls to action, is at least to have a clear UKIP viewpoint on the ongoing Islamisation. There is penetrating analysis on the social media and in print, like Douglas Murrays’s bestselling ‘The Strange Death of Europe’. All candidates in the UKIP leadership election last September opposed Islamisation except Henry Bolton, one reason I did not vote for him, but now he is here I accept that it could be politically expedient to let it lie – for now.
    Toby Jugg

  3. A man is measured by his actions, he is measured by his personal integrity to his wife and children. In politics there is no easy divide between family and public life, that’s the sacrifice he has to make. He has failed in that task and lost the trust and confidence of all those who voted for him because he is no longer trustworthy, nor credible as a serious leader. His actions have lowered him to the level of petty scandle and intrigue of the ordinary inept man who is ruled by his penis instead of his head!

    • Well said Clive! Finally a voice of sanity.

    • So Clive you profess to know how I will be voting on Saturday. I think not. I would suggest that the state of the party is down to the NEC and the overspend of previous leaders. Henry is trying against all the odds to put the party right. I wish him well

  4. henry bolton should not loose his job, his girl friend is entitled to her opinion,as is anyone else , just left wing people hate it.i will not renew my membership if he is removed from his job,if people are offended go to some nice country where they can feel at home with like minded people.

    • Oh well Stephen, I guess your views are more at home with Anne Marie and ‘For Britain’ than a democratic, libertarian, democratic party who has principles and wants to lead by a positive example… ‘bon voyage’

  5. I agree with the article. I didn’t vote for him but Henry Bolton I was willing to get behind him as leader. Brexit is the main issue of the next three years and I thought he was capable of doing a good job leading the party.

    Bolton has shown dreadful personal judgement but if the party had rallied round him this could have been overcome. However the whole top of the party, including Bolton, have made such a total mess of everything that the situation now seems unsalvageable.

    We’ve lost so many good people now, and the upcoming election situation seems so dire, that I think UKIP is done for. Perhaps when the dust has settled in a couple of years we can work towards a revival.

  6. Now let’s see who is costing the members more money,£5 ayear extra fees. The average cost of having to attend uncessary EGM ,no way qualifies as an emergency, £50. That is 10 yrs at £5 per annum. In my particular case being abroad at present,£350,that equates to 70yrs at £5 per annum extra fee. Democracy at work ,Leader elected by all members wishing to cast a vote, EGM called by NEC only those able to physically and financially allowed a vote. A man takes a girlfriend after his marriage fails,she posts some private stuff to a former boyfriend,before even knowing he said man. Some trouble causing envious egotistical ambitious colleagues see an opportunity to try to discredit said man. Notifies or sells damaging messages to hostile press hungry for salacious tittle tattle. This is an Emergency of such magnitude members are put to expense and trouble to make essential journeys.

    • Henry Bolton is the only one responsible for the trouble and expense this EGM is causing you, me, and UKIP as a whole.

      • Without the VOC by the NEC there woud be no need for an EGM.
        The trouble and expense is 100% down to the NEC.

        • And I could equally argue that without Henry’s mismanagement, both of his personal life and of his leadership, we wouldn’t have had the vote of confidence, to which you might find something to reply, etc. but that would be childish tit for tat, so I suggest we don’t.

          Rather, I suggest we consider whether any credible political leader, or a man in any position of responsibility, would remain in place when faced with an overwhelming demonstration of no confidence from those he is supposed to be leading, not just the NEC vote but also most of his own appointees including his deputy.

    • I felt I should correct the factual error and the glaring omission in your post, Barrie.

      “A man takes a girlfriend after his marriage fails”. Not according to Tatiana Smurova-Bolton. She and their two pre-school daughters only found out the marriage had ‘failed’ on Christmas Eve. Henry Bolton’s relationship with Jo Marney had already started before that.

      “She posts some private stuff to a former boyfriend”. The nature of that “private stuff”? The most extraordinary racist guff I’ve seen in years, that would have made Enoch Powell’s 1968 constituents blush. And Henry is still seeing her despite that.

  7. 60% bullsh*t ,30% exaggeration, 10% bad moustache….

  8. By the pricking of my thumbs,
    Something wicked this way comes.

  9. I could have misunderstood but it sounds as though Mr Munford would be happy for his wife, daughters and granddaughters to be forced by law to wear the hijab, and for his own life to governed by Sharia Law rather than by English Law. That is what lies ahead of us. It may take another 30 to 50 years but it’s coming.

  10. “What has Henry Bolton done wrong?” is, with respect, not the critical question.

    The key question for him is “Should I stay or should I go?”** Likewise for the rest of us.

    In answering that question, our only consideration must be what is best (“least worst”, rather, alas) for UKIP. A functional party to fight for Brexit is needed more now than ever before.

    So, it isn’t critical whether or not Henry’s done anything wrong. It is critical whether his going will damage UKIP less than his staying.

    Sorry, I don’t see things as monochromatically as some, and I don’t do conspiracy theories unless, like our American “allies”, everything else at all plausible has been tried and eliminated.

    Until January 13, I thought it, on balance, less damaging to retain the status quo.

    On receipt of new information on that date, I changed my mind, and a few hours later put my name to a letter to Henry and the NEC to that effect.

    What a waste.

    “Darling you got to let me know
    Should I stay or should I go?
    If you say that you are mine
    I’ll be here ’til the end of time…”
    (Combat Rock, by The Clash, 1982)

    • Freddie

      Is UKIP going to be the functional party that will fight for Brexit and then disappear from the public view. I want to see a post Brexit UKIP that will in the mean time ensure that the UK does not have a messed up Brexit.

      I renewed my membership because Bolton wantsUKIP to become a serious UK political party. If, like the EU, UKIP does not move forward it will die. I did not vote for Bolton, I will thank those who did, because I liked his leader’s talk in Derby last year. He now has (or had) the forward vision that was lacking in last year leadership hustings.

      At the moment Bolton is very quiet except for appearing on a couple of BBC programs. I have basically given up reading UKIP news and I rely on UKIP Daily. I do not and will not use Facebook as a means of communication.

      All of UKIP’s present problems cannot be laid at Bolton’s door the same as the Article 50 debarcle cannot be laid at May’s door. UKIP’s problem lies with its ineffective lines of communication and the previous leader’s failure to address the problem. Like the EU there is a divide between the leadership and its members. We know that the EU will not change, is UKIP emulating the EU by not changing. There are UKIP members who live outside the M25.

      Finally give Bolton a chance to pove he can do the job. Who else would you want as a leader? Your choice and mine will probably differ.


      • We have common ground.

        I’ll go even further than you – most of UKIP’s problems can’t be laid at Henry’s door. They are rooted in the past. It is possible for a person to be an inspiring orator and strategic thinker, but also to be an appallingly poor judge of character, with a desire to interfere in or thwart internal democratic process or opposition, thereby – on occasion – throwing up eminently unsuitable people to be in key positions.

        ’nuff said, and I apologise for my unqualified-hero-worship gene being missing.

        I concede that democracy occasionally also produces wrong results**, but on average it remains less damaging than its alternatives.

        To answer your concluding question, and putting the cart before the horse – I do not have a clear vision as to who would make the best Leader. I have strong views about who shouldn’t.

        Gerard Batten is the only credible choice for an Interim Leader, and I am confident that the sig line in Paul Oakden’s email of last night was a typo.

        Interim Pot-stirrer

        ** “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” – Winston Churchill

        • Freddy,

          I think we should vote for a ‘black gay muslim’ as our next leader, do you know anyone who fits that bill?

          • Please don’t take *unintended* offence, but you’ve reminded me why I don’t have conversations with ducks.

            How dare you omit women (all gays aren’t lesbian), transsexuals, the disabled, etc.?

            The Leader would have to be a web-toed mixed-race female one-legged transsexual black lesbian dread-locked Pastafarian Muslim (…space for more quota attributes here…) – or else we’re “waay-cysts!” or whatever it is.

            But as I just mentioned, I don’t speak to ducks, or, unlike Charles, to plants. (I don’t actually mind him chatting with plants, bless. What worries me is that he hears them replying.)

          • UKIP Friends of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, anyone? 🍝🧟‍♂️

  11. Well said Mike Mumford. My feelings in a nutshell.

  12. Is nobody going to say the obvious?
    The Truth
    He has made UKIP a laughing stock.
    He has brought the party in disrepute by his continued association with this female, which he confirmed was on-going to Andrew Marr this morning.
    Yes perhaps many people have embroidered their CV`s a little, only problem he has been caught and they haven`t – works the same for burglars and other fiddlers.
    This alteration was done to deceive – the French I believe who didn`t understand as HB explained what an NVQ Level 6 meant – if that was so, why not put down “NVQ Level 6 Equivalent to a degree”.would have made things pretty clear all round without the deception
    I hear the man is part of the intelligence community, the amatory exploits of 007 are of course, fiction, I don`t think amatory excursions are a qualification required for a level 6 intelligence operative.
    But overall the conduct of the Jo(ker) admitted and I hear apologised for is universally condemned as heinous, he admits he is continuing his association with this woman and I would say this is prima facie evidence (smoking gun) that by this continued action he is bringing the name of UKIP into disrepute.
    I have voted for you in the past Mr.Allen as a candidate for the NEC, I felt you were a sensible man. I was upset you threw your lot in with him in the first place and I find it incomprehensible that you are now unable to see he has put UKIP and himself in an impossible position.
    I might add those who support him, knowing the facts place themselves in a similar position viz a viz trying to minimise the inexcusable.

  13. On The People’s Voice UK facebook page I have just read a post by one of HB’s supporters – one Sue Jones – to the effect that he was prevented from making a speech at a UKIP Spring Conference in Llandudno, 2016 after a warning (by whom is not stated) issued by phone. The speech, it is alleged, was nonetheless delivered by Diane James and Jill Seymour after suitable amendations were made in conjunction with the party chairman. I’ve added a comment which makes clear my doubts about the timeline referred to. I also wonder why this hasn’t been posted by the man himself.

  14. Hi
    The nec found Mr Bolton “guilty by association” with an person who allegedly made a comment/ tweet months ,years ( does anybody know??) before that may have been unsavoury. What sort of an investigation was done here, apart from a knee jerk reaction after reading the drivel in the press???
    How crude to try and use the thought police to get after him because the media are blowing this all up for their own ideals!!!

  15. I for one have never made an unjustified claim on my CV.

    • Quite.

      In general – the duty is not only to be factual and truthful, but also not to mislead. Statements may be accurate but deliberately crafted to give a wrong impression to the unsuspecting reader.

      This often conflicts with the need for brevity. As does accuracy.

      For example, while preparing my own political CV back in 2014, I had difficulties keeping it to two sides of A4. In it I’d accurately stated that, over 1981-7, I was employed by, trained with, and then provided self-employed professional computing/tax/audit services in London (some work in Hong Kong and Manila too) to, Ernst & Whinney Chartered Accountants (now, *Ernst & Young*).

      A local wiseacre told me to save space and cut out the reference to “Ernst & Whinney” (which almost no one remembers nowadays, though at the time it was the fifth or sixth largest accountancy/MCS firm in the world, one of the ‘big eight’), replacing it with “Ernst & Young” (now, one of the ‘big four’).

      But that would have allowed others to (correctly) claim I was a liar or fantasist, because Ernst & Young didn’t even come into being until two years later, in 1989, when, in order to save Arthur Young (another of the big eight firms) from financial collapse after some disastrous errors, Arthur Young was taken over by Ernst & Whinney and the merged firm called Ernst & Young.

      Brevity may conflict with accuracy.

  16. I will not support a party that is not “anti-Islam” as you call it. I know that I am far from alone.

    • Far from alone indeed, Jack.

      • One catches more flies with honey than with vinegar.

        A party in the UK of today that brands itself as anti- a specific religion consigns itself to electoral oblivion and the dustbin of history.

        Please be more creative.

      • Any party that labels itself as anti-Islam will fail — or at least if it doesn’t fail then any chance of building a peaceful and harmonious society is gone and it’s too late.

        Politics, we have to do politics, which means not going at the problem bull-headed.


        • Julian, Muslims do politics as well.

          Do you think from this moment on Labour will ever stand a non-Muslim candidate for mayor of London?

    • “Anti-Islam”

      I support UKIP. I am not “Anti-Islam”.

      This, despite my being both an atheist and a physicist who, unlike the bumble-bee, knows full well that no matter how hard I flap my ‘wings’, I can’t fly when “they” chuck me off a tall building for my (lack of) belief and outspoken ways.

      Let me explain.

      I am highly sceptical of all religions, including the two around which I was (very, very half-heartedly) raised, Zoroastrianism and Christianity. I was, in effect, atheist/agnostic from birth. Like many, I have studied religion closely, in order to understand human nature and history, and to help others escape from the mind-control of cults.

      Of all the religions with many adherents, the one under whose state control I’d be most reluctant to live is Islam. I’ll go further – I wouldn’t.

      This is partly because of the course of history that these countries are often the most unpleasant of places, and partly because Islam is much more than a religion – it is a complete way of life, overflowing with prescriptions and proscriptions.

      Over my life, I’ve lived in three countries (or, if one lowers the bar a lot, arguably in six), all tolerant, pluralistic societies, where the dominant religion was Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism, and where I was pretty free to speak my mind, without fear. Sadly, Britain today is the least free of these countries, and is getting worse.

      I am appalled that middle-of-the-road projections have, before the end of this century, Britain as an Islamic state.

      But I still maintain I am not “anti-Islam” (or “anti-Muslim”). Nor should I be.

      Semantics… wonderful.

      • So you are appalled by the demographic likelihood that the UK will be an Islamic state well before the end of this century, but you don’t want to belong to a party that proposes policies designed to stop that happening?

        • Correct.

          Please think about why, even if a simpler explanation is stupidity.

          • I don’t know why you think that Freddy. That’s why I’m asking you. You recognise this dark future is already likely for the UK, you realise it is getting more likely every year as the mainstream parties do nothing to stop it, yet you want UKIP to have no policies to stop it happening either?

          • “you don’t want to belong to a party that proposes policies designed to stop that happening?” – not where that party makes those policies its main plank or its raison d’etre, because doing so dooms it to guaranteed failure in Post-Modern Britain.

            UKIP is a ‘broad church’ party, and if it has among its portfolio of policies some that will have that effect, no one would be happier than I. Flies / honey / vinegar.

            Yes, I have a child, but even if I didn’t I do have a stake in the future.

          • OK. So you’re happy for UKIP to have SOME policies that will stop the UK becoming an Islamic state in the next 50 years, as long as they’re not UKIP’s main plank or raison d’etre.

            Trouble is, if UKIP has ANY policies like that, even mild ones fiddling around the edges such as banning the burqa or non-stunned slaughter, we have already seen that the MSM will make such a song and dance about them that they might as well be UKIP’s raison d’etre, won’t they?

            The only way to stop them doing that is to have no policies about Islam, as at present. Be just like Labour and the Tories and let Islamification proceed. Isn’t it?

          • @ Keith // February 12, 2018 at 3:56 pm

            The logical fallacy which you invite the reader to commit is ‘false dichotomy’.

            I cannot support a party which makes Islam (combating a takeover by) its raison d’etre, partly because I’m a pragmatic chap and know such a party can’t and won’t gain electoral traction in 21st century UK, at least not until it’s too late to make any difference.

            Equally, I cannot not support a party that has no key policies about this very important issue – that would be irresponsible, cowardly, a betrayal. Also, the MSM would find something else to attack us about. Whether as an individual or as a party, living life striving. above all else, not to be attacked is a poor strategy.

            I support a position balanced between these two extremes.

        • Five stars for your calm and devastating logic Keith.

  17. From my perspective, as a UKIP voter/supporter, I’ll tell you what he’s done wrong.
    Following the Paul Nuttall fiasco, Henry Bolton was elected as leader, with many UKIP voters, including myself, having never heard of him.
    Yes, he had a very good CV and background, and was seen as the proverbial ‘safe pair of hands’ who would hopefully get UKIP back on its feet following the vote collapse at the 2017 GE.
    Since then, he’s done very little (seemingly) to put himself and his party back into the public view, to build support back up, and to take any opportunity to build back up the public perception of UKIP.
    Apart from one forgetable appearance on Question Time, which I could forgive him for as it was a typically hostile left-wing audience and panel.
    Since then, all the media have reported on are Henry’s ‘affair’ with this Jo Marney character, as well as revelations about his marriage(s).
    Then of course, numerous TV and radio appearances trying to defend himself and deflect his failings elsewhere.
    UKIP voters are wondering why Bolton isn’t using his airtime to espouse UKIP policies.
    UKIP voters have already seen other parties canvassing ahead of the local elections in May.
    Some UKIP voters (not myself) already think that UKIP is finished and are looking for other parties to vote for.
    UKIP voters aren’t interested in internal party mechanisms such as cabinets, committees etc. They want to hear ideas, policies, opinions, which they can agree with and get behind.
    As a regular reader of UKIP Daily, I’ve been able to gain some insights into the inner workings of UKIP, but not all UKIP voters read UKIP Daily. The truth is that many UKIP voters still hang on every thing Farage says and want him back as leader.
    Whoever followed on as leader after Paul Nuttall had a tough job ahead of them. Whoever follows on after Henry Bolton will have an even tougher job.

    • Our best result was obtained on a ratio of 100:1 voters to members. Those other 99% of past UKIP voters don’t know or care about UKIP internal politics. Without a leader with Farage’s charisma/presence it will need to be policies to regain their vote. UKIP is remiss in the areas of uncontrolled immigration and culture, two areas with large appeal. Brexit they can read about but without their votes UKIP can do nothing to ensure Brexit really means exit.
      Bolton is not that leader and he is leading UKIP down a dark alley to oblivion.

    • Nigel was a GREAT public spokesperson, abosolutely no-one better in the history of UKIP (sorry, Alan), but a LOUSY manager, especially when dealing with potential rivals. 🙄

  18. And 10,000 in the previous year. How long do you think it might take to fix this party? will all leaders get a couple of months?

  19. Mike, your observations cast a light of reality over, what is a blatant attempt to remove a leader that the party elite never wanted in the first place. After three leadership elections, who is the saviour lurking in the background to please all and unite the warring factions? The answer, is there isn’t one.
    Fortunately, the mood is changing noticeably. That’s why there is an increase in abusive rhetoric. Many people are asking themselves the same question you posed. What’s he actually done wrong? and failing to come up with any answer that makes sense. This EGM is entirely unnecessary.
    His personal issues were unfortunate and presented in the worst possible light by the media, as you would expect, but instead of rallying round, Mr Bickley was on the offensive like a rat out of a trap, with unseemly haste. The easily malleable NEC simply followed a scent which eventually led nowhere, so plan B was executed which was to publish non-stop smears that simply weren’t true with the objective of tying the leader up with defensive actions and hoping to keep it going until the 17th February. That doesn’t seem to be working and people can and are thinking for themselves.
    I’ve heard Henry Bolton’s version and John Bickley’s, and Henry’s is the more accurate, believable and honest one.
    As for the spokespeople, they were all charged with developing policy and presenting it but hardly any have bothered, preferring instead to carry on doing very little. A nice title and position to keep the ego satisfied, but not bothering to do any real work.
    Has anyone heard of even one new policy from any of the policy people in the last four months? No. It’s much easier to blame the leader for lack of policy whilst he was busy fixing the terrible state the party was in. In reality, they are a dysfunctional group that hasn’t got a fresh idea between them.
    Things must change if the party is to prosper, perhaps even survive. No longer can mediocre people ride the coattails of a Farage. It’s time to shake things up.
    Let’s not forget that Henry Bolton saved this party from Anne Marie Waters, now the same group who have overseen the party’s decline want one of their own to take over. Imbecilic!

    • “That’s why there is an increase in abusive rhetoric.”

      Yes, principally from you in calling UKIP Daily’s editor “highly prejudiced” when there is absolutely no evidence to support such an outrageous slur and, in fact, overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

      Bolton made UKIP a laughing stock. That is politically the kiss of death. The NEC for that reason alone were right to vote against him.

      • Bolton made UKIP a laughing stock? No, the media did that by smear to prevent Ukip becoming a danger again. They were always going to pick on the slightest chink and blow it up out of all proportion, as they did with Nigel. The difference this time is that so many in the party have joined in, thus proving, what was becoming increasingly obvious, that the ‘different party’ has become just like the rest, fighting over factional differences instead of driving the party’s message.

        • Philo, but of course the media would, wouldn’t they?

          All this was utterly predictable and therefore should have been avoided.

          The feeding frenzy will continue (there will be dormant periods, but will be resurrected at critical junctures) until something radically changes.

          What suggestions do you have for such a radical change?

        • POS,

          I would suggest that Nigel is ‘a different kettle of fish’, he could bat the insults off like no other.

          • Indeed, Nigel is one of a kind, and he isn’t coming back. He left politics on a personal high that he accurately assessed is extremely improbable for him to re-attain. That all political lives end in failure is a saying only too well-known to him.

  20. Massive cock-up by Mr Bolton, clearly doesn’t know what his own elected councillors are doing:

  21. The Bolton fiasco has given the party an opportunity to take a good look at him. Many have commentated on his CV and non BA from Sandhurst, however I have some other questions he should answer:

    1. I’m told he didn’t stand in the 2017 General Election. Can he confirm otherwise please? It’s important that your commanding officer is willing to go over the top in the heat of battle with their troops. Hundreds of loyal kippers stood in June last year, many knowing that they’d most likely lose their deposits.

    2. Has Mr Bolton ever stood for UKIP in any parliamentary election?

    3. Has Mr Bolton ever been a branch officer?

    4. I have received reports from Kent (Mr Bolton’s back yard) that allege that when he stood as a PCC on 2015 he told supporters to remove their UKIP rosettes and all UKIP branded material from the street stall when he came out to canvass with them. Allegedly, some branch members walked off in disgust. What’s Mr Bolton’s response to these allegations?

    5. Mr Bolton told the media & members some weeks ago that his leadership was incompatible with a relationship with Ms Marney, then two days later was spotted coming out of the National Liberal Club of all places with her (he’s an ex Lib Dem I suppose). He’s told the media that he still has ‘feelings’ for her and that he may rekindle the relationship. Does anyone really believe he’s ‘finished’ with Ms Marney, who is now known as the racist Ms Marney? That being the case then in his words he can’t remain as leader?

    • I know exactly where this piece of smear came from and that person is wholly unreliable.
      And let you forget he won an outstanding victory in September with a significant margin against, presumably, the best that UKIP could offer?

      • 29.9% of votes cast on an historically low turnout can hardly be described as outstanding. Just over a thousand votes separated him from Anne Marie Waters.

        David Kurten came third after Bolton let it be known he would appoint Kurten as deputy. Some of those votes for Bolton probably would not have been cast for him if it was known that he would rat on a promise.

        Bolton did not win an “outstanding” victory. His deception, we now see, began in the contest itself. The party will now correct its mistake.

      • David,

        Are you having a laugh?

      • Unfortunately David, it came from a number of people.

        When smearing the NEC remember that it represents 100% of the membership; Mr Bolton’s result only a small % of it. Perversely then, it’s the NEC (including the leader) that has the largest mandate to govern the party, although historically it’s got behind a good leader and helped them drive the party forward.

        As already stated the NEC fully supported the Leader’s desire to drive up membership fees.

        • Hysterically it has not got behind this leader.
          I would question whether the NEC even tries to represent 100% of the membership. The membership as a whole are kept completely in the dark as to what it actually does. Oh I forgot, it sanctioned Lenny

  22. The question should be “What has he done right?”

      • I’ve read it, and at least one statement from the limited company ( concerned is an outright lie, which I’ve referred to colleagues for confirmation. Indeed, if it refers to the person I think it does, the proof is on this site!

        Happy Googling 😎

      • David says “easy”.

        Following the link I read “After over a year of neglect and incompetent management by the NEC”. I just do not know what this is supposed to mean? The NEC does not exist to manage the party. The Chairman is manager of the party’s officers and the chairman is an appointee of the Leader. To say someone is neglecting something and incompetent without saying in what way is pretty much like saying they are pants for the hell of it.

        The link goes on “…our Party desperately needs the agenda for change that Henry has initiated.” What agenda or do you mean this that follows next; “The constitution must be made fit for purpose and the NEC itself turned into a Board of Trustees elected by the Regions.” Regional representation is a recipe for mediocrity. I want to be free to vote for the best candidate for any seat on the NEC not the one who happens to live within 50 miles of me. But even if you like regional representation without any other change it would not result in the change in the function of the NEC that you say, without explaining why, is so needed So the argument comes down to this. The NEC should be a board of trustees. Well forgive me David but my understanding was that the NEC is entrusted with democratic oversight of the party’s executive, constitution and workings which makes them rather like a charity’s trustees.

        • Aiden, at present one has the chance to vote only for someone from anywhere — unknown by sight or reputation. If we go for a regional system at least we’d have the chance to get to know those who run UKIP.

          Has the NEC done a good job? I don’t know and I have no way to judge. I don’t know any of them.

          Has Henry? No — a major part of his job is to attract people to UKIP and he is achieving the reverse. Besides that fact, he is also putting his own position above the interests of his country, his voters and his Party. This is not a good look.

          Is it fair that he is being hounded out by the Press? No. Politics isn’t fair, sometimes you get what you deserve, sometimes you don’t. I was elected undeservedly to represent Haverhill as a councillor. I was not re-elected, undeservedly, with only the small consolation of knowing that one of the most senior Conservatives in the town voted for me, because ‘in local politics you should vote for the man, not the party.’ Swings and roundabouts. You shrug and move on.

          Henry should apologise, resign and offer to serve in any capacity where his expertise can help rescue us from this nearly hopeless position.

          I’m holding my breath.


      • Actually pursuant to my last I should have acknowledged that the NEC is legally responsible for managing the officers of the party and I hereby correct myself. Nonetheless, I think my substantial point applied which was that in practice this is mostly done via the chairman who is a full time employee appointed by the leader.

    • Oh, welcome back Panmelia!

      • My “quite” was in agreement with Panmelia’s question what has Henry done right? There is one thing Henry has done right. Or has he?. He has raised membership fees from £30 to £35. But according to reports in Kipper Central he has blamed others such as the NEC for this, as David would say, “desperately needed” measure. Even if Henry had taken responsibility for this one sound move (which might have been a move of the NEC which Henry might have voted against in which case more power to the NEC’s elbow) this sound move was not enough. I am not saying the membership fee should have been raised more. Personally I think it should have been raised far more. But perhaps it should have been dropped much more instead. What I do know is that it was not changed radically. And another thing I am sure of about UKIP is that it needs drastic change not Henry’s 16% form of it if, indeed, this was anything to do with Henry at all because if it wasn’t this leaves Panmelia’s question clamouring for attention.

  23. “members leaving in droves” – About 2000 members left over a period of a fortnight because of Henry Bolton’s ineptitude as a leader.

    What did Henry do wrong? Well that’s one for starters. I’m sure others will add to the list.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.