UKIP Uncovered

UKIP Uncovered
What motivates the leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party?

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

More on UKIP's Relocation

The following is an item on the above topic, taken from an internet discussion group with one point of view regarding the proposed move and its implications:

the UKIP NEC has voted to move its head office into the backrooms of an estate agents in Birmingham. The building is owned by, the Party Deputy Leader, Mike Nattrass.

I contend that this is both an extraordinary and unsound move, opening the party to constructive dismissal claims from those employees who have been under attack from the leadership since the spring and who will not be able to easily move with the party without payment of relocation expenses. This is a real kick in the teeth for dedicated Party workers such as Michael Harvey (& the other HQ staff)! But, remember, Michael Harvey, was one of those who sounded the alarm over the failed attempt to remove the Party Treasurer from office! The intended replacement, if I'm not mistaken, was a man from, the Midlands!!!! A move of HQ to the Midlands will punish Michael Harvey - with the loss of his employment, and probably preclude JdeR from remaining as Treasurer into the bargain. At one swoop, any danger of the, Treasurer, and, others, getting to the bottom of the highly questionable activities in, Ashford, Kent, will be removed! Good news for those who wanted JdeR and his supporters out of the way. But very bad news for the image of the Party!

As far as I'm aware, no attempts were made (by those charged with the task) to search for offices in London, which is the natural home for the Head Office of a major political party. It is also a move which will financially benefit the party's deputy leader and breaks all the unwritten rules in organisations where senior members might be in a position to earn money from the party for providing offices or services. The claim that there is a rent free period at the outset is no more than one might get from any commercial office provider at a time or in a place where the commercial conditions apply.

The NEC was ambushed with this move, which also financially benefits another member of the NEC who has a financial gain in getting UKIP out of the existing offices. He is a former director of a company which had a lease on the whole building, and was agitating for some time for UKIP to leave the building because of a dispute which involved his own interest.
Yet another example of how you should not be dependent upon individuals - any individual at all - who appears to be offering you a "good deal". The move was laughably presented under cutting costs on the agenda of the NEC (the only item!).

But when you add everything up - which those proposing it tried to avoid doing at the NEC - then it is going to probably cost more. It was a surreal decision, and at one stage there was actually an attempt to stop NEC members from having a written proposal at all. Now, one has been promised - but long after an un-costed decision had been made!

Michael Harvey, will certainly have a clear case for constructive dismissal, given the recent history of HQ. Yet, it seems that the Party hierarchy is hell bent on another round of costly litigation. They won't be able to rely on JdeR to pick up the bill for this one! And, I trust that, Damian Hockney, won't provide a safety net either! The result of this will be even more financial problems for UKIP!!!!! Problems it needs like the proverbial hole in the head!

I trust that someone is already seeking alternative offices within London so that the intended move, (which in any case,has little to do cost cutting, and a lot to do with settling scores) can be thwarted!

posted by Martin |8:17 PM