WATCH: “Not Good Enough!!” – LBC Caller DESTROYS Henry Bolton Live On Air

Henry Bolton was left shocked after an LBC caller barraged the UKIP Leader with a series of things he’d got wrong since elected into the position, including a 900% fee increase for young members and the collapse of UKIP’s three best branches.

The caller – Reece Coombes – is the Deputy Chairman of Young Independence, UKIP’s youth wing and is the owner of UKIP blog Kipper Central.

Reece said: “I want to make clear first of all that I don’t care what happened with Jo [Marney], I don’t care about any of that.”

“What I do care about”, Reece continued, “is the 900% fee increase of young members.

“What I do care about is the lack of action on the two campaigns you’ve launched as leader; Save Our Sevices and Out Now. I’ve not heard anything since the launch of either campaign.

“What I do care about is the fact that our three best branches are falling apart! Thurrock; every councillor has left the party and is sitting as an independent, Hartlepool; all of our candidates for the upcoming elections are now independent, and then Thanet; Thanet is divided in two. First of all you said you wouldn’t intervene, then you intervened and now we’ve got half of our councillors defecting and it’s looking like we’re losing our only local government in the whole country.

“I don’t care what happens in your private life but your leadership of UKIP, frankly, for me, isn’t good enough.”

Mr Bolton then responded to Reece saying: “Yeah, that’s interesting Reece because the councillors in Hartlepool along with our MEP from that area Jonathan Arnott have basically said that they are sick and tired of the infighting within the party.

“Jonathan Arnott has said he’s because he doesn’t believe the party can be fixed because of its infighting. That is the problem and indeed this, as you will know Reece, has been going on for a very long time.

“What’s happening now is that I want to change the constitution; I want to introduce for the first time a full and precise code of conduct for the party so that we can actually deal with this going forward. That has shaken the tree and there are a number of people who’ve fallen out and revealed themselves for what they are. They need to be dealt with, we need to unite the party and we need to project our politics.”

Mr Bolton later accused Reece of being “out of touch” because of his concerns about the three top branches “falling apart”, which was followed by this Tweet:

Support Kipper Central

Kipper Central is here to spread the real news with the British and global public, without political correctness and without lies.
However, we are an extremely small team each putting in several hours a day, despite none of us having full-time jobs.
We, therefore, rely on the kind support of our readers to keep reporting on the stories that nobody else will and to keep promoting what is truly happening in Britain and across the world.

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. Russell Hicks says:

    Well done Reece! Hopefully this walking disaster and huge embarrassment will be toast after the weekend. But watch carefully where he goes afterwards, that will tell us all we need to know about where he really came from.

  2. David Allen says:

    Of course, everybody knows the party was on the up and up before Henry was elected. At this rate we’ll have two more leaders in 9 months if each one only has 5 minutes to fix everything.

    • forthurst says:

      All the candidates including David Allen knew or should have known the state of the party before putting themselves forward.

    • John Carins says:

      Reece makes good points. Henry has managed to alienate a lot of people. Good leaders bring the team together.

    • John Bickley says:

      David, even more reason for Bolton to have ensured he was bulletproof. His political naivety in dumping his breastfeeding wife and two young kids at Christmas for a 25 year old wannabe TOWIE model beggars belief. If he’s so smart why didn’t he plan the split so there was no political fall out? Why didn’t he ensure that Marney was bulletproof – surely he should have known that the media would be all over it.

      I’m afraid this sort of behaviour indicates signs of narcissism and arrogance.

  3. silvie Steven says:

    Reece, I listened this morning to Boltons latest attempt at saving his skin, and quite honestly the man has no idea of what integrity is, if it was no so serious for the party it would be laughable. all the comments you raised with him, he still refuses to take ownership of any of them, despite them being his failings and his actions(or inactions ) which have caused them. He continues to lead people up the garden path, and his lies have now got so complicated, even HE cannot remember what he said. For example when interviewed by Piers Morgan recently (another car crash) when he was questioned about Jo Marney and her social media he said “a relationship that was four days old, how could I have been expected to know about them”. Today it was 5 days not four, and he said that such a short relationship had not been considered serious enough to have looked at her social media – YET it was serious enough to leave his wife and young family for! When he was asked about the “mistakes” on his cv, which in the same interview with Piers Morgan he had justified because “the EU do not recognise level 6 nvq but they do recognise the dgreee which Is why I put it down” today had become “there is no provision on LinkedIn for an nvq in qualifications”. He espoused his military and police background, well in the military and the police you swear allegiance to the sovereign, heirs and successors” does he seriously think that those professional bodies would have accepted his relationship with this girl? The biggest hypocrisy though was when he talked about the code of conduct, and that he was shaking the tree and those who had “fallen out” where the ones to blame for the infighting in the party! when he was elected as Leader, it was because he painted himself as a safe pair of hands, a family man with police and military background. As we all know he misled the party and its members on all counts. Will this code of conduct have rules on whether a member of the party or a Leader should be involved with someone who is a racist and who has brought the party into disrepute, or will that be left off so that he – should he remain as Leader can continue in the way he has done since 16th December 2017? People in the North East are fed up with his behaviour, and if he had done ANYTHING to have put the party in the headlines for the right reasons instead of the car crash of his personal life, many would have backed him, but he has not done that. He acted like a love sick teenager this morning and provided Nick Ferrari with all the ammunition he needed, indeed Ferrari said to him ” well if you do remain as Leader, you are nothing if not entertaining”. Bolton laughed, finding it amusing. He has apparently 2 or 3 options if things don’t go his way after the EGM, which he wishes to keep “close to his chest” . Lets hope number one is leave the party and never come back, two is decide if this relationship is indeed love or lust, and three leave the country if it is and take his racist girlfriend with him.

  4. David penn says:

    A couple of points.

    First Reece, unlike you, I do very much care about the Jo Marney situation and it’s important to understand why many of us in UKIP are concerned. As a party, we have constantly attacked leading members of other parties for their lack of honour, their indifference towards personal integrity and their being able to shamelessly lie through their teeth whenever it suits them.

    Recent revelations have demonstrated that Henry Bolton fits right in with these shenanigans we witness in other leaders. In particular, he blatantly lied to us during his campaign to be leader by saying he was happily married. It’s now clear that what he really meant about being a ‘family orientated’ man was in the sense of collecting them like cars rather than caring for them like people. He’s now on number four, having dumped the most recent for a shiny, newer model when it took his fancy. Regardless of the many other charges against him, this behaviour means he has no ability to lecture other parties on their morals without facing a howl of ridicule about his own problems with integrity and duty. That reason alone was enough for myself and many other members of my branch have our Saturday tickets to Birmingham booked to get there and oust him.

    So on the ‘Jo’ matter, I don’t think anyone should easily dismiss Henry’s dumping of his wife and two young daughters and say that it doesn’t matter. To many UKIP supporters and the wider public at large, honour, duty and integrity are very important requirements in a leader – certainly more important than membership fees – which brings me on to my second point.

    I can see that you’re hopping mad about the increase, but I have to say I was disappointed with the exchange and in particular about you using ‘900%’, and I’ll explain why.

    In UKIP, we take pride in straight talking. Now we all know that if someone says a ‘900% increase’, or a ‘tenfold increase’ or an ‘order of magnitude larger’, it’s often a dramatic way of making something sound outrageous when the actual figures often show that not to be the case.

    I know you won’t like me saying it, but here the fee increase in real terms has only moved from a ridiculously low £2 to £20.

    Now I appreciate that £20, to some, is a lot of money. However, if I’m honest, I cannot believe that most young people in Britain today are unable to muster up that amount for a year’s membership if they are really committed to UKIP. We are after all, a party who believes in the pride of standing on our own two feet. Finding a way to earn just £20 in a whole year to pay for membership is a challenge that should inspire. For example, simple efforts like washing a few cars for neighbours would give some pride in earning the membership fee. So although the increase seems a lot, in reality £20 is not an outrageous, unaffordable. The real question should be why the ultra-low figure of £2 was ever being charged when it wouldn’t even have covered administration costs. Young people should be given the chance to at least be able to say they are paying their way.

    In terms of the radio interview though, I guess what I’m saying is that by concentrating too much on the rights or wrongs of an £18 increase in membership fees, particularly as you weren’t sure about how involved Henry was in the actual decision, unfortunately it gave Henry a platform from which to sound credible.

    To be clear, I don’t want my comments to seem as though I’m just having a go, because it is really important that young people such as yourself get involved in debates as we need to build experience for the future, but I thought you might find it useful to get a view from the sidelines. Regardless, well done for getting stuck in.

    • John Bickley says:

      Mr Bolton was the sole driving force behind membership fee increases and the NEC backed, so his claims that the NEC ‘blocks’ reform and leaders is not credible. All this NEC vs Bolton narrative is a device being used by Team Bolton to divert attention away from his failings

    • My comment is restricted to paras 5-7 of what’s above.

      I fully understand where David’s going, and probably understand the “why” too.

      For others less arithmetically fluent who might misconstrue what he wrote, David is not claiming that a change from £2 to £20 isn’t a tenfold increase, an increase of an order of magnitude (since we count in tens – though for no good reason other than it’s the number of fingers and thumbs on most of us) or a 900% increase. Indeed, it is all of these. David is, however, asserting that putting it that way inadvertently conveys a misleading impression, given the ridiculously low starting point (£2 a year, or less than 4p a week). Note the MSM does this sort of thing all the time – and that’s when they manage to get the maths right in the first place.

      More generally, we must all guard against committing, or being fooled by, hyperbolic statements. Were I, say, to claim I’d worked at W&E from 1981 to 1987, but that turned out to comprise merely a couple of weeks in 1981 and the same again in 1987, with nothing as substantial in between, I might not be technically guilty of misstatement, but I’d be guilty of far worse – weasel-wording, i.e., crafting a statement so it was technically true, but which deliberately conveyed a misleading impression.

  5. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    First of all Reece, very well done. I don’t listen to LBC. Life is too short for that, and anything of interest tends to have space right here !
    Henry Bolton should be renamed ‘ Angelo ‘ because he at least considers that he has been heaven sent ! I can’t recall ever, a so called man, that in a squad of 100 insists that he is the only man in step ! Then we have to all agree that he, and he alone holds the future for UKIP ! ? !
    Although I did not vote for this idiot, he was elected leader, and my comments within Kipper Central show that I tried to support him. Walking out on his wife and young family, blunted my backing, and then finally his attitude to our Young Independence, was the proof required that he couldn’t run a bath, let alone a political Party !
    He lacks integrity and is a proven liar, and the Police and British Army must be rather angry to have been briefly associated with this nasty smell. We have seen comments here in Kipper Central of some people trying to back this misfit, and I can only think that their life style needs a lot of attention. If they think HB is in any way good, then may we all be protected from what they consider to be bad !

    • Mr Maunder,
      I really don’t like it when people beat around the bush and don’t let on what their true opinions are.
      It’s an abuse of language! And since no language surpasses English in terms of subtlety and the ability to convey fine distinctions, and all of us here are blessed with English, this is an egregious failing indeed.
      So please stop pussy-footing about, re-write the above, and tell us what you Really Think.

      • MIKE MAUNDER says:

        OK, Freddy. HB is a grade one twat ! That is one way to put it, but if you wish, I could say that Henry Bolton is not expected to fulfill the role of leadership, to the satisfaction of the United Kingdom Independence Party, and consequently to the vote of its members, should be quietly and tactfully released, to employ his ability in another area that is more suitable for him. HOW’S THAT ? I prefer HE’S A GRADE ONE TWAT !
        Do feel free to ask me again for a full English translation ! ……….. Thank you Mr Vachha.

  6. Mick mcgough says:

    With all his overseas experience in areas of instability he is a shoe in at OXFAM if he leaves UKIP

  7. Donald Hallam says:

    Glad to see people still serving as ‘independents’ and seeking re-election as such. We need more people like this especially standing in general elections.
    I am convinced this is the way to go!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *