Statement on the UKIP leadership election
I have given considerable thought to the UKIP Leadership election in
recent weeks, and indeed I strongly considered not supporting any candidate at
all.
My criteria for making my own personal decision are simple – I will
choose the strongest available candidate subject to three conditions. I cannot
back:
a) Any candidate who is likely to cause embarrassment to the Party in the
media, however unfairly: at this critical stage with our Party’s survival at
stake we simply cannot afford to have a future leader who will be overshadowed
by baggage.
b) Any candidate who overly fixates on a single non-Brexit issue
(depending on perspective there are between 2 and 5 different ‘single issues’)
almost to the exclusion of all else.
c) Any candidate whose values and principles don’t align with the UKIP
that I joined and was proud to represent. I believe fundamentally in low taxes,
more democracy, less state interference, toughness on crime and a fair, robust,
colour-blind immigration system designed to end the oversupply of unskilled
workers but welcoming those who can genuinely help to make the UK a better
place.
From the field of candidates, by process of elimination I am left
therefore with two choices: Ben Walker and Marion Mason. (Arguably Henry Bolton
but I know far too little about him)
By pure coincidence – and it is coincidence – they are also the only two
candidates who have gone out of their way to contact me and ask for my support.
Neither of them has got involved in the vicious negative campaigning which has
sadly started to infest our Party in recent years.
Both of them have backgrounds in helping people, in very different ways –
Ben Walker in the Royal Navy, and Marion Mason in the NHS.
Politically I am broadly aligned with both of them.
Of the two, Ben Walker is the more powerful communicator. He has engaged
people with his campaign, organised events and worked hard touring the country
to speak to branches and members. He has the requisite determination to believe
that he can turn this Party around.
If push comes to shove, which of the two would I rather see represent the
Party in a televised debate? Who would be more likely to enthuse and motivate
people to join us?
On balance, I have therefore decided that I’ll be voting for Ben Walker
in the UKIP leadership election. I don’t agree with him on everything, and I
have made that clear to him in private (I don’t agree with banning halal meat
for example).
As a candidate, I think he shares my assessment of the situation and
accepts what I’ve been saying repeatedly since the election: that we are in
last-chance saloon; that the Party needs to change dramatically if it is to
survive in any meaningful form.
We’ve seen leadership candidates use phrases like ‘professionalising the
Party’, ‘changing the Party Constitution’, ‘reforming the internal structures’
and ‘engaging with the membership’ before. All of them need to happen, and
quickly.
Finally, we can’t afford to keep shooting ourselves in the foot as we
have been doing for far too long. As far as I can tell, Ben Walker would be
immune from attack in the media because he hasn’t said anything stupid in public
(or indeed, privately, as far as I know). That is worth a lot. It means we might
be able to focus on a positive message rather than
firefighting.
In the unlikely event of one of the above taking the leadership, I shall renew my membership. Ben Walker has some sort of a vague chance.
BTW, Jonathan, perhaps you could have stated your three caveats on halal meat: the animal to be properly stunned; full CCTV in all slaughter areas; ALL halal meat labelled so the consumer has a choice to opt out. (Yes - I know it ain't crisp and catchy - but some people would think ill of you with the shorter version written above!)
