Today’s letters, seemingly a mixed bunch, nevertheless address one important issue from different points of view: the Leadership Contest. The first letter is from our contributor and reader Rob McWhirter:


I am delighted to announce that, and the associated Twitter account – @Jane4Leader – are now live with initial content. More will be added once nominations have closed, and Jane will then look at writing an OpEd piece on her candidacy for UKIP Daily.

Respectfully, Rob McWhirter

The second letter is from our reader Jeff Wyatt who takes issue with the vetting of candidates by an independent agency, as announced by Head Office, before the official nomination:


I am hearing continuing nasty rumours that individuals that put themselves forward as candidates for the Leadership contest are going to be subject to “vetting”.

I applaud any individual who thinks that they can offer Leadership credentials and are prepared to put their head above the parapet for the membership to select, or not. I very much embraced the opportunity to see for myself these very credentials required, in the flesh, at last week’s Proposed Candidates Question Time event in London. Although it was obvious to me that a number of the 8 individuals that were prepared to put their colours to the public mast, so to speak at the event, were wholly unsuitable for the title “Leader” I certainly would extend the right unreservedly for them all to be subject to the ultimate vetting scrutiny i.e. their name on the ballot paper for the membership to decide. Peter Whittle’s non-attendance was conspicuous. A good opportunity lost I feel.

If the individual is good enough to be a member of the party today, can acquire the not small number of 99 Assenters signature’s and the requisite £5000 fee to join the contest, that’s good enough for me. On this basis, all the people that I am aware of who have put their hat into the ring so far, are as worthy a candidate as the next.

I believe it is now time for those at the helm of the Party to publically quash these “vetting” rumours and concentrate on making sure that  the contest is an open and democratic process, and seen to be an open and democratic process.

Respectfully, Jeff Wyatt, 2017 Parliamentary Candidate Milton Keynes North

Next, a letter from our contributor Jack Russell which is self-explanatory:


It pains me to write this but it’s a fact: UKIP has no presence in the MSM at this time, and it will get even worse during the next weeks until the end of the AGM and the election of a new leader, provided there’s no scandal involving any of the candidates officially nominated by the end of this week. Why is it that our MEPs (we know Head Office ‘has no money’ and can’t be expected to write …) are not inundating the MSM with letters laying out UKIP’s arguments on Brexit? Wouldn’t it give us great ammunition when talking to voters to show how many letters were written by our MEPs and not published?

Are they happy watching our Party sink further into oblivion during the coming weeks because they can’t be bothered to step up or because some are now running for Leader? Will there even be a party left come October? Or will that Party consist of what nowadays is called ‘activists’ only, a handful of stalwarts who are still prepared to sacrifice their lives and resources – for what? A ‘rebranded’ entity? We still don’t know what that entails, we only know it will be sprung on those who go to the AGM, the new leader included. Is that the way our current ‘leaders’ imagine UKIP will rise from oblivion, an oblivion created by those ‘leaders’ themselves? Ground once lost is extremely hard to regain …

Respectfully, Jack Russell

Finally, a letter by our correspondent Roger Arthur, reminding us that the attacks on Brexit are not going away:


Philip Aldrick in the Times says that UK exporters will have to stick with regulatory equivalence, if they want to keep selling to the Single Market. – as do around 170 other countries which are not in the EU. What he omitted to point out is that all UK companies currently have to comply with EU regulations even though over 90% of them don’t even export to the single market.

But after we leave the EU our companies will only have to comply with EU regs when they export to the Single Market. They will then be free to innovate, when exporting to markets beyond the EU, which are on the rise – not in decline. They will be able to produce what those markets want, without being stifled by regulations designed to protect EU companies.

Why did Mr Aldrick forget to mention that and the fact that our exports to the Single Market have fallen to 40% over the years, while our exports beyond the EU continue upwards? Clearly our future is moving away from the EU with its one size fits all approach to everything, including the Eurozone and its demands for bailouts to keep it afloat.

Respectfully, Roger J. Arthur

Print Friendly, PDF & Email