BY BEN KERRIGAN
UKIP has been hit with more division and derogatory comments after Deputy Chair woman, Suzanne Evans. Suzanne, formerly a spokeswoman for the party has been dropped for her comments about UKIP leader, Nigel Farage. Suzanne, who wrote the election manifesto for the election and was a prominent figure for the campaign seemingly crossed the line when she described Farage as ”a very divisive character in the way he is perceived”, but then tried to soften the blow in her subsequent statement that he wasn’t divisive as a person, but one ”perceived as having strong views that divide people”.
If that wasn’t enough to make Mr. Farage feel insulted, she further went on to say she thought someone else would front the out campaign in the in/out referendum promised by 2017, but that Mr. Farage should play a significant part. An angry Mr. Farage has apparently instructed party officials to have no further contact with her, given her increasingly untenable position”. Insiders say the UKIP leader saw it as a coded attack on him by the woman he once described as emerging as an absolute tower of strength though Godfrey Bloom who was once a flat mate of Farage but left the party two years ago when he fell out with Farage, described him as an ”autocratic general” who would not stand criticism.
In a scathing indictment against the Ukip leader, Mr. bloom described Farage as a ruthless general and ”autocratic leader”. Anyone who criticized him would simply have their cards chopped off, and ”it had been that way for a long time”. The fact is that on this occasion Farage is justified to be angry with Suzanne. One can’t have members of a party under the leadership of the head utter critical words of irreparable damage against the leadership. It is a most unconscionable stance to hold with the sort of far reaching effects that cannot simply be rescinded by attempting to rectify words that have already had the damaging effects of their meaning. On the hand, party members should always be entitled to exercise their right to freedom of expression without fear of being chased away from the job.
If she felt Farage was divisive, she should have said it without mincing any words then faced the consequence of leaving the party, whilst continuing the expression of her views without constrain. Farage himself would have been good to call her to one side and express his discontentment with her words in a show of good discretion, than expel her without giving her a platform of defence. Farage had vowed a couple of days ago that UKIP would secure faith in the British public that departure from the EU would not be destructive, but rather positive and enabling for the UK to trade with other countries on the world stage. However, there would be those who in his party don’t share his view, and it could be that this created division in the party.
What emerges on the face of it is a bullish leaders trying hard to tame a rebellious party. Frage needs more unity to have any chance of presenting any meaningful opposition to any party in future.
