Farage cites overwork and the need to concentrate on campaigning against John Bercow as the reasons behind his decision to resign.
In a statement he said:
I think I am better to the party doing fewer jobs better."
He said he wanted to continue as an MEP and leading the party in Brussels and Strasbourg, but added:
"I simply can not take on the job of planning and executing a national general election campaign on top of all these things."
Come off it Nigel! Do you really expect us to believe this nonsense?
There has been widespread discontent with your leadership for a long time.
Your dictatorial attitude, with-hunts, very recent disagreements with the NEC and your fellow MEPs, joining forces with the fascist Lega Nord, the OLAF and Police investigations, the £2 million expenses scandal, the Ashford Call Centre fund raising scandal and the Elcom case finally proved too much for even your staunchest supporters.
And your BBC TV interview this morning was laughable. Your attempt to evade questions about the £2 million expenses you claimed as an MEP was truly pathetic and your refusal to say where the money went proves that you have something to hide.
You were very wise to jump before you were pushed. And what a good idea to allow a new leader to carry the can for a wipe-out in the General Election!
Let us not forget that earlier this year even one of your most senior supporters called on you to go.
Here is the letter:
ADDRESS & TELEPHONE NUMBER REMOVED BY JUNIUS
Mr Nigel Farage MEP
c/o ASP7H 146
Rue Wiertz 601047
13th February 2009
As already advised, I went along to the UK Renewal Association Limited meeting in Swindon on the 7th February.
I attach a copy of the programme to which there were very minor - but not significant - amendments.
I told Bruce Lawson that I would like to have an opportunity to speak. That I would be pressing for any action to be delayed until after the 4th June because, otherwise, there would be very severe damage to the UKIP image before the electorate and therefore the end result. That so far as the public are concerned, we have already have a leader who is recognised.
Including the panel there were about 50 people present and I found myself a lone voice.
I did not pull my punches or mince my words.
It was very evident that there was a great deal of animosity towards you personally. This ran from absolute hatred down to total mistrust. From the programme and the speakers, you can no doubt readily identify the worst offenders.
I said that at the Exeter Hustings I had assured you of my total support, that I would go through hell and high water for you but always retain the right to take issue with you on any matter.
That this had happened. That I had always received the utmost courtesy from you and that I had no problem with you. Perhaps the difference between me and the antagonists on the panel (and within the hall generally) is that there was no need for you to look over your shoulder at what I may be up to.
I am very pleased to say that at the end of the meeting I seemed to have won over all the dissenters and there was a commitment from everybody to use their best endeavours to further the cause of UKIP in the European Parliamentary Elections and with a view to securing the best possible result.
On the issue of yourself as leader I did state that a leader needed to be a good orator, charismatic and inspirational and from what I heard from the panel to the point of time when I spoke, I had seen none of these qualities displayed.
My endorsement and support for you was held up to ridicule. Why. My answer very simple. You had been democratically elected as Leader of the Party. I believe strongly in democracy and until such time as you were replaced democratically, that would continue. That I could not see anyone else on the horizon who could remotely take your place within the Party and become, to the people at large, Mr UKIP. Reference was made to the fact you seemed to be very reluctant for any of our other members to have a public image.
Much comment was made, which I heartily endorsed - the Country comes before Party. I would add that the Party becomes before the leader and by the same token the Party also comes before any other individual or groups of individuals.
There was strong reference to the need to have the Party fully represented in this Country. Heavy questions as to whether we needed MEPs. I put a strong case for needing the MEPs and drew attention to what they had achieved and particular as regards the Irish Referendum. However, I found myself in sympathy with - and can certainly endorse - the idea of the strong representation in Brussels and also this Country.
For some time I have been advocating that MEPs should not have any voting rights on the NEC but would be entitled to attend and be present as individuals but with no voting rights. I stand by this and would like to see the two tier structure of the Party - in Europe and in this Country.
It is obvious that you do not command the support of a lot of the senior people in the Party.
After the meeting I did speak to some of the leading antagonists and I said that I would write to you in the following terms:-
That I thought the time had come for you to make preparation to retire as leader of UKIP. That this was KEPT UNDER WRAPS until after 4th June.
That the announcement was made in advance of the 2009 Annual Conference or perhaps even at the Conference but that you may find this very difficult.
That there would be a strong case for having a new leader elected, recognised - in both the Party and the Country - in advance of the next Annual Conference.
There had been a lot of criticism of you personally, linked to certain happenings and events. Also against other MEPs, with John Whittaker and Godfrey Bloom particularly mentioned.
I personally will always value the opportunity to have supported you. Thanking you for the tremendous amount of work you have done both for the Party and the country and I would hope that the passage of time will enable even your strongest antagonists to reflect and appreciate this point.
I am sure that you will take this letter in the spirit in which it is written and that we will retain our very good relationship.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Bruce Lawson. I believe in total openness. I have always considered that what people see of me is what I am and I dare to believe that the decision by everyone present to fully support the 4th June Campaign resulted from my total openness and frankness.
Perhaps I can consider that I have saved the party’s European campaign. Who knows, I may be able to claim - if you accept my recommendations regarding your retirement as leader - to have also saved the Party.
Yours very sincerely
End of letter.
As you can see Farage finally decided to follow his advice.
But don't be surprised if Nigel - like Napoleon - is recalled from Elba to save UKIP after his successor leads UKIP to disaster at the General Election. Farage can be very Machiavellian when he wants to be!
I can also confirm that Gerard Batten and Trevor Colman have been unhappy with Farage’s leadership for sometime. Both are very relieved that he has finally decided to go.
Gerard Batten is unlikely to stand for the leadership as he regards it as a “poisoned chalice”. Nuttall is Farage’s favoured successor and has already indicated he wants the job. Bannerman also wants the leadership.
Both would be a disaster. Both have actively colluded with Farage to turn UKIP into a centralised dictatorship and both are thoroughly tainted by EUKIP corruption.
Only Trevor Colman or John Bufton can be considered fit to lead UKIP. Many UKIPPERS hope that they will throw their hats into the ring - Junius included.