This morning, I found out that my application to be on the leadership ballot for UKIP leader had been rejected.
I am extremely disappointed at this decision. I have been a committed member of UKIP over the past five years. I have stood for the party in a number of elections
I have been a spokesman for the party on financial affairs and the City of London, on economics, and on migration. I wanted to stand for Leader of the Party to take UKIP forward in the new era of British politics.
Unfortunately, the way in which this leadership election has been handled has been completely unacceptable.
The governing body of our party which rejected application, the National Executive Committee (NEC), is no longer fit for purpose.
During the leadership campaign, the NEC has leaked emails to the press regarding my membership of the party. My name was dragged through the mud unnecessarily. They needlessly challenged my membership of the party, falsely claiming it had lapsed and that I was ineligible to stand for leadership. They only admitted they were wrong after I trawled through my bank statements to prove the membership payments were made back in 2011.
Arguably more seriously, highly confidential information about myself held in party documents has been leaked to the press.
This is a serious breach of privacy and yet the NEC still has not sought to investigate this and does not look likely to do so.
In addition, the NEC has failed to accept that there were serious problems with the leadership application system despite my providing evidence that attempts of submission were made before the deadline.
The NEC denies this is the fault of the UKIP system. I stand by the fact that my deposit was submitted in time (and have published evidence to prove this) and that technical issues with the UKIP system delayed the submission of the forms. Evidence of this was presented to the NEC on Tuesday.
My application form, as concluded by the NEC vetting panel, was faultless. Everything met the required standards, yet the NEC refused to accept that the forms were submitted late due to a technical fault with the party’s system.
I was stunned to hear that there was one NEC member who suggested that I submitted the application late to gain more media coverage. This is a ludicrous and false claim – one which is simply untrue.
I have also heard mutterings from other members of the NEC who have discussed the possibility of excluding our youth wing, Young Independence, from the party altogether. How on earth can we broaden our appeal, especially to younger voters, if we don’t have a youth wing? This is nothing more than an unjustified attack. Young Independence is a vibrant, fresh branch of our party and I’m proud of the work they are doing up and down the country.
From the moment I entered this race, there have been some figures within the NEC who have sought to find an excuse or reason, however illegitimate, to prevent me from standing.
We must face up to the reality that our party is in chaos.
The actions of the NEC have caused rifts and splits within our party. It’s meant to be a voice for the membership, yet hundreds of members are threatening to cut up their membership cards. I absolutely stand alongside the three NEC members who have resigned because of how the NEC is currently operating.
If I had been on the ballot, I would have stood on a platform of significant internal reform. In order to survive and unite, UKIP needs to put in place a more accountable and professional governing body – one which has the confidence of the party’s members.
Under my leadership, I would have proposed a chairman’s forum. It would have been made up by a branch chairman from each region. They would be elected by fellow branch chairs in these regions. This would make for a properly accountable structure – essential for a major political party like UKIP. Each representative would be directly accountable to their regional branches.
As someone who was born in Manchester, I would have put social mobility and identity right at the heart of UKIP’s agenda. I would have campaigned for our nation’s growth and prosperity to be shared by all citizens – not just those in city centres.
The UKIP I would lead would have no centre ground – it would never have shied away from the tough issues. We would have talked about them head on, with a measured approach and tone, just like I have done with the immigration brief over the past two years. We would have taken the fight to Labour and we would have damaged them significantly.
UKIP is a force for good in British politics and I hope it goes on to do all of those things. But it will fall flat on its face if our party is in the wrong hands and led by the wrong person.
I wish all the candidates left in the leadership race well and hope they seek to reform the NEC immediately when they take office.