Stuart Wheeler - Treasurer, UK Independent Party HARDtalk

war. Now on BBC News, it's time for

Welcome to HARDtalk. When voters feel angry they look for ways to

punish their political masters. That is one powerful factor behind

the rise of the UK Independence Party, UKIP, a populist anti-EU,

anti-immigration movement fuelled by frustration with the status quo.

My guest today is UKIP's Treasurer Stuart Wheeler. Like many UKIP

followers he used to support the Conservatives. So, how can he

justify the damage he's now doing Stuart Wheeler, welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you. There's no doubt that your party UKIP is enjoying a surge

in support. But without rise comes new scrutiny. Do you think you are

ready for the scrutiny that is coming your way? We are not

completely ready. All our policies are up for consideration, like all

other party policies at the moment. But we are going to be ready for

the scrutiny when it comes. One of your senior MEPs, Godfrey Bloom,

earlier this year was involved in an e-mail exchange with you,

discussing the organisation of the party. I paraphrase, he said that

when more than two UKIP activists get together it is impossible to

get any decisions made. He said organising the party was like

herding cats. I am not sure he was referring specifically to our party

as opposed to others. But of course when you have a lot of people

together, not just two, they all tend to think of themselves as

experts on whatever particular piece of policy is being discussed.

And they are happy to discuss their own views. A lot of your members

have prejudice, don't they? I am not sure what you mean by that. A

lot of people have prejudice. You have to define that. If one looks

at the record of some of your members, some of your activists,

they have had links with the British National Party, others have

expressed it... Hold on.Others have expressed fears that are

openly her -- anti-homosexual. sure there is the odd person in our

party, like there is undoubtedly in every other party, who is anti-

homosexual, and he this and that. we are more prejudice in that kind

of way than others. We are the only party that makes it a rule that if

you have been a member of the BNP, however long ago, you can't be a

number of UKIP. But it seems there are people who were members of the

MP who want to be members of UKIP and, during the last council

election can -- campaign, several got into positions where they were

candidates for your party. And then you had to vet them post facto and

tell them they could not run. had about 1,700 candidates. We are

not big enough to make a close investigation of every candidate. I

don't know about several. A couple did get through without Al

realising it, that is true. When you tell me you don't have any

truck with former BNP people, you don't really know. Because you have

just said your vetting procedures are not capable of reading those

people out. There were two people we fail to weed out. In future we

will be better. Two isn't bad. I am not worried about that. We are the

only party that has that rule, that says something, doesn't it? It says

you are committed to something you can't deliver. We can deliver...

Justice as well as any other party. I am sure there are some members of

the BNP that are now part of the Conservative Party. They don't have

the rule against it. Going back to issues about homosexuality. One

loud activists in the south of England recently declared gay sex

to be disgusting on a website. He said, what irritates me is the way

they, homosexuals, and their lefty followers want to force the rest of

us to consider them as normal. Has he been chucked out of the party?

He has not been. He is rather up to four -- express himself forcibly. I

disagree with what he says. The party disagrees with what he has

said. But people can express their own views. So, there is room for

what many would call homophobia inside your party? $YELLOW Only in

the sense that in any party people are allowed to express their views.

There's no more room in our party than any other party. I think he

would find that in other parties, people deemed to be homophobic

would be told they are no longer welcome. I don't know whether that

is true. I haven't seen this particular thing that you have

quoted to me. I presume you got it right. Was that recently? It was.

Nigel Farage saw it and he said, to those who said this man had no

place in UKIP, if you are suggesting we should become so

politically correct that we keep out anyone who holds a slightly

old-fashioned view, frankly that would be the death of debate in

politics in Britain. I think that is right. There is room for people

who are anti- homosexual. There is room for prejudice? Inside your

party? In any party. You can't pick out your party based on who is

prejudiced and to is not. You have a small example of instances but I

am sure you could find that in the Conservatives, Labour or Lib Dems.

Let's talk about organisation. When I opened up this idea that you are

under new scrutiny, you also face new challenges. A soaring poll

rating and more councillors than perhaps you anticipated after local

elections. Organisation becomes much more important. It does indeed.

And money. You know a lot about money. You are the treasurer of the

party. I believe in the last quarter you raised something like

�75,000. He's that sort of money going to be enough to turn you into

a credible national party? -- is that. Our income in the last

quarter was well over that. I am talking about raised donations.

need to increase the amount of money. You could not be more right.

We have substantially. But one thing that has helped us is our

membership went up from 200 in early December to around 26,500

today. They all pay their subscriptions. If we get an extra

100 members every day, as we have been, that will help and it is

already helping. What you need is a really massive supportive donor,

somebody very rich. Use it before the as the man who gave the single

biggest political donation in the history of the United Kingdom. �5

million. But you gave it to the Conservative Party when he

supported them. That is true. I was a great deal more which them then

and now. How much are you prepared to give UKIP to deliver the victory

you want? Nobody has ever given promises about the future. But I

have given them over the past, whatever the period is, a bit over

half a million. Less than one-tenth of what you gave the Conservatives.

As I said, my circumstances are very different. I don't want to go

too far into a personal bank statements but I find your

philosophy interesting because UKIP prides itself on, in a sense,

challenging the political elites and the political establishment.

But your personal message how -- has always been that if you have

money and you want to spend it in politics, you should be free to

spend and give as much as you like and get the influence that comes

with that. Is that still your view? You are exactly right. That is my

view. Dozen that innocence sit uneasily with the notion that UKIP

is trying to bring down the old political elite? I don't see the

connection. But you are saying money in politics is a good thing

and should continue. I think people should spend their money as they

want, including giving it to a political party. So, the rich and

ultra rich should continue to have come up with all intents and

purposes, an inside track to those in power? Win is a inside track,

first of all they should not have an inside track to being a peer or

anything like that. -- When you say. That should be stopped. But also in

business. They should not be able to buy business favours because

that should be made public, in the same way that MPs have to register

their business interests, so I believe should be donors. OK. We

have spoken about organisation and the nature of your membership.

Let's not talk about the policies. That is what matters most to any

political party. And let's start, as we have to come up with Europe.

That is the foundation stone of UKIP. The notion, as your party

sees it, that Britain must sever its ties with the European Union.

Now, you have made a transition on this because, even a couple of

years ago, you were not sure that Britain should use the EU. I was

sure a couple of years ago. And, for several years before that, I

wasn't very dissatisfied with the Conservative Party, of which I was

four years ago supportive of that. You say you were convinced a couple

of years ago. In 2010 you wrote a paper, a crisis of trust. Idea.In

that you said you do not necessarily want to leave the EU. -

- I did. The our problems and issues if we do. That was three

years ago. For quite a long period, I thought there was very little

chance of renegotiating anything sensible with the European Union.

But perhaps we should give it a go. It then became clearer and clearer

that there was no point in negotiating. They made up their

mind that they would not debate that and would not change anything

significant. So, about... Shortly after the 2010 election, I came to

the conclusion, no. But how do you know that they can't be a

renegotiation which gives Britain what it means, as you see it, in

terms of greater independence from the oppressive yoke of Brussels?

David Cameron's position is pretty much what it appears yours was as

recent as 2010. He says we must renegotiate. I will do that and

once I have done that renegotiation I promise you I will put it before

the British people in an in- out a referendum, which will be held by

2017. But my position is very different. He is very anxious to

stay in the EU. Only if he can negotiate the terms which he things

are right for Britain. But he made it quite clear by dodging the

question by Bill interview was immediately after his speech. Would

you campaign to come out if you don't get what you want? He refused

to answer that. He said even if he got the ability to catch... He said

we should stay in it. You made a fortune. About �90 million in the

financial markets. He developed a motion of spread betting that

became very popular. You were regarded very highly in the city

because you were a huge success. Many of the people who currently

are making a great success of being in business and around the city,

people like Martin Sorrell, Richard Branson, these are the sorts of

people who are saying long and loud, we can't, as a country, afford to

consider leaving the European Union. There are a lot of people like that

to take that view. There are a very large number who do not take that

view. In particular, the big businessmen, like the ones you have

discussed, can afford that. They can afford the appalling regulation

that has been imposed on us by the EU. Small businesses, people who

are absolutely essential for us to grow, can't stand this regulation.

And they are much more, and rightly, Do you seriously think that type of

manufacturer, thinking of something like the car industry, with they

want to do that? We would lose investment from overseas. There is

no evidence to back that would be the case. I think that they would

realise that we would flourish outside of the EU. I believe they

would be anxious to invest with us. What about Barack Obama seeing as

recently as last week to David Cameron that UK membership of the

EU is an expression of the UK's influence UN role in the world?

That was a help to us. It was not quite as far double as what Kenneth

Clarke said the other day. -- quite as voluble. People are expressing

views about what we should be doing. At one to be clear that I am

understanding you correctly. -- I want to be. You are telling me that

the president of the genetic States, when he declares his view what is

to write and best thing for Britain to do, you think that can be

dismissed by the British public and British politicians. The President

of the United States does not know anything like as much about the

position of being tied to Europe as we do. It is one of his many

concerns. He must think about how it affects his foot was. It is not

relevant to a consideration by a British water about whether we

should be in the EU are not. -- British voter. If a British voter

has any sense, he would come to the conclusion we should be out.

fact that the United States sees Britain as an important player

inside the EU, inside NATO, and that Britain's international

standing to a real extent is linked to our membership... The country is

damaged by it. If we were not in the EU, we would have a seat at the

World Trade Organisation. We do not because they negotiate on our

behalf. Their interests in many cases are different from ours.

Again, I am intrigued to follow this argument through. The fact

that the EU is negotiating a free- trade deal with the United States

but independent economists have said could be up to �10 billion to

the UK economy, that to you should be no argument for staying inside

the European Union? No, because we can negotiate our own free-trade

agreement with the US. The US will be bothered about negotiating with

the UK? Of course they are. They have it with lots of people. A how

important to you think we are? How big a deal is Britain? Of course we

are important enough. We have a lot of trade with the United States.

They are one or far big allies and when a fire big trading partners.

If all the nations and the world at the trading -- all the nations in

the world of free-trading agreements with each other. It is

only the EU that has is ludicrous customs agreement. Look at the

policy offering of UKIP at the moment. Many people worry that very

little has be fleshed out. You sort of admitted that you sell. I did

not say that. We had a full manifesto for the recent local

elections. We had a wonderful result. Naturally, everything has

to be thought out again. It will be between now and the European

elections and certainly the Westminster elections. Is it

possible people voted for you not so much because they love your

manifesto but more out of anger and frustration? The air is an element

of that. -- there is. Lord Ashcroft published his polls. Getting out of

the EU is the most important thing but there were three more important

things. One is immigration, another is law and order and the other is

the economy. People thought we were best at all of those. More

important than that, not policy, but they understand that people

like me tell the truth and to not going for political correctness.

Tell the truth. Is it the truth when Nigel Farage takes out a

newspaper advertisement just the other day in regard to immigration

and says the current government is "opening the door to 29 million

Bulgarians and Romanians from the 1st January, 2014." is that

strictly true? Yes. He is opening the door. You know as well as I do

that words matter. When he says opening the door to 29 million

people, the implication is that there is a possibility 20 rent

people will come. You know as well as I do that very few will come. --

29 million people will come. are trying to twist his words. He

was exactly right in saying that. He said 20 a million people will be

entitled to come. That does not imply to anyone... -- 29 million

people. He did not say are entitled. He said opening the door to 20 in

million people. No one could possibly have read that as a

suggestion that 29 million people would come. The idea that Nigel

Farage has peddled of a freeze on all immigration for at least five

years, that is still policy, is it? That is not exactly right. People

who want to come here to work will be entitled to come if we need

their skills and not otherwise. People for one to come here to live,

with very few exceptions, will not be allowed to come. This country is

tremendously fool already. We have the same population as France for

example and half the area. I just wonder whether business will find

that an attractive policy, given the way that business clearly in

many areas do lies on overseas workers. There is a trade-off. --

relies. If you can get people from Europe to do work that people from

here could possibly be doing, that may benefit business by lowering

the wages but it does not benefit the workers are far country. We

have a duty towards them. When it comes to the economy, you have a

flat tax as a proposal. Massive cuts in public expenditure but, at

the same time, a huge increase in defence expenditure. You say that

can be married to slashing the country's debt. I am just

struggling in pure mathematical terms to see how any of that makes

sense. I think it does. First of all we would eliminate a larch -- a

large amount of spending. That is what this Government says they are

doing. We have not had an opportunity to show. We cannot say

what the Government has said. That is no one so. We would reduce

foreign aid. That is a pinprick in terms of the national budget.

you are talking about a whole of 100 million, that is 40 million. It

is not a pinprick. If one looks at the sums, -- 40 million, --. You

would be giving a huge pay-off to the richest in the society with a

flat tax alone. Cutting the top rate of tax. The universal rate of

tax was 31 %. It would give the richest in this country the biggest

pay-day of their lives. It was a top rate of tax of 40 % not so long

ago. That was until the Labour government, in fact. The rich paid

far more tax then than they had paid in the past. The idea that

cutting tax for the rich reduces the amount that they pay has been

shown over and over and over again to be quite wrong. It actually

increases the amount that they pay because they do not bother to go

and live abroad or to use complicated tax avoidance and so on.

Final thought, you are facing a real choice when it comes to

British politics. You can either choose to reach out to the

Conservatives and try to work with them, rather than destroy them. Or,

it seems you can do real damage to them and maybe in the election your

presence will enable the Labour Party to become the biggest party,

may be the majority party. What is it you want? We want to get out of

the European Union. If it had not been for us, the Prime Minister but

never in a month of Sundays have guaranteed that if he gets elected,

and it is a big if, that there will be a referendum. It is about

pressurising the Conservatives. We make it more likely that we will

achieve what is absolutely the best thing for this country which is our

exit from the European Union. you want to do a deal with the

Conservatives before the next election? Nigel Farage said he

would be prepared to considerate but only if David Cameron was no

longer deliver. What he might consider is to do deals inside

constituency -- constituencies, from one candidate to the other. A

dealer think he would do a party to party deal at the moment. I think

not. Do you think, in the end, as a former supporter of the

Conservative Party, the biggest donor ever in the party's history,

do you think that there is a strong possibility that your rise will be

part of a story that sees the break-up of the Conservative Party

as we currently know it? I think it is possible. It does not bother me.