The first of today’s two letters is a fulminant critique of how the UKIP Management Team has been treating us members. It is by our contributor Graham Matthews:


In reading Independence magazine, I found the Chairman’s article, his last communication before handing over to the new team, as particularly invidious. He takes aim at members who, in forums like UKIP Daily, criticise his performance and play the “internal blame game… sitting in their underpants tapping away at their laptops”.  In an article that fails to analyse the real causes of UKIP’s decline, he takes the easy option and complains that members spreading ‘falsehoods about me earning more than £100,000’ are putting small donors off.  However, rather than rising to the bait of keyboard warriors he might have responded in a rather different way by fully and clearly disclosing his arrangements and putting an end to speculation.  We have been kept in the dark too long and sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

What we do know is this; he was appointed Party Chairman at the beginning of August 2016.  The 2016 financial statements of the Party disclose that the Party Chairman was paid £20,000 in his role as Party Chairman and £30,000 as Party Director.  However, what is not clear is the period to which these figures apply (i.e. does this include payments to previous incumbent Steve Crowther and Paul Oakden for twelve months, or just Paul Oakden in his five months in the roles?). Combining the two amounts for the sake of simplicity, if this £50,000 was for the five months since August 2016, then that means he would be getting paid £10,000 a month or £120,000 per year.  Roger Helmer on his MEP blog tells us that Paul’s UKIP contract was only for a half-time commitment, with Paul’s other half-time spent working as constituency manager for Roger’s MEP constituency, which a Guardian article alleged Paul was separately paid £95,000 for out of funds available to MEPs.

So rather than keeping us in the dark and allowing incomplete snippets of information to float about, is it asking too much for our own Chairman to come clean to us?  When he states “falsehoods about me earning £100,000 a year” he did not qualify that statement for the source of earnings, i.e. he didn’t say “falsehoods about me earning £100,000 a year as Party Chairman”.  If the £50,000 paid by the Party to the Party Chairman was to him, and was for 5 months of work, then he is being paid £10,000 a month, then by any normal person’s definition he would be earning £120,000 a year from this half-time role.

If the allegations in the Guardian article are correct and he was also paid £95,000 in his other half-time role as constituency manager for Roger Helmer then in fact he could have been earning much more than £100,000 in 2016. However, the only person who can come clean on this is the Chairman himself, but he appears unwilling to do so. In any organisation, loyalty is only given to those who have proven themselves deserving of it, and trust is built on always telling the truth.

Respectfully, Captain Underpants

Today’s second letter is by our contributor David Meacock who points out that we must keep our eyes on the ball that is Brexit:


three points which we need to keep repeating until we’re blue in the face (maybe that should be purple . . .):

  1. We were told that the Article 50 process has a two year limit which would mean that come Spring 1919 we’d be out either with a deal with reasonable smiles all round or out with no deal and a bust-up.  So, when this 2 year limit has been breached only 6 months into it, why should we believe that this so-called interim arrangement, which in reality is an extension of the status quo, will indeed be only two years?  Once bitten, twice shy?
  2. Under the current proposals uncontrolled immigration will continue until at least 2021, with continued knock-on effects of pressure on local services: building houses on Greenbelt, too many cars on the road, too many wanting to use the NHS, too many children for available schools/teachers.  So much for the three times repeated promise of getting net migration under 100K!  How many times will voters allow themselves to be conned by this deliberate falsehood?
  3. PM Cameron said in the House of Commons, no less, that should a Brexit vote be the result of the EU In/Out Referendum, the people would rightly expect the submission of the Article 50 Letter would follow immediately.  As we all know, that as good as an outright promise was breached, but 9 months late – better late than never – business and governments at last had time-scale certainty; or so they thought.  But now the clock has stopped ticking, how can we expect other countries to negotiate trade deals when they’ll realise that the whole Brexit process has in reality become open-ended?

So, on the basis that it is said that your typical consumer will have likely seen an advertisement 8 times before they buy the advertised article, we need right now, to start repeating these points over and over again until we’re all saying them in our sleep and telling the 17.4 Million who voted Brexit that if you want Brexit then come the next General Election if it hasn’t happened in full, you need to vote for the only mainstream Brexit Party which will trigger it within 7 days of being elected with an overall majority – no ifs or buts: UKIP, likely UKIP rebranded.

For those who’ve stood down thinking, ‘Referendum won. Article 50 submitted.  Job done.’ two adages come to mind: “don’t count chickens before they’re hatched” and “many a slip betwixt cup and lip.”  Come back on board.

We cannot afford to wait and see until 2021 to see what happens as if we aren’t fully out, as there then won’t be time to get all these messages out, May will be replaced and her successor could falsely promise the earth to win the next General Election in their honeymoon period.

Winning the referendum and seeing the reluctant submission of the Article 50 letter were merely two battles won. We need to re-arm and re-mobilise as a united People’s Army to win the war, and take care that the Islamic question isn’t approached in such an off-putting way for the majority of voters that they also then don’t listen to the main messages of this article.

Respectfully, David G. Meacock.