Well, according to 2 Blog Masters of:
http://JuniusOnUKIP.blogspot.com
http://CaterpillarsAndButterflies.blogspot.com
It looks as if plans were afoot for UKIP to do a deal with the Tories at the next General Election. Alledgedly, a Press Officer by the name of Clive Page, while in 'his cups' (heaven forefend) it is claimed that:
Nigel was willing to do a deal with David Cameron if the price was right. Nigel offered to withdraw all of UKIP’s parliamentary candidates if Cameron allowed UKIP to stand uncontested in three safe Tory seats. As you would expect, Nigel wanted a seat. The others seats would go to David Bannerman and Bob Spink.
Whilst we at Political Gossip UK cannot fully account for the veracity of this statement, we have found that Junius has a consistent level of veracity and our research into the hierarchy of UKIP shows:
Nigel Farage MEP - UKIP Leader - former Young Tory and Tory Party Member and Thatcherite Adulant
Roger Knapman MEP - UKIP Previous Leader - Former Tory MP and Whip
Lord Pearson of Rannock - Formerly Tory Party Peer
Lord Willoughby De Broke - Formerly Tory Party Peer
Earl of Dartmouth - Formerly Tory Party Peer
Robert Spink MP - Former Tory MP - Then UKIP - Now Independent
David Bannerman - UKIP Deputy Leader - Former Tory Party Member and Political Ass.
Gawain Towler - UKIP/Ind Dem Group Press Office - Former Tory Party Member and PPC hopeful
Piers Merchant - Asst to Roger Knapman - Former Tory MP
Stephen Sobey (Neville) - UKIP Press Office - Always a Tory Member even when in UKIP
etc etc and many dozens more.
(We need not mention Geoffrey Titford MEP and Mike Natrass MEP former extreme Right Wing (Delderfield's) Party members).
Should we be surprised at an attempted deal?
We think not?
The only explanation we can give for the incredibly poor performance of UKIP since 2004 has to be one of deliberateness - after all, no-one could behave as pathetically, and achieve so little at such cost, unless deliberate.
Could they?
If these people are so desperate to rejoin the Tories, why wait for Cameron to agree - we can 'show you the way to GO HOME'
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
New Political Party Being Considered - Rumour or Fact?
It's very unlike us to quote rumour, but a number of sources are suggesting that a contingent of the British Democracy Forum members are considering setting up their own political party in view of the alledged apparent failure of UKIP to achieve its goals.
We were all aware of the 'Grass Roots' and 'Phoenix' attempts at creating a 'counter leadership group' from within the UKIP structure, but this seems to be very different. With the departure of Geoffrey Kingscott (former UKIP General Secretary)we all assumed this was an end to the infraction. However this appears not to be so.
This is only 'rumour' at present, as we understand that no formal meetings have been held. Despite this, we are aware that many members, and active 'ex-members' of UKIP, are very unhappy with the more 'extreme' and increasingly 'dictatorial' methods adopted by Nigel Farage and his 'inner circle'. Many are suggesting that he is 'deliberately destroying the anti-EU cause' for preferment in another 'Political Grouping' to be announced after the Euro Elections.
With UKIP already under fire from the Electoral Commission, Legal Actions pending, appalling election results of late, a new 'alternative Party' will just be another nail in the coffin for this potentially once 'Great Political Party movement'.
We were all aware of the 'Grass Roots' and 'Phoenix' attempts at creating a 'counter leadership group' from within the UKIP structure, but this seems to be very different. With the departure of Geoffrey Kingscott (former UKIP General Secretary)we all assumed this was an end to the infraction. However this appears not to be so.
This is only 'rumour' at present, as we understand that no formal meetings have been held. Despite this, we are aware that many members, and active 'ex-members' of UKIP, are very unhappy with the more 'extreme' and increasingly 'dictatorial' methods adopted by Nigel Farage and his 'inner circle'. Many are suggesting that he is 'deliberately destroying the anti-EU cause' for preferment in another 'Political Grouping' to be announced after the Euro Elections.
With UKIP already under fire from the Electoral Commission, Legal Actions pending, appalling election results of late, a new 'alternative Party' will just be another nail in the coffin for this potentially once 'Great Political Party movement'.
Monday, November 24, 2008
More Legal Action Against UKIP
Well it does appear that UKIP is now facing yet another Court battle.
With the outcome due of the Judicial Review into the recent trial resulting in UKIP being found guilty for accepting 'inadmissable donations' we now have a number of Party members sueing UKIP for 'alledged' election selection malpractices.
Dedicated Party workers John and Alison West have apparently lodged an action against UKIP for breaches in its MEP selection procedures. There is also rumour that 1 or possibly 2 individuals may be taking senior Party members to Court for 'libel/and/or/slander' - we shall have to wait and see.
All of these distractions when the Party should be in full swing in preparing for the EU elections. Where is the LEADERSHIP? is what we ask.
With the outcome due of the Judicial Review into the recent trial resulting in UKIP being found guilty for accepting 'inadmissable donations' we now have a number of Party members sueing UKIP for 'alledged' election selection malpractices.
Dedicated Party workers John and Alison West have apparently lodged an action against UKIP for breaches in its MEP selection procedures. There is also rumour that 1 or possibly 2 individuals may be taking senior Party members to Court for 'libel/and/or/slander' - we shall have to wait and see.
All of these distractions when the Party should be in full swing in preparing for the EU elections. Where is the LEADERSHIP? is what we ask.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Former UKIP Party Secretary and NEC Member believes British Democracy Forum has been infilitrated by MI5
Shown below is correspondence from a former UKIP Party Secretary and current NEC member - Mr Douglas Denny - to Anthony Butcher of the British Democracy Forum stating that 'the Forum' has a 'high probability' of being infiltrated (or even controlled)by MI5.
Really Mr Denny? Well 'as a scientist' (though we thought you were an optician), perhaps you should study a little closer the posts made on the Democracy Forum. Most appear to be childish name calling and petty arguements (of late at least) or a means by which 'Leadership supporters' can criticise and hurl abuse at 'Leadership detractors' - in fact we at Political Blogspot UK have noticed you to have been one of the main culprits.
Why on earth MI5 would be remotely interested in 'infiltrating' what has become 'a children's playground for name calling' is beyond us. Perhaps Mr Denny MI5 has also infiltrated 'Slumberland Beds' - afterall 'pillow talk' can be most revealing.
With people like this in charge of UKIP is it surprising the Party is making so little progress?
Tony.
It appears you think it fanciful for me to be suspicious of your website possibly (note the caveat) being a set-up of MI5, or linked in some way.
I will send you separately at the end of my text an article about Julia Pirie, which will indicate (as a typical example) of why that is entirely possible, or to put another way - not completely implausible.
I am a scientist and I know that nothing is certain (except for humans death and taxes). Everything therefore can only have a probability value given to it. Even some of the most fundamental things known in physics end up as probability values only - when we know enough about them. The whole of quantum mechanics is about probabilities for example.
I can tell you that the probability of there being a file in MI5 headquarters Millbank on you, and me, and everyone who appears on your forum is almost 1.0 (100%).
That MI5 takes a very keen interest in political individuals and parties is well known - and that means everyone, even those in government (although there is not supposed to be surveillance of MPs - there is no doubt discrete investigation all the time). This country is good at it and has been doing it for centuries.
I used to have a friend who was ex-MI5 who spent a lot of his time going around the country keeping people who were in the Communist party under surveillance. Some of those people are now in the present Labour government.
If you think MI5 does NOT keep a close eye on the BNP, or UKIP or the Greens or any other political organisation especially small parties you are naive. MI5 has been recruiting hundreds of new people in the last couple of years just to be able to monitor the Muslim threat alone within the UK. There was an announcement in the newspapers recently from the head of national security in governement that there are something like 10,000 Muslin suspects in Britain currently under surveillance. How do you think they keep an eye on these people?
In the case of your forum.....
Let us make a few hypothetical extrapolations just for the fun of it to test the credibility some of these hypotheses, and ask is it likely; just credible?; just possible? or just plain unlikely.
Suppose I was an MI5 controller in the political section, UK; and I wanted to keep tabs on UKIP activists. How best to do it?
First and foremost one needs membership lists. (NO problem - lots of ways to obtain them). Having obtained them, second, how to keep and eye on the attitudes of activists?
.... well you could set-up a website now we are into modern information technology, specifically dealing with UKIP issues - and monitor it for the activity. Anyone who says "I believe it is time to blow up parliament" - Bingo! you have someone to look more carefully at don't you?
Now GLW used to do this kind of work for MI5 in the 'old' days before the internet - How?
By putting adverts into magazines like 'Combat Magazine' with offers for weapons and suchlike. Then all he had to do was filter the results and put any suspicious characters under surveillance. Simple. Standard fishing exercise. They no doubt do that now with Muslin organisations/publications/internet activity.
Now what is the probability your site is like this? What is the possibility it was set-up deliberately to do this? - that will have a prob. value.
What about the possibility of being approached later for information feed to MI5? (personal information and real-time current logging data etc).. higher probability again than first. This is normal procedure, for example: All of the large newspapers have links through specific journalists with the newspaper monitoring its content.
What about being part of some external network other than MI5 for political surveillance? - another prob. value.... higher than most of the above.
What is the probability it is just a simple wenbsite set-up by a computer buff after leaving UNi to make a bob or two ..higher probability yet again than any above......
....... but that does not eliminate any of the above!
Now do you think I am so daft as to not consider these things? Particularly in view of the sustained anti-UKIP stance of this site over some years, with little pro-UKIP encouragement from the site owner?
What do I think the probability values are? ... not telling.
And THEN there is infiltration ....... a much bigger ball game altogether with a new set of parameters to consider....
If you think I am fantasising, read this obituary from the Telegraph recently (29 the Oct):-
(sent separately):
or here is a link:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...lia-Pirie.html
Regards,
Douglas.
Really Mr Denny? Well 'as a scientist' (though we thought you were an optician), perhaps you should study a little closer the posts made on the Democracy Forum. Most appear to be childish name calling and petty arguements (of late at least) or a means by which 'Leadership supporters' can criticise and hurl abuse at 'Leadership detractors' - in fact we at Political Blogspot UK have noticed you to have been one of the main culprits.
Why on earth MI5 would be remotely interested in 'infiltrating' what has become 'a children's playground for name calling' is beyond us. Perhaps Mr Denny MI5 has also infiltrated 'Slumberland Beds' - afterall 'pillow talk' can be most revealing.
With people like this in charge of UKIP is it surprising the Party is making so little progress?
Tony.
It appears you think it fanciful for me to be suspicious of your website possibly (note the caveat) being a set-up of MI5, or linked in some way.
I will send you separately at the end of my text an article about Julia Pirie, which will indicate (as a typical example) of why that is entirely possible, or to put another way - not completely implausible.
I am a scientist and I know that nothing is certain (except for humans death and taxes). Everything therefore can only have a probability value given to it. Even some of the most fundamental things known in physics end up as probability values only - when we know enough about them. The whole of quantum mechanics is about probabilities for example.
I can tell you that the probability of there being a file in MI5 headquarters Millbank on you, and me, and everyone who appears on your forum is almost 1.0 (100%).
That MI5 takes a very keen interest in political individuals and parties is well known - and that means everyone, even those in government (although there is not supposed to be surveillance of MPs - there is no doubt discrete investigation all the time). This country is good at it and has been doing it for centuries.
I used to have a friend who was ex-MI5 who spent a lot of his time going around the country keeping people who were in the Communist party under surveillance. Some of those people are now in the present Labour government.
If you think MI5 does NOT keep a close eye on the BNP, or UKIP or the Greens or any other political organisation especially small parties you are naive. MI5 has been recruiting hundreds of new people in the last couple of years just to be able to monitor the Muslim threat alone within the UK. There was an announcement in the newspapers recently from the head of national security in governement that there are something like 10,000 Muslin suspects in Britain currently under surveillance. How do you think they keep an eye on these people?
In the case of your forum.....
Let us make a few hypothetical extrapolations just for the fun of it to test the credibility some of these hypotheses, and ask is it likely; just credible?; just possible? or just plain unlikely.
Suppose I was an MI5 controller in the political section, UK; and I wanted to keep tabs on UKIP activists. How best to do it?
First and foremost one needs membership lists. (NO problem - lots of ways to obtain them). Having obtained them, second, how to keep and eye on the attitudes of activists?
.... well you could set-up a website now we are into modern information technology, specifically dealing with UKIP issues - and monitor it for the activity. Anyone who says "I believe it is time to blow up parliament" - Bingo! you have someone to look more carefully at don't you?
Now GLW used to do this kind of work for MI5 in the 'old' days before the internet - How?
By putting adverts into magazines like 'Combat Magazine' with offers for weapons and suchlike. Then all he had to do was filter the results and put any suspicious characters under surveillance. Simple. Standard fishing exercise. They no doubt do that now with Muslin organisations/publications/internet activity.
Now what is the probability your site is like this? What is the possibility it was set-up deliberately to do this? - that will have a prob. value.
What about the possibility of being approached later for information feed to MI5? (personal information and real-time current logging data etc).. higher probability again than first. This is normal procedure, for example: All of the large newspapers have links through specific journalists with the newspaper monitoring its content.
What about being part of some external network other than MI5 for political surveillance? - another prob. value.... higher than most of the above.
What is the probability it is just a simple wenbsite set-up by a computer buff after leaving UNi to make a bob or two ..higher probability yet again than any above......
....... but that does not eliminate any of the above!
Now do you think I am so daft as to not consider these things? Particularly in view of the sustained anti-UKIP stance of this site over some years, with little pro-UKIP encouragement from the site owner?
What do I think the probability values are? ... not telling.
And THEN there is infiltration ....... a much bigger ball game altogether with a new set of parameters to consider....
If you think I am fantasising, read this obituary from the Telegraph recently (29 the Oct):-
(sent separately):
or here is a link:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obit...lia-Pirie.html
Regards,
Douglas.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Disappointed in British Democracy Forum's Anthony Butcher
This site has been a keen follower and supporter of Anthony Butcher's British Democracy Forum until now. We are hugely disappointed at the number of threads he is closing down, claiming personal attacks ??????? Anthony, over the past 2 years, your site has been made up of nothing but personal attacks.
Our concern is that to date you have allowed personal attacks on decent members of UKIP by what some regard as the 'ruling cabal', but as soon as someone retaliates i.e. a certain GL-W, you close the thread. This is most unusual and suspicious to say the least.
Conspiracy theorists may ask whether you are a secret supporter of the UKIP Leadership, whilst pretending not to be. We at Political Gossip UK believe you should have the courage of your convictions and state whether you are or are not. Either way, an honest approach is better than an apparent duplicitous one.
Of increasing concern is one of your recent posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.N.Warry
IMO Butcher's response of sticking with the status quo is lacking in imagination and seems to accept leaving corruption alone is OK for a quiet life. Well I say coruption of any kind must be fought regardless of the consequences to UKIP. Fortunately I believe the best result for UK plc is if UKIP under Nigel do very badly. This way we may just get something better developing in its place.
Even from a critic's point of view, Farage has to be allowed to stand in the EU elections as UKIP leader. This is his grand plan - to double the number of UKIP MEPs (to 18 or 24, it isn't clear). If and when UKIP fails, and perhaps ends up with just three or four MEPs, then Farage will lose all credibility as a leader and will have to step aside for someone completely fresh to take over.. and that means someone who isn't in his trusted circle... which means someone who doesn't hold any position in the leadership at the moment.We can argue on this forum forever about his faults, but political leaders stand and fall on election results.
No one expected UKIP to do well in the General Election or the local elections, but the EU elections are a completely different matter. Farage has been given far more leniency by the party than most other party leaders would ever have had, but he has one big chance to prove himself.
It is far too late for a new leader to have any chance of making an impact on the party now in time for the elections.So if you are a UKIP member I would urge you to stop plotting to oust him and let him get on with it for the moment. That doesn't mean that his leadership decisions shouldn't be criticised - that is only healthy - but attacks for the sake of attacks won't achieve anything. If you think that he is doomed to fail anyway, then don't provide him with more excuses to try to worm his way out of it afterwards.
You and a few others will probably be out of the party soon anyway, so this is probably a pointless post!
Well, we do not agree. If someone has cancer, you cut it out. If someone is robbing you, you don't just sit back and say well lets see where it ends? This is very weak Anthony and we are surprised.
Our concern is that to date you have allowed personal attacks on decent members of UKIP by what some regard as the 'ruling cabal', but as soon as someone retaliates i.e. a certain GL-W, you close the thread. This is most unusual and suspicious to say the least.
Conspiracy theorists may ask whether you are a secret supporter of the UKIP Leadership, whilst pretending not to be. We at Political Gossip UK believe you should have the courage of your convictions and state whether you are or are not. Either way, an honest approach is better than an apparent duplicitous one.
Of increasing concern is one of your recent posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.N.Warry
IMO Butcher's response of sticking with the status quo is lacking in imagination and seems to accept leaving corruption alone is OK for a quiet life. Well I say coruption of any kind must be fought regardless of the consequences to UKIP. Fortunately I believe the best result for UK plc is if UKIP under Nigel do very badly. This way we may just get something better developing in its place.
Even from a critic's point of view, Farage has to be allowed to stand in the EU elections as UKIP leader. This is his grand plan - to double the number of UKIP MEPs (to 18 or 24, it isn't clear). If and when UKIP fails, and perhaps ends up with just three or four MEPs, then Farage will lose all credibility as a leader and will have to step aside for someone completely fresh to take over.. and that means someone who isn't in his trusted circle... which means someone who doesn't hold any position in the leadership at the moment.We can argue on this forum forever about his faults, but political leaders stand and fall on election results.
No one expected UKIP to do well in the General Election or the local elections, but the EU elections are a completely different matter. Farage has been given far more leniency by the party than most other party leaders would ever have had, but he has one big chance to prove himself.
It is far too late for a new leader to have any chance of making an impact on the party now in time for the elections.So if you are a UKIP member I would urge you to stop plotting to oust him and let him get on with it for the moment. That doesn't mean that his leadership decisions shouldn't be criticised - that is only healthy - but attacks for the sake of attacks won't achieve anything. If you think that he is doomed to fail anyway, then don't provide him with more excuses to try to worm his way out of it afterwards.
You and a few others will probably be out of the party soon anyway, so this is probably a pointless post!
Well, we do not agree. If someone has cancer, you cut it out. If someone is robbing you, you don't just sit back and say well lets see where it ends? This is very weak Anthony and we are surprised.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Former UKIP General Secretary Resigns Party
Former UKIP General Secretary - Mr Geoffrey Kingscott - has resigned from UKIP stating that he now hopes that it will not be electorally successful.
What is actually going on inside UKIP to encourage such a major stalwart/supporter to do a 180% about turn and not only resign but wish the Party to which he has been dedicated to fail?
No doubt the Party line will state that he was a suspect BNP infiltrator all along.
Best regards
Geoffrey Kingscott,
Writer and Translator
What is actually going on inside UKIP to encourage such a major stalwart/supporter to do a 180% about turn and not only resign but wish the Party to which he has been dedicated to fail?
No doubt the Party line will state that he was a suspect BNP infiltrator all along.
Although recently I have been critical of how the party is being led, I was still always wanting the party to win, as Britain's only hope. But I have now altogether lost faith. Suddenly I find I no longer want UKIP to be electorally successful, since I feel UKIP tarnishes the cause for which it ostensibly stands.
It is now just the Nigel-Farage Party I always said I would never resign, since it was my party as much as it was Nigel Farage's,but this sudden loss of faith these last ten days has made me realise it would not be honest to continue as a member.
My earlier idea had been that if I felt that the leadership was lacking, e.g. over opposition to the Lisbon Treaty, then we should remedy the lack, which was what we started to do with the Stop the Treaty rally. I was also keen on the idea that as so many activists had left UKIP over the years, those of us still in UKIP should build bridges to them. I now find that we (those of us who had stayed with UKIP) are now the junior partner here, and there are now more patriots outside UKIP than remain inside.
Even though I now find there is no light at the end of the tunnel, I respect those who somehow still feel they must stay inside the fold and fight there.
I remember the arguments I myself put in the past to try to persuade others to stay. Nor do I hold no animus against those who feel they must continue to support Nigel Farage. I am as sharp a critic as any of actions or inactions, but I cannot bring myself to dislike persons. I have always hated the personal vituperation and character assassination that is rife in someUKIP quarters in both supporters and critics of the leadership.
The worst of these have been the frustrated rants of Greg Lance Watkins, which are widely circulated but so crude as to verge on the silly, and the much more professionally composed black propaganda of Mark Croucher, an expert at making bricks without straw. I shall be glad to leave all that behind.
Although I have been critical inside the party, outside I have been apassionate spokesman for it. In my own town of Long Eaton many people know my name only as the representative of UKIP. My friends and relations have come to avoid getting on to the subject of politics with me; I had become a UKIP bore to them. It is going to be a personal embarrassment having to go public with an admission that I now find UKIP unfit for purpose.
I will blind-copy this to all the friends and acquaintances in UKIP. As I have got a lot on my plate at the moment - not only long-term commitments tobook publishers but also a short-term writing contract with tightdeadlines - I emphatically do not want to spend any time in telephone discussions. But I will try to reply to emails. However, now I have made my decision, UKIP is the past, it's a dead duck as far as I am concerned, and I no longer interested in discussing what is happening inside it.
Best regards
Geoffrey Kingscott,
Writer and Translator
Friday, November 14, 2008
NEC Member Davd Abbott Blasts UKIP Leadership
UKIP NEC Member Dr. David Abbott blasts UKIP leadership and 'cronies'.
In an outburst email to a political blogger - Mr A Edwards, Dr Abbott accuses the NEC and leadership of scurrilous and dishonest behaviour. One cannot help but think the UKIP wheels are either grinding to a halt or falling off. Shame really the Party originally showed so much promise.
From an email sent to Andrew Edwards:
In an outburst email to a political blogger - Mr A Edwards, Dr Abbott accuses the NEC and leadership of scurrilous and dishonest behaviour. One cannot help but think the UKIP wheels are either grinding to a halt or falling off. Shame really the Party originally showed so much promise.
From an email sent to Andrew Edwards:
Andrew,
A correction.
I have never attended a meeting of American Friends of the BNP. And unlike many UKIP members I have never attended a meeting of the BNP.
All this BNP nonsense is a smokescreen. Mottram was expelled for saying that Farage is a totally useless leader.
UKIP is doing terribly in elections, we get involved in lawsuits that could be avoided, we only have one spokesman, we are losing members and throwing out others as quickly as we can, potential donors hold back for fear their contributions will be misused, there is no training, no pamphlets, no message. Liars and cheaters are promoted.
Ms Fullers Morrocan taxi driver friend posts a video of a respected member, and no one apologises, but the cabal turns on the badly treated member, and our leader defends his alleged girlfriend's actions.
Farage pays his wife, having promised not to. A call centre opens in Ramsgate, run by an ex National Front person, and our Argentinian/Danish treasurer knows nothing of it. Ashford call centre sends less than 15% of its collections to the Party, but the NEC is not allowed to discuss this. Our deputy leader uses a made-up name and is employed by the EU.
And when Buster draws some of this to the attention of the leader, face to face, our press office gets to work to put the BNP smear on him.
And when I post a piece suggesting the benefits of playing by the rules I get tossed off the NEC, to which I was elected and reelected on a platform of keeping to the rules.
And our convicted fraudster of a press officer's flat mate (Marxist, Searchlight collaborator Croucher) libels me day after day.
Rule by Brussels or by UKIP? Its a toss-up.
Cheers
David F Abbott MRCP
John West receives Suspension Letter from UKIP Chairman
Activist and Prospective Parliamentary Candidate John West has received the first of a number of expected 'suspension/dismissal letters' from UKIP Chairman Paul Nuttall. As previously predicted, a number of loyal UKIP members are to find themselves expelled from the Party, they have given much time and money to, just for questionning, and in some cases, disagreeing with, the Leadership.
Whilst the letter is sympathetically phrased, can anyone doubt its sinister undertones?
Letter Contents:
UKIP Head Office
PO Box 408,
Newton Abbot,
Devon
TQ12 9BG
Tel: 01626 831290
Fax: 01626 831348
12 November 2008
Mr John West**Address CUT by GLW.**
Dear John,
Unfortunately, I am today suspending you as UK Independence Party PPC for Ipswich North and Suffolk Central under rule 16.2 of the Constitution. The final decision regarding your candidacy will now be put before the NEC on December 15` 2008.
I am also informing you that there have been a number of serious complains made against you, which have now been passed on to the Party Secretary.
This is particularly hard for me as I have always found you to be hard-working and extremely likable. I also know that you still feel aggrieved by the You Tube scenario and demand an apology. I had a lot of sympathy for you in this matter and I am truly sorry that it happened.
However, your behaviour since that instance has brought the party into disrepute.
You reported the former leader of the party to the Police, without a shred of evidence; you show no remorse for your actions, even though the Police have said there is no case to answer and you now openly claim that the same individual is under investigation by OLAF, also without foundation.
I hope you understand that I cannot allow this situation to continue.
I will repeat that I like you John and have always supported you in the past, but I think you are being manipulated and used by some very unsavoury characters indeed. I therefore take this decision with a heavy heart.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Nuttall
Chairman of the UK Independence Party
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Evening Star - UKIP taken to court by candidate
Evening Star - UKIP taken to court by candidate
UKIP taken to court by candidate
12 November 2008 / 16:17
UKIP Ipswich general election candidate is taking his own party to court following a row over the selection process for becoming a Euro MP.
John West, who will stand for election for UKIP in the North Ipswich and Central Suffolk constituency in the next general election, is demanding a £500 deposit back after failing to get the nod to represent the party at the next European elections due to be held next June.
Mr West declined to reveal details of the dispute but told The Evening Star he has lodged the matter with Ipswich County Court.
UKIP have around three weeks to respond and if the matter is not settled the issue could go before a judge.
Mr West, who is also UKIP chairman for Ipswich and east Suffolk, said: “I can confirm I'm taking legal action against UKIP over the MEP selection process.”
A spokesman for UKIP said: “Mr West underwent the same process as the rest of the candidates.“Unfortunately on this occasion he was not successful.“We gather he is looking for the return of his deposit and the party will look into this at a senior level as soon as it can.”
Ipswich County Court was unable to confirm if a claim has been made.
The East of England constituency has a total of seven MEPs representing the area in Brussels - in 2004 two UKIP candidates were elected from the region.
Oh dear, more dissent and bad publicity for this 'accident prone' political party. Lessons in 'man management' and personnel relations may be required.
UKIP taken to court by candidate
12 November 2008 / 16:17
UKIP Ipswich general election candidate is taking his own party to court following a row over the selection process for becoming a Euro MP.
John West, who will stand for election for UKIP in the North Ipswich and Central Suffolk constituency in the next general election, is demanding a £500 deposit back after failing to get the nod to represent the party at the next European elections due to be held next June.
Mr West declined to reveal details of the dispute but told The Evening Star he has lodged the matter with Ipswich County Court.
UKIP have around three weeks to respond and if the matter is not settled the issue could go before a judge.
Mr West, who is also UKIP chairman for Ipswich and east Suffolk, said: “I can confirm I'm taking legal action against UKIP over the MEP selection process.”
A spokesman for UKIP said: “Mr West underwent the same process as the rest of the candidates.“Unfortunately on this occasion he was not successful.“We gather he is looking for the return of his deposit and the party will look into this at a senior level as soon as it can.”
Ipswich County Court was unable to confirm if a claim has been made.
The East of England constituency has a total of seven MEPs representing the area in Brussels - in 2004 two UKIP candidates were elected from the region.
Oh dear, more dissent and bad publicity for this 'accident prone' political party. Lessons in 'man management' and personnel relations may be required.
Why are so many UKIP British Democracy Forum Members so nasty to one another?
Yesterday, we had a discussion at our offices to try and understand why certain members of the British Democracy Forum are so nasty to each other - especially those members of UKIP.
We researched many postings and found the main culprits to be, Mark Croucher, Bob FM, Michael McGough, Douglas Denny and Junius. On searching the archives further back, other names such as 'Devil's Kitchen', Chad Noble, Bellatrix etc also appear.
We find this most curious. Rather than debate the issues, these individuals appear (to us at least) to continuously attack those who oppose the UKIP leadership or questions their actions.
Loyalty guys is fair enough and should be applauded, but there really is no substitute for sound argument and debate.
We suggest, that if it is truly your intention to have UKIP treated seriously as a 'grown up' political party, then cut the abuse, and debate rationally.
We researched many postings and found the main culprits to be, Mark Croucher, Bob FM, Michael McGough, Douglas Denny and Junius. On searching the archives further back, other names such as 'Devil's Kitchen', Chad Noble, Bellatrix etc also appear.
We find this most curious. Rather than debate the issues, these individuals appear (to us at least) to continuously attack those who oppose the UKIP leadership or questions their actions.
Loyalty guys is fair enough and should be applauded, but there really is no substitute for sound argument and debate.
We suggest, that if it is truly your intention to have UKIP treated seriously as a 'grown up' political party, then cut the abuse, and debate rationally.
GL-W allowed back on to the Democracy Forum
We are pleased to see that GL-W has been allowed to post on the British Democracy Forum after a 12+ month suspension. The poll conducted showed that 27 members supported his return as opposed to 19 against.
Rather amusingly Anthony Butcher, the Forum owner, admitted that GL-W could have posted anyway as the site had failed to block him - a technical hiccup. How kind it was of GL-W not to take advantage of this situation.
In view of the overwhelming support for GL-W one cannot help but ask the Question should he also stand for the 'UKIP Leadership' in 2010? - if so, he should get his Party membership application form in now so as to give him plenty of time to overcome any objections that may arise. After all, he would be a stark contrast to the traditional 'blazer and brogues brigaide'.
Rather amusingly Anthony Butcher, the Forum owner, admitted that GL-W could have posted anyway as the site had failed to block him - a technical hiccup. How kind it was of GL-W not to take advantage of this situation.
In view of the overwhelming support for GL-W one cannot help but ask the Question should he also stand for the 'UKIP Leadership' in 2010? - if so, he should get his Party membership application form in now so as to give him plenty of time to overcome any objections that may arise. After all, he would be a stark contrast to the traditional 'blazer and brogues brigaide'.
Former 'UKIP STAR' appearing in the Jungle
Former UKIP MEP and apparent 'star' Robert Kilroy Silk is appearing in 'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here'.
In view of the information we are receiving on an hourly basis, we believe that none of the other Celebrities attending will have had the indepth experience Robert has had, of hand to hand combat and jungle survival gained whilst at UKIP. In addition the natives may prove more friendly.
It is also likely that by the end of the Program he will smell a little sweeter than he did on Question Time.
In view of the information we are receiving on an hourly basis, we believe that none of the other Celebrities attending will have had the indepth experience Robert has had, of hand to hand combat and jungle survival gained whilst at UKIP. In addition the natives may prove more friendly.
It is also likely that by the end of the Program he will smell a little sweeter than he did on Question Time.
An Apology from Political Gossip UK
We wish to apologise for focussing on UKIP politics at the moment, as opposed to other political parties. The reason we are doing this is, that in fairness, the other Parties have extensive coverage in the media and on the Web which UKIP does not. We are approaching the EU elections shortly and this is the time that UKIP has traditionally done well and therefore becomes more relevant.
Also, we are intrigued at what is going on within UKIP, as it does appear that something of a 'power struggle' has developed, and the Party seems to be heading towards an Authoritarian Prescriptive Dictatorship - rather unusual for a Party that claims to support a degree of libertarianism, free speech and equal rights.
All political commentators are aware that 'politics is a dirty business', but frankly, the authors of this site, genuinely (but naively) believed that UKIP was different - therefore the focus of our interest.
Just thought we would let our readers know.
Also, we are intrigued at what is going on within UKIP, as it does appear that something of a 'power struggle' has developed, and the Party seems to be heading towards an Authoritarian Prescriptive Dictatorship - rather unusual for a Party that claims to support a degree of libertarianism, free speech and equal rights.
All political commentators are aware that 'politics is a dirty business', but frankly, the authors of this site, genuinely (but naively) believed that UKIP was different - therefore the focus of our interest.
Just thought we would let our readers know.
Dr Edmond's suspension from UKIP NEC
UKIP NEC member Dr Eric Edmonds has had charges brought against him by his own NEC. The 'charge sheet' is shown below. (It was taken from another blog - http://caterpillarsandbutterflies.blogspot.com/
Our only comment is that the majority of this rather lengthy dossier is childish (spit spat) in the extreme. Further, it does not appear that Dr Edmond has had the opportunity to defend himself properly. We are just thankful that Dr Edmond has not committed a serious crime, otherwise we would have had to apply for more webspace to print the charge sheet!!!
Whilst not lawyers ourselves, there is one possible saving grace for Dr Edmond - it does appear to enable him to avoid any financial liability that NEC members may have in view of the Party finances during the term of his 'suspension'.
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
A SUBMISSION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONAGAINST DR ERIC EDMOND
Presented on request of the NEC for discussion at theNovember NEC meeting
Introduction
The NEC has the power under the Party Constitution to expel or suspend a member of the NEC for 'unbecoming conduct' under Articles 7.18.4. The intention of this clause is to exclude any NEC member who behaves in such a way as consistently to disrupt the NEC and prevent it from conducting its business in a proper, efficient and orderly manner. This ongoing conduct thereby proves him or herself to be unfit to continue as an NEC member.
By offering Dr Edmond the opportunity to speak at the last NEC and by deferring discussion of the matter to a future NEC, and by providing a copy of this paper in advance to Dr Edmond, the NEC has sought to act reasonably and fairly under the Constitution.
The motion agreed at the 8th September NEC was: "That in view of the indication by Dr Edmond that he wished to have the opportunity to prepare to meet any charges against him, and in view of representations by various NEC members that they wish to have the opportunity of putting forward their own complaints against Dr Edmond, David Campbell Bannerman was invited to prepare a submission for disciplinary action against Dr Edmond under clause 7.18 of the constitution to be heard at the next NEC meeting and with proper notice of at least 7 days being given to Dr Edmond of the content of that submission.”
1. The Charge of ‘Unbecoming Conduct’ Against Dr Eric Edmond, with supporting evidence.The majority view of the NEC is that Dr Eric Edmond has been a consistently disruptive influence on the NEC since he was elected, and that his behaviour needs to improve markedly if he is able to continue as an NEC member. The facts show a clear pattern of disruptive and abusive behaviour, and of contempt for the NEC and its members. This is clear from the evidence cited below:
1.1 Threats to go outside the NEC, and support for police actionDr Edmond has made serious threats against the NEC. For example, he said inan e mail of 25th July "If you persist in this I will have to seek remedies outside the NEC."Dr Edmond supported John West's recurring attacks on UKIP, including seeming to encourage unjustified attempts to instigate police action against the party. In his e mail of 13th August he says to John West and John Whittaker "I urge him to do so as quickly as possible so the police can get on with their investigation as quickly as possible".
1.2 Aggressive personal behaviourEven at his first NEC, on 7th April, Dr Edmond engaged in an aggressive attack on the Leader and his style of leadership. He again attacked Nigel Farage at the 14th July NEC regarding Nigel's use of the Political Committee for political decisions (despite this being made clear as its purpose in the Constitution, and owing to a need to make quick political decisions). Mr Farage explained forcefully that the reason was a lack of trust in the NEC owing to past leaks.
Dr Edmond also engaged in attacks also on Douglas Denny at 14th July NEC, calling him an "idiot", when Mr Denny objected to Edmond's slanderous remarks against Christopher Gill (see below).
In an e mail to Douglas Denny of 2nd September, Edmond rudely says. "you are raving again." This was in response to Mr Denny making reasonable comments which ended in the observation: "All I have seen so far, is a constant tirade [by Dr Edmond] against the "leadership" of UKIP and what appears to be deliberate disruption and promotion of discord in the NEC. What is your agenda ? It does not appear to me to be what you told the membership." and in an e mail of 4th September from Edmond, "your reply is rubbish". As Lisa Duffy made clear in her e mail of 28th September: "The only angry raised voice has been Dr Edmond".
1.3 Bringing the Party into disrepute, by writing to a body UKIP isengaged in a legal dispute with, to make wild and damaging accusations
Dr Edmond has written to the Electoral Commission in the middle of a legal case against the party by that same organisation.
He wrote to Mr Franks of the Electoral Commission on 10th September saying: "I gather you are the investigating officer in charge of investigating alleged financial improprieties at UKIP with a case currently under judicial review. I was expelled from UKIP NEC on Monday. I am deeply concerned about my financial liabilities as while on the NEC party officials stone walled over answering questions on financial matters and in one case gave a completely untruthful answer.
“I copy to you my letter to the residual NEC as record of the date and content of my request for financial information as UKIP leaders usually ignore awkward but important questions. I am not sure who legally is currently chairman of UKIP Whittaker or Nuttall as the Monday meeting was improperly convened but Whittaker seemed to chairing the meeting."
He also claimed in his e mail of 10th September "I will of course also be seeking guidance from the Electoral Commission as to the propriety of all financial and other transactions made during my term of office".
It is difficult to accept that Dr Edmond has the interests of the party at stake when he acts this way. He was seeking to do major damage to the cause of UKIP. This alone is enough for a complaint to the disciplinary committee.
1.4 Slanderous Comments made against Christopher Gill at the NEC meeting of 14th July 2008
At the 14th July meeting, Eric Edmond challenged the suitability of Christopher Gill to act as Returning Officer, given that as a Tory MP "he did not even make it as a PUSy (Parliamentary Under Secretary)", the lowest grade of Minister. He did this despite the fact that Christopher Gill was not present at the meeting, and therefore not able to defend himself.
Nigel Farage said that this remark was not nice, and below the belt, as many MPs are not just in Parliament for Ministerial positions and serve their constituencies well.
Eric retorted that no, "it is due to a lack of talent".
David Campbell Bannerman commented that this remark was slanderous, and urged Dr Edmond to withdraw it. He refused to do so. Douglas Denny said it was actionable.
At the subsequent NEC of 8th September, Mr Campbell Bannerman inquired whether Dr Edmond had apologised subsequently to Christopher Gill, and Christopher confirmed no such apology had been received.
At that NEC, Dr Edmond claimed that he had not made the remarks, but many members of the NEC commented that he was wrong, and that they had a clear recollection that these remarks were made, as stated.
Whilst fair criticism is of course acceptable, this kind of unpleasant and libellous abuse in front of Christopher Gill's peer group, and without him present to defend himself, is not acceptable conduct by an NEC member.
1.5 Breaches of NEC confidentialityDr Edmond has broken strict NEC confidentiality rules.
For example, in an e mail of 13th August to Robin Page, Dr Edmond reported: "I have expressed mydis-satisfaction with this to our leader but he replied the NEC leaked so much he could only have people he could trust on his Political Committee." This was a discussion at an NEC meeting and was confidential to that meeting. NEC rules clearly state that breach of confidentiality can lead to instant dismissal fromthe NEC.
Yet Dr Edmond also displays rather a contempt for confidentiality. In his e mail of 30th September he dismisses breaches of NEC confidentiality as "unproven" and to raise such concerns as an "allegation that smears us all". This is despite consistent evidence of leaks - as Rachel Oxley states in her e mail of 30th September, "It really is stating the obvious to say the e mail correspondence of the NEC is being passed on as we see our comments reproduced in part or in full in the e mail circulation list of Greg Lance Watkins and on Anthony Butcher's forum."
1.6 Support for a disruptive attempt by John West to sit on the NEC
Eric Edmond encouraged John West to believe he had a right to sit onthe NEC, even though there is no 'ladder' system in operation for the NEC(leading to the next highest voted candidate taking a free place) and there was no vacancy, as confirmed by an NEC discussion and vote on 8th September. As a result John West was sitting in at the NEC meeting on 8th September and had subsequently to be asked to leave, as he had no right to be there.
Dr Edmond at the NEC denied he had encouraged West to attend, yet he supported his case at the NEC of 8th September and in his e mail of 30th August, he said: "UKIP Constitution requires 12 elected members. There are currently only 11. John West, the 5th placed person in the last NEC election therefore should be on the NEC. Can you please send him an invite to this effect ?" and in his email of 31st August he argued: "John West has a democratic mandate to fill our vacant NEC slot.. but he is democratically entitled to sit on the NEC."
This was done without the courtesy of checking the rules with the Party Secretary nor discussing the matter with the Party Chairman, and was done in an aggressive manner. This is the comment made to a former Party Secretary Douglas Denny in e mail of 1st September: "If you persist in trying to thwart the democratic process you make us the same as the EU" and another of same date where he says "it is silly for you to try and deny democratic process for Mr West and invoke it for your own ends."
Latterly, he has compounded his abusive approach by calling in an email of 20th. September for the Party Leader to be barred from the NEC owing to an OLAF inquiry, the Deputy Leader to resign, for John West to take his place, and with an attack on the Treasurer and MEP Candidate Marta Andreasen.
1.7 A recurrent attempt to undermine faith in the MEP selection process
Eric Edmond is entitled to his views and to criticise the conduct of Party business or the MEP selection process as an NEC member. However, his conduct goes way beyond a legitimate holding to account.
Eric Edmond has supported every single complainant regarding MEP selection in his e mails with enthusiasm - John West, Robin Page, Lynnda Robson, Gerard Batten, Victor Webb, Chris Hudson, Rollo Reid.
He makes grossly exaggerated claims in an e mail of 19th August that "This is the latest in a succession of allegations of improprieties in the MEP election process. We have a situation where rules and due process are being ignored at all levels of the party, emails from NEC members to those involved in running the election are not replied to, legal actions are in progress and someone who were told had resigned for an unforgivable breach of confidence is now allegedly back performing the same functions but with a murky contractual relationship with UKIP. A general state of anarchy prevails and the leadership produce no evidence to the NEC to support their actions. I support your call for to scrap the election... (and for) an emergency NEC." The vast majority of regions and candidates have been satisfied with the process, even where their ambitions have been sadly disappointed, and yet Dr Edmond seeks to stop, destroy and invalidate the entire process.
Factually, Edmond ignored the guidance regarding closing dates and did not bother to confirm this with the party before stirring the issue up outside the NEC.
In an e mail of 15th August he claims "Messrs Page & West seem to have a strong prima facie case that there were not given fair treatment in our MEP selection process and I request this be put on the NEC agenda for discussion at our Sept meeting. Page's case seems to be strong as UKIP did extend the closing date for nominations in Wales and possibly other regions as well. West's case is also strong and potentially far more damaging as it has elements of malicious intent." Never did he acknowledge that West had clearly libelled Jeffrey Titford MEP, Stuart Gulleford and the Deputy Leader in advance of his YouTube posting (and which was not at all acceptable), nor that West had even gone to the police to make these false accusations.
Even after notice of disciplinary action was given, Dr Edmond was still unquestionably supporting Mr West. In an e mail of 28th September, Edmond says, "John West has not used any foul language and addressed the NEC in mildand moderate language." John West never "addressed" the NEC, he was merely asked why he was attending the meeting, and then asked to leave whilst this was discussed. Dr Edmond further claimed in his e mail of 29th September that a firm but polite response from Douglas Denny to continued harassment by email by West was "offensive and threatening".
This support is despite the fact that West’s malicious charges to the Essex police have been formally dismissed as having no substance whatsoever.
Then Edmond enthusiastically embraces Victor Webb's complaints. In a 20th September e mail about Victor Webb he proclaims "He seems to me to have a prima facie case for a complaint", asking the Chairman to have Mr Webb at the NEC in person, as he did with John West.
An e mail of 30th July attacks the South West process, stating that "Rollo Reid, the chairman of the nearby Christchurch branch and one of our best activists was not selected as an MEP candidate whilst Julie Harrison, Graeme Booth's niece who had only been in the party one week according to the SWCC figures was selected ! I pointed out to the SWCC at which 3 members of the selection committee were present how demoralising this decision would be for our activists. Was Mr Gill party to this decision ?".
As early as 11th June Dr Edmond was declaring in an e mail that "I heard a rumour that the £250 MEP nomination fee had been waived for some candidates. As a candidate myself I have an obvious interest. Do you know if there is any truth in this rumour?"
And at the NEC meeting on 9th June, Edmond supported the issue of the Fenland branch and Len Baynes, who had attacked the Regional Organiser for Eastern, Peter Reeve, and which they had unfairly tried to deselect as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate.
As for the selection process, Dr Edmond raised a motion at the NEC of 14th July for the South West demanding the region has its own, independent voting system using the Electoral Reform Society, claiming people have "a lack of faith in the integrity in voting on MEP candidates". This was despite the fact no other region has requested a different voting process, and that the Returning Officer Piers Merchant is not only known to be very fair but is from the South West himself. Edmond also boasted of disrespect for the Deputy Leader from some in the South West. The motion was defeated.
Dr Edmond did attend the MEP vote count at Head Office in person and sought to test the voting system there, only to find that the device he used proved the process was robust and the results exactly the same as his.
1.8 Inconsistent and inaccurate public statements
Dr. Edmond has made a number of inaccurate statements, within the NEC and outside of it. As cited above, he insisted he did not make slanderous statements about Christopher Gill, when this was raised at the 8th September meeting, even though this was the clear recollection of the majority of NEC members.
Even after the disciplinary warning Dr Edmond has continued to make a series of inaccurate statements as to the facts whilst regularly claiming "I just tell the truth" (in his e mail of 28th September). His version of events once again is at complete odds with the recollection of the majority of the NEC, which he consistently denies. In his email of 28th September, for example, he says:"Your statements... about what happened at the 8th Sept NEC are highly misleading and distort the truth".
Dr Edmond claimed at the 8th September NEC itself that it "was not a properly constituted meeting of the NEC" and that the new Chairman was not authorised by the NEC, even though the Party Leader had explained he had called and had agreement from a required number of NEC members before the Party Conference announcement.
Dr Edmond has also claimed several times, including to outside audiences, that he was "illegally expelled" from the NEC when he had not been. But in spite of this, in his e mails of 20 September he asks to be placed on the NEC agenda 5 items, which he is only entitled to do as an NEC member, and asking for NEC seconders.
This inconsistent position is amplified in his e mail of 28th September, where he again claims that "there is no doubt in my mind, to Delroy Young or the listeners outside that I was expelled from the NEC."
Lisa Duffy clearly records the accurate and majority view of the events in her e mail of 11th September, "Once you were back in the room John Whittaker then informed you of the motion put forward and asked you if you would like to address the meeting in response. Dr Edmond I clearly recall that you said No John I would not, I am going to leave the meeting and prepare my defence and speak to my legal team in Freshfields. At NO point were you expelled or suspended from the NEC. At this present time you remain an elected member of the NEC and your response will be heard at the next NEC meeting."
Douglas Denny recalls in his e mail of 10th September "I remember well your voluntary leaving of the NEC meeting - which I highlighted to the members of the meeting when it occurred. You were in a position to engage in the proceedings, which you refused. Despite your refusal, you are being given further reasonable time and dispensation to engage in this issue I understand."
Rachel Oxley made similar observations in an e mail of 12th September:
“The circumstance of Dr Edmonds' leaving the NEC meeting on Monday 8th September are exactly as described by Lisa Duffy, Christopher Gill and Doug Denny. It was his express wish to leave in order to obtain legal advice before giving the NEC his response... Doug Denny remarked that Dr Edmonds had left the meeting of his own volition as he felt that it should be noted. The Forum frequented by some UKIP members and former members contains a rather different version- in which the NEC behaved disgracefully in expelling him etc."
She added further comments in an 22 September e mail: "It is interesting, isn't it, that Dr Edmonds should suggest agenda items and propose motions for our next meeting despite his having personally informed at least one British Democracy Poster (Sponplague) that he is no longer on the NEC, following his alleged 'expulsion'. He appears to be wanting to have his cake and eat it too, in gaining the sympathy & kudos that his alleged shoddy treatment by the NEC will bring, whilst still wishing to dominate the agenda.
"This is in contrast to claiming he was "asked to leave the NEC by Chairman John Whittaker" in an e mail of 20th September, and in a 10th September e mail declaiming "my outrageous, unjustified and illegal expulsion from the NEC".
1.9 Unreasonable demands for unrelated information
In his e mail of 10th September, Dr Edmond demands a range of documents, said to be for his legal defence as to his proposed expulsion, but which have nothing to do with the charge of 'unbecoming conduct'. They include details of the Party's financial transactions April to September 2008, issues around Alan Bown's court case constituting a further donation, and financial donations from the Ramsgate Call Centre for 2007/08. These demands he then copies to the Electoral Commission, to cause further trouble.
Proposed Motion to the NEC
In conclusion, in light of this evidence of unbecoming conduct by Dr Eric Edmond as an NEC member, the following motion is put to the next NEC on 3rd November 2008:
MOTION:
‘That in the light of Dr Eric Edmond’s unbecoming conduct as an NEC member, both during NEC meetings and through relevant e mails and other communications, that under Article 7.18.4 of the UKIP Constitution, Eric Edmond be suspended immediately as a member of the NEC, and remain suspended for the next three NEC meetings post the 3rd November NEC meeting. After that suspension period, Dr Edmond will be allowed to reapply to attend future NEC meetings, but will only be accepted back after a majority decision of the NEC and by Dr Edmond providing a suitable written undertaking to behave in a responsible and dignified manner during NEC meetings and through his other UKIP activities. Any breach of that undertaking would lead to the automatic and immediate resumption of his suspension from the NEC, through a further motion.’
Our only comment is that the majority of this rather lengthy dossier is childish (spit spat) in the extreme. Further, it does not appear that Dr Edmond has had the opportunity to defend himself properly. We are just thankful that Dr Edmond has not committed a serious crime, otherwise we would have had to apply for more webspace to print the charge sheet!!!
Whilst not lawyers ourselves, there is one possible saving grace for Dr Edmond - it does appear to enable him to avoid any financial liability that NEC members may have in view of the Party finances during the term of his 'suspension'.
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
A SUBMISSION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONAGAINST DR ERIC EDMOND
Presented on request of the NEC for discussion at theNovember NEC meeting
Introduction
The NEC has the power under the Party Constitution to expel or suspend a member of the NEC for 'unbecoming conduct' under Articles 7.18.4. The intention of this clause is to exclude any NEC member who behaves in such a way as consistently to disrupt the NEC and prevent it from conducting its business in a proper, efficient and orderly manner. This ongoing conduct thereby proves him or herself to be unfit to continue as an NEC member.
By offering Dr Edmond the opportunity to speak at the last NEC and by deferring discussion of the matter to a future NEC, and by providing a copy of this paper in advance to Dr Edmond, the NEC has sought to act reasonably and fairly under the Constitution.
The motion agreed at the 8th September NEC was: "That in view of the indication by Dr Edmond that he wished to have the opportunity to prepare to meet any charges against him, and in view of representations by various NEC members that they wish to have the opportunity of putting forward their own complaints against Dr Edmond, David Campbell Bannerman was invited to prepare a submission for disciplinary action against Dr Edmond under clause 7.18 of the constitution to be heard at the next NEC meeting and with proper notice of at least 7 days being given to Dr Edmond of the content of that submission.”
1. The Charge of ‘Unbecoming Conduct’ Against Dr Eric Edmond, with supporting evidence.The majority view of the NEC is that Dr Eric Edmond has been a consistently disruptive influence on the NEC since he was elected, and that his behaviour needs to improve markedly if he is able to continue as an NEC member. The facts show a clear pattern of disruptive and abusive behaviour, and of contempt for the NEC and its members. This is clear from the evidence cited below:
1.1 Threats to go outside the NEC, and support for police actionDr Edmond has made serious threats against the NEC. For example, he said inan e mail of 25th July "If you persist in this I will have to seek remedies outside the NEC."Dr Edmond supported John West's recurring attacks on UKIP, including seeming to encourage unjustified attempts to instigate police action against the party. In his e mail of 13th August he says to John West and John Whittaker "I urge him to do so as quickly as possible so the police can get on with their investigation as quickly as possible".
1.2 Aggressive personal behaviourEven at his first NEC, on 7th April, Dr Edmond engaged in an aggressive attack on the Leader and his style of leadership. He again attacked Nigel Farage at the 14th July NEC regarding Nigel's use of the Political Committee for political decisions (despite this being made clear as its purpose in the Constitution, and owing to a need to make quick political decisions). Mr Farage explained forcefully that the reason was a lack of trust in the NEC owing to past leaks.
Dr Edmond also engaged in attacks also on Douglas Denny at 14th July NEC, calling him an "idiot", when Mr Denny objected to Edmond's slanderous remarks against Christopher Gill (see below).
In an e mail to Douglas Denny of 2nd September, Edmond rudely says. "you are raving again." This was in response to Mr Denny making reasonable comments which ended in the observation: "All I have seen so far, is a constant tirade [by Dr Edmond] against the "leadership" of UKIP and what appears to be deliberate disruption and promotion of discord in the NEC. What is your agenda ? It does not appear to me to be what you told the membership." and in an e mail of 4th September from Edmond, "your reply is rubbish". As Lisa Duffy made clear in her e mail of 28th September: "The only angry raised voice has been Dr Edmond".
1.3 Bringing the Party into disrepute, by writing to a body UKIP isengaged in a legal dispute with, to make wild and damaging accusations
Dr Edmond has written to the Electoral Commission in the middle of a legal case against the party by that same organisation.
He wrote to Mr Franks of the Electoral Commission on 10th September saying: "I gather you are the investigating officer in charge of investigating alleged financial improprieties at UKIP with a case currently under judicial review. I was expelled from UKIP NEC on Monday. I am deeply concerned about my financial liabilities as while on the NEC party officials stone walled over answering questions on financial matters and in one case gave a completely untruthful answer.
“I copy to you my letter to the residual NEC as record of the date and content of my request for financial information as UKIP leaders usually ignore awkward but important questions. I am not sure who legally is currently chairman of UKIP Whittaker or Nuttall as the Monday meeting was improperly convened but Whittaker seemed to chairing the meeting."
He also claimed in his e mail of 10th September "I will of course also be seeking guidance from the Electoral Commission as to the propriety of all financial and other transactions made during my term of office".
It is difficult to accept that Dr Edmond has the interests of the party at stake when he acts this way. He was seeking to do major damage to the cause of UKIP. This alone is enough for a complaint to the disciplinary committee.
1.4 Slanderous Comments made against Christopher Gill at the NEC meeting of 14th July 2008
At the 14th July meeting, Eric Edmond challenged the suitability of Christopher Gill to act as Returning Officer, given that as a Tory MP "he did not even make it as a PUSy (Parliamentary Under Secretary)", the lowest grade of Minister. He did this despite the fact that Christopher Gill was not present at the meeting, and therefore not able to defend himself.
Nigel Farage said that this remark was not nice, and below the belt, as many MPs are not just in Parliament for Ministerial positions and serve their constituencies well.
Eric retorted that no, "it is due to a lack of talent".
David Campbell Bannerman commented that this remark was slanderous, and urged Dr Edmond to withdraw it. He refused to do so. Douglas Denny said it was actionable.
At the subsequent NEC of 8th September, Mr Campbell Bannerman inquired whether Dr Edmond had apologised subsequently to Christopher Gill, and Christopher confirmed no such apology had been received.
At that NEC, Dr Edmond claimed that he had not made the remarks, but many members of the NEC commented that he was wrong, and that they had a clear recollection that these remarks were made, as stated.
Whilst fair criticism is of course acceptable, this kind of unpleasant and libellous abuse in front of Christopher Gill's peer group, and without him present to defend himself, is not acceptable conduct by an NEC member.
1.5 Breaches of NEC confidentialityDr Edmond has broken strict NEC confidentiality rules.
For example, in an e mail of 13th August to Robin Page, Dr Edmond reported: "I have expressed mydis-satisfaction with this to our leader but he replied the NEC leaked so much he could only have people he could trust on his Political Committee." This was a discussion at an NEC meeting and was confidential to that meeting. NEC rules clearly state that breach of confidentiality can lead to instant dismissal fromthe NEC.
Yet Dr Edmond also displays rather a contempt for confidentiality. In his e mail of 30th September he dismisses breaches of NEC confidentiality as "unproven" and to raise such concerns as an "allegation that smears us all". This is despite consistent evidence of leaks - as Rachel Oxley states in her e mail of 30th September, "It really is stating the obvious to say the e mail correspondence of the NEC is being passed on as we see our comments reproduced in part or in full in the e mail circulation list of Greg Lance Watkins and on Anthony Butcher's forum."
1.6 Support for a disruptive attempt by John West to sit on the NEC
Eric Edmond encouraged John West to believe he had a right to sit onthe NEC, even though there is no 'ladder' system in operation for the NEC(leading to the next highest voted candidate taking a free place) and there was no vacancy, as confirmed by an NEC discussion and vote on 8th September. As a result John West was sitting in at the NEC meeting on 8th September and had subsequently to be asked to leave, as he had no right to be there.
Dr Edmond at the NEC denied he had encouraged West to attend, yet he supported his case at the NEC of 8th September and in his e mail of 30th August, he said: "UKIP Constitution requires 12 elected members. There are currently only 11. John West, the 5th placed person in the last NEC election therefore should be on the NEC. Can you please send him an invite to this effect ?" and in his email of 31st August he argued: "John West has a democratic mandate to fill our vacant NEC slot.. but he is democratically entitled to sit on the NEC."
This was done without the courtesy of checking the rules with the Party Secretary nor discussing the matter with the Party Chairman, and was done in an aggressive manner. This is the comment made to a former Party Secretary Douglas Denny in e mail of 1st September: "If you persist in trying to thwart the democratic process you make us the same as the EU" and another of same date where he says "it is silly for you to try and deny democratic process for Mr West and invoke it for your own ends."
Latterly, he has compounded his abusive approach by calling in an email of 20th. September for the Party Leader to be barred from the NEC owing to an OLAF inquiry, the Deputy Leader to resign, for John West to take his place, and with an attack on the Treasurer and MEP Candidate Marta Andreasen.
1.7 A recurrent attempt to undermine faith in the MEP selection process
Eric Edmond is entitled to his views and to criticise the conduct of Party business or the MEP selection process as an NEC member. However, his conduct goes way beyond a legitimate holding to account.
Eric Edmond has supported every single complainant regarding MEP selection in his e mails with enthusiasm - John West, Robin Page, Lynnda Robson, Gerard Batten, Victor Webb, Chris Hudson, Rollo Reid.
He makes grossly exaggerated claims in an e mail of 19th August that "This is the latest in a succession of allegations of improprieties in the MEP election process. We have a situation where rules and due process are being ignored at all levels of the party, emails from NEC members to those involved in running the election are not replied to, legal actions are in progress and someone who were told had resigned for an unforgivable breach of confidence is now allegedly back performing the same functions but with a murky contractual relationship with UKIP. A general state of anarchy prevails and the leadership produce no evidence to the NEC to support their actions. I support your call for to scrap the election... (and for) an emergency NEC." The vast majority of regions and candidates have been satisfied with the process, even where their ambitions have been sadly disappointed, and yet Dr Edmond seeks to stop, destroy and invalidate the entire process.
Factually, Edmond ignored the guidance regarding closing dates and did not bother to confirm this with the party before stirring the issue up outside the NEC.
In an e mail of 15th August he claims "Messrs Page & West seem to have a strong prima facie case that there were not given fair treatment in our MEP selection process and I request this be put on the NEC agenda for discussion at our Sept meeting. Page's case seems to be strong as UKIP did extend the closing date for nominations in Wales and possibly other regions as well. West's case is also strong and potentially far more damaging as it has elements of malicious intent." Never did he acknowledge that West had clearly libelled Jeffrey Titford MEP, Stuart Gulleford and the Deputy Leader in advance of his YouTube posting (and which was not at all acceptable), nor that West had even gone to the police to make these false accusations.
Even after notice of disciplinary action was given, Dr Edmond was still unquestionably supporting Mr West. In an e mail of 28th September, Edmond says, "John West has not used any foul language and addressed the NEC in mildand moderate language." John West never "addressed" the NEC, he was merely asked why he was attending the meeting, and then asked to leave whilst this was discussed. Dr Edmond further claimed in his e mail of 29th September that a firm but polite response from Douglas Denny to continued harassment by email by West was "offensive and threatening".
This support is despite the fact that West’s malicious charges to the Essex police have been formally dismissed as having no substance whatsoever.
Then Edmond enthusiastically embraces Victor Webb's complaints. In a 20th September e mail about Victor Webb he proclaims "He seems to me to have a prima facie case for a complaint", asking the Chairman to have Mr Webb at the NEC in person, as he did with John West.
An e mail of 30th July attacks the South West process, stating that "Rollo Reid, the chairman of the nearby Christchurch branch and one of our best activists was not selected as an MEP candidate whilst Julie Harrison, Graeme Booth's niece who had only been in the party one week according to the SWCC figures was selected ! I pointed out to the SWCC at which 3 members of the selection committee were present how demoralising this decision would be for our activists. Was Mr Gill party to this decision ?".
As early as 11th June Dr Edmond was declaring in an e mail that "I heard a rumour that the £250 MEP nomination fee had been waived for some candidates. As a candidate myself I have an obvious interest. Do you know if there is any truth in this rumour?"
And at the NEC meeting on 9th June, Edmond supported the issue of the Fenland branch and Len Baynes, who had attacked the Regional Organiser for Eastern, Peter Reeve, and which they had unfairly tried to deselect as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate.
As for the selection process, Dr Edmond raised a motion at the NEC of 14th July for the South West demanding the region has its own, independent voting system using the Electoral Reform Society, claiming people have "a lack of faith in the integrity in voting on MEP candidates". This was despite the fact no other region has requested a different voting process, and that the Returning Officer Piers Merchant is not only known to be very fair but is from the South West himself. Edmond also boasted of disrespect for the Deputy Leader from some in the South West. The motion was defeated.
Dr Edmond did attend the MEP vote count at Head Office in person and sought to test the voting system there, only to find that the device he used proved the process was robust and the results exactly the same as his.
1.8 Inconsistent and inaccurate public statements
Dr. Edmond has made a number of inaccurate statements, within the NEC and outside of it. As cited above, he insisted he did not make slanderous statements about Christopher Gill, when this was raised at the 8th September meeting, even though this was the clear recollection of the majority of NEC members.
Even after the disciplinary warning Dr Edmond has continued to make a series of inaccurate statements as to the facts whilst regularly claiming "I just tell the truth" (in his e mail of 28th September). His version of events once again is at complete odds with the recollection of the majority of the NEC, which he consistently denies. In his email of 28th September, for example, he says:"Your statements... about what happened at the 8th Sept NEC are highly misleading and distort the truth".
Dr Edmond claimed at the 8th September NEC itself that it "was not a properly constituted meeting of the NEC" and that the new Chairman was not authorised by the NEC, even though the Party Leader had explained he had called and had agreement from a required number of NEC members before the Party Conference announcement.
Dr Edmond has also claimed several times, including to outside audiences, that he was "illegally expelled" from the NEC when he had not been. But in spite of this, in his e mails of 20 September he asks to be placed on the NEC agenda 5 items, which he is only entitled to do as an NEC member, and asking for NEC seconders.
This inconsistent position is amplified in his e mail of 28th September, where he again claims that "there is no doubt in my mind, to Delroy Young or the listeners outside that I was expelled from the NEC."
Lisa Duffy clearly records the accurate and majority view of the events in her e mail of 11th September, "Once you were back in the room John Whittaker then informed you of the motion put forward and asked you if you would like to address the meeting in response. Dr Edmond I clearly recall that you said No John I would not, I am going to leave the meeting and prepare my defence and speak to my legal team in Freshfields. At NO point were you expelled or suspended from the NEC. At this present time you remain an elected member of the NEC and your response will be heard at the next NEC meeting."
Douglas Denny recalls in his e mail of 10th September "I remember well your voluntary leaving of the NEC meeting - which I highlighted to the members of the meeting when it occurred. You were in a position to engage in the proceedings, which you refused. Despite your refusal, you are being given further reasonable time and dispensation to engage in this issue I understand."
Rachel Oxley made similar observations in an e mail of 12th September:
“The circumstance of Dr Edmonds' leaving the NEC meeting on Monday 8th September are exactly as described by Lisa Duffy, Christopher Gill and Doug Denny. It was his express wish to leave in order to obtain legal advice before giving the NEC his response... Doug Denny remarked that Dr Edmonds had left the meeting of his own volition as he felt that it should be noted. The Forum frequented by some UKIP members and former members contains a rather different version- in which the NEC behaved disgracefully in expelling him etc."
She added further comments in an 22 September e mail: "It is interesting, isn't it, that Dr Edmonds should suggest agenda items and propose motions for our next meeting despite his having personally informed at least one British Democracy Poster (Sponplague) that he is no longer on the NEC, following his alleged 'expulsion'. He appears to be wanting to have his cake and eat it too, in gaining the sympathy & kudos that his alleged shoddy treatment by the NEC will bring, whilst still wishing to dominate the agenda.
"This is in contrast to claiming he was "asked to leave the NEC by Chairman John Whittaker" in an e mail of 20th September, and in a 10th September e mail declaiming "my outrageous, unjustified and illegal expulsion from the NEC".
1.9 Unreasonable demands for unrelated information
In his e mail of 10th September, Dr Edmond demands a range of documents, said to be for his legal defence as to his proposed expulsion, but which have nothing to do with the charge of 'unbecoming conduct'. They include details of the Party's financial transactions April to September 2008, issues around Alan Bown's court case constituting a further donation, and financial donations from the Ramsgate Call Centre for 2007/08. These demands he then copies to the Electoral Commission, to cause further trouble.
Proposed Motion to the NEC
In conclusion, in light of this evidence of unbecoming conduct by Dr Eric Edmond as an NEC member, the following motion is put to the next NEC on 3rd November 2008:
MOTION:
‘That in the light of Dr Eric Edmond’s unbecoming conduct as an NEC member, both during NEC meetings and through relevant e mails and other communications, that under Article 7.18.4 of the UKIP Constitution, Eric Edmond be suspended immediately as a member of the NEC, and remain suspended for the next three NEC meetings post the 3rd November NEC meeting. After that suspension period, Dr Edmond will be allowed to reapply to attend future NEC meetings, but will only be accepted back after a majority decision of the NEC and by Dr Edmond providing a suitable written undertaking to behave in a responsible and dignified manner during NEC meetings and through his other UKIP activities. Any breach of that undertaking would lead to the automatic and immediate resumption of his suspension from the NEC, through a further motion.’
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Does the Democracy Forum engender real debate?
The UK Democracy Forum - http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/ has recently been criticised for its apparent scathing attacks on the UK Independence Party.
Having looked at this well put together site, Political Gossip UK feels, that without a forum on which UKIP members and non members can debate political strategy both positively and negatively, then little progress will be made within the anti-EU camp.
We are a little disillusioned at the personal attacks both pro- and anti-leadership supporters rain down on each other, but over-all feel that being able to freely debate concerns is healthy for the political process. There are of course dangers in revealing political strategy to ones opponents but bearing in mind that this forum appears to harbour mainly anti EU supporters, we would like to believe that a spirit of some co-operation could be achieved in fighting the same cause.
There is much amusement in our offices about the latest debate as to whether to allow a certain GL-W to repost on this site again. We understand this individual to be a true anti-EU crusader who possibly damages his arguement with smatterings of abuse and name calling. The poll appears at this stage to be slightly in his favour, though this could change at any moment. What is amusing to us, is that those who argue against his being accepted, apparently belong to a political party that emphasises its belief in freedom of speech.
For what it's worth, and without any influence in this matter, we would argue to allow him back and destroy him (metaphorically that is) in debate. After-all, surely no individual can be a match for the combined efforts of the full Forum membership?
p.s. If anyone should comment on our post, no bad language please or you'll be banned :)
Having looked at this well put together site, Political Gossip UK feels, that without a forum on which UKIP members and non members can debate political strategy both positively and negatively, then little progress will be made within the anti-EU camp.
We are a little disillusioned at the personal attacks both pro- and anti-leadership supporters rain down on each other, but over-all feel that being able to freely debate concerns is healthy for the political process. There are of course dangers in revealing political strategy to ones opponents but bearing in mind that this forum appears to harbour mainly anti EU supporters, we would like to believe that a spirit of some co-operation could be achieved in fighting the same cause.
There is much amusement in our offices about the latest debate as to whether to allow a certain GL-W to repost on this site again. We understand this individual to be a true anti-EU crusader who possibly damages his arguement with smatterings of abuse and name calling. The poll appears at this stage to be slightly in his favour, though this could change at any moment. What is amusing to us, is that those who argue against his being accepted, apparently belong to a political party that emphasises its belief in freedom of speech.
For what it's worth, and without any influence in this matter, we would argue to allow him back and destroy him (metaphorically that is) in debate. After-all, surely no individual can be a match for the combined efforts of the full Forum membership?
p.s. If anyone should comment on our post, no bad language please or you'll be banned :)
What is happening at UKIP?
The UK Independence Party was seen as a revolutionary anti EU movement taking the UK political environment by storm. In 2004 it had 12 MEPs and almost 30,000 members gaining 16% of the national vote (above that of the Liberal Democrats - the UK's 3rd largest political party).
But today, it is a mere shadow of its former self. With only 9 MEPs (and others retiring prior to the next election), less than 10,000 active members and only £45,000 in the Bank (with potential liabilities in excess of £500,000 subject to various court case verdicts/appeals) one has to ask - where did it all go wrong?
Without doubt the rot set in when Kilroy Silk was led to believe that he was going to become UKIP's new Leader after the election, and when Roger Knapman, (an unimpressive ex Tory MP) remained in office, RKS left in disgust and formed his own Party - Veritas - which failed to get off the ground.
Roger Knapman, though probably a decent bloke was not up to the job of curbing the excesses of the true leader behind the scenes - Nigel Farage, or handling the media. The Party gradually declined through: a lack of vision; a lack of training; a lack of structure and no clear leadership.
Roger Knapman was replaced by Nigel Farage in 2006 after a bitterly contested leadership battle by the little known Welsh Chairman - Richard Suchorzewski - who appeared to have harnessed the votes from a majority of activists within the Party. It was felt by many, that the massive spending to launch Nigel Farage's campaign for leader in Bromley and dirty tricks from those who hoped to be rewarded, played a disillusioning part in the outcome.
Nigel Farage was a practiced public speaker and media performer but once his 'traditional 3 party pieces and cigarette papers are spent, there was, and is, very little substance underneath. His metiere is the 60 second soundbite. During his 2 years as Leader, the Party has significantly declined and 'underhand in-fighting' amongst the residual activists has demoralised the Party further.
UKIP is now gaining less than 5% of the vote in most elections recently, and has notoriously sunk to 0.3% of the vote last week. This, despite the increased media attention (little of it good) in which Nigel Farage has featured.
In the last 8 weeks a severely bitter Euro Candidate selection process has taken place with certain candidates having their deposits returned because of alledged lack of due process. Even the Returning Officer has recommended that selections be re-run. This has been ignored by the Leader and the NEC which Nigel Farage clearly dominates and controls.
A number of members have threatened, and taken the first steps towards, legal actions against the Party, which is already involved in a Judicial Review process (instigated by the Electoral Commission) and individuals (including the Leader) subject to OLAF enquiries/investigations. One MEP has been arrested and is currently subject to 'Bail' conditions.
On-going internal criticisms against monies collected by 'Call Centres' at Ashford and Ramsgate have caused further dissent within the Party as has the lack of transparency and trust of the members, exascerbated by the foolhardy appointment of a Non-UK Treasurer.
In the last few days UKIP has hit the headlines in connection with an offer from the BNP to agree a joint electoral strategy. Whilst the Leadership has publicly condemned this approach, it has not gone unnoticed by the media and others that some of the trusted members of the Party were former 'National Front' members and supporters and some of the current MEPs were candidates and supporters of extreme right wing politics. The Leader himself has used advisers with previous associations with such organisations.
Whilst there is no formal evidence of UKIP being in sympathy with the BNP, the outrage by NEC members at the BNP approach does appear, to the objective onlooker, as a little immature and over the top, unless it was 'stage managed' to satisfy the NEC decision to expel 2 of its elected bretheren who opposed the current leadership. This has been identified by some, as Nigel Farage's 'Reichstag Moment.' It is believed there will now be a set-a-side of disciplinary procedures and suspension of the Party's Constitutional justice, with its own 'Kristall Nacht' event.
The UK certainly needs a strong Party representing the popular desire to leave the European Union as reflected in poll after poll. (This, in spite of 40 years of pro-EU propaganda from a political elite and a largly subservient media).
The sad ending to this saga is that UKIP had its chance and appears to have 'blown it'. With charges of the MEPs having 'gone native' and only interested in their expense claims; the shambles of the party organisation and the numerous potential legal threats against senior members, this anti EU movement is failing. There are mutterings of a 'revival organisation' within the Party but it appears to lack any discernible and charismatic leader. It's doubtful it will be allowed to get past the 'starting blocks'.
An alternative is to wait for UKIP to fail at the Euro - Elections (which it most certainly will - with unofficial odds being placed on UKIP achieving 2 seats at best) and either a new Leader to emerge or a New Party to fill the vacuum.
Many feel this will be the stage at which the present Leadership will jump ship for 'greener pastures'. Time will tell.
But today, it is a mere shadow of its former self. With only 9 MEPs (and others retiring prior to the next election), less than 10,000 active members and only £45,000 in the Bank (with potential liabilities in excess of £500,000 subject to various court case verdicts/appeals) one has to ask - where did it all go wrong?
Without doubt the rot set in when Kilroy Silk was led to believe that he was going to become UKIP's new Leader after the election, and when Roger Knapman, (an unimpressive ex Tory MP) remained in office, RKS left in disgust and formed his own Party - Veritas - which failed to get off the ground.
Roger Knapman, though probably a decent bloke was not up to the job of curbing the excesses of the true leader behind the scenes - Nigel Farage, or handling the media. The Party gradually declined through: a lack of vision; a lack of training; a lack of structure and no clear leadership.
Roger Knapman was replaced by Nigel Farage in 2006 after a bitterly contested leadership battle by the little known Welsh Chairman - Richard Suchorzewski - who appeared to have harnessed the votes from a majority of activists within the Party. It was felt by many, that the massive spending to launch Nigel Farage's campaign for leader in Bromley and dirty tricks from those who hoped to be rewarded, played a disillusioning part in the outcome.
Nigel Farage was a practiced public speaker and media performer but once his 'traditional 3 party pieces and cigarette papers are spent, there was, and is, very little substance underneath. His metiere is the 60 second soundbite. During his 2 years as Leader, the Party has significantly declined and 'underhand in-fighting' amongst the residual activists has demoralised the Party further.
UKIP is now gaining less than 5% of the vote in most elections recently, and has notoriously sunk to 0.3% of the vote last week. This, despite the increased media attention (little of it good) in which Nigel Farage has featured.
In the last 8 weeks a severely bitter Euro Candidate selection process has taken place with certain candidates having their deposits returned because of alledged lack of due process. Even the Returning Officer has recommended that selections be re-run. This has been ignored by the Leader and the NEC which Nigel Farage clearly dominates and controls.
A number of members have threatened, and taken the first steps towards, legal actions against the Party, which is already involved in a Judicial Review process (instigated by the Electoral Commission) and individuals (including the Leader) subject to OLAF enquiries/investigations. One MEP has been arrested and is currently subject to 'Bail' conditions.
On-going internal criticisms against monies collected by 'Call Centres' at Ashford and Ramsgate have caused further dissent within the Party as has the lack of transparency and trust of the members, exascerbated by the foolhardy appointment of a Non-UK Treasurer.
In the last few days UKIP has hit the headlines in connection with an offer from the BNP to agree a joint electoral strategy. Whilst the Leadership has publicly condemned this approach, it has not gone unnoticed by the media and others that some of the trusted members of the Party were former 'National Front' members and supporters and some of the current MEPs were candidates and supporters of extreme right wing politics. The Leader himself has used advisers with previous associations with such organisations.
Whilst there is no formal evidence of UKIP being in sympathy with the BNP, the outrage by NEC members at the BNP approach does appear, to the objective onlooker, as a little immature and over the top, unless it was 'stage managed' to satisfy the NEC decision to expel 2 of its elected bretheren who opposed the current leadership. This has been identified by some, as Nigel Farage's 'Reichstag Moment.' It is believed there will now be a set-a-side of disciplinary procedures and suspension of the Party's Constitutional justice, with its own 'Kristall Nacht' event.
The UK certainly needs a strong Party representing the popular desire to leave the European Union as reflected in poll after poll. (This, in spite of 40 years of pro-EU propaganda from a political elite and a largly subservient media).
The sad ending to this saga is that UKIP had its chance and appears to have 'blown it'. With charges of the MEPs having 'gone native' and only interested in their expense claims; the shambles of the party organisation and the numerous potential legal threats against senior members, this anti EU movement is failing. There are mutterings of a 'revival organisation' within the Party but it appears to lack any discernible and charismatic leader. It's doubtful it will be allowed to get past the 'starting blocks'.
An alternative is to wait for UKIP to fail at the Euro - Elections (which it most certainly will - with unofficial odds being placed on UKIP achieving 2 seats at best) and either a new Leader to emerge or a New Party to fill the vacuum.
Many feel this will be the stage at which the present Leadership will jump ship for 'greener pastures'. Time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
