UKIP Uncovered

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

Saturday, November 15, 2003

UKIP's Birmingham Move

A member of UKIP's NEC, who normally maintains a low profile in the ongoing disputes within that Committee, has written an open letter to party members regarding the leadership's proposed move of the party's Head Office to Birmingham:

Quote

Letter from NEC member and London lead candidate Gerard Batten to party
Chairman David Lott
14th November 2003

Dear David,

Re: Head Office move from London to Birmingham.
Copies to All NEC Members & an Open Letter to All Party Members.

I am writing to you following the decision of the NEC last Monday 11th November to relocate the Head Office from London to Birmingham. Since you have already written to all Branch Chairman on this subject, and since by the very nature the decision is an open one, I do not feel constrained by any consideration of confidentiality on the matter. I am copying this letter to all NEC members, but I also make it an open letter to all party members should any recipient wish to pass it on.

I strongly opposed the decision to move the Party's HQ from London to Birmingham and voted against it. This decision was not forewarned in the NEC Agenda but was sprung on the NEC under the subject of 'Cutting costs - Head Office & elsewhere'. This vitally important decision was made without any written submission to the NEC on the cost savings weighed against the implications of such a decision, financial or otherwise. The decision was taken purely on the basis that by closing the London office £17,000 per annum could be saved.

I agree that it is vital to reduce costs during what I am sure is a temporary cash flow shortage. You will of course recall that the current financial problems of the Party are due in most part to your own unauthorised overspending during the Welsh & Scottish elections in May. But while it is important to rectify that situation as soon as possible the effect of closing the London office will do untold damage to the well
being of the Party. I can cite the following reasons why:

Party HQ has always been in a central London location since its foundation in 1993. It easily accessible to those who live in London, and to those who travel to London.

Considerable knowledge and expertise has been built up over the years by the HQ employees and volunteers and none of these people are likely to want to relocate or travel to Birmingham. The Party will therefore have to start again from scratch in its most basic administrative functions.

No thought was given to asking the HQ employees and volunteers if they
would be willing to go to Birmingham to train the new staff during a changeover period. And if there were, what would be the associated costs in duplicated wages, travel and overnight accommodation? The costs of moving HQ contents were not stated at the NEC meeting. The Party will need to have all new telephone numbers in Birmingham unless it intends to pay for some form of call diversion or out of area lines. Again no costs were quoted for this but I can tell you they will not be inconsiderable.

Michael Harvey the Party General Secretary will now be required to travel
to Birmingham for some part of the week. Do you expect him to pay for his travel and overnight stays out of his salary or will he Party reimburse him? If they Party is going to reimburse him what size is the budget allowed for this?

All of the costs required for this move should have been calculated and
put before the NEC. It might then have been apparent that a considerable dent would have been made in the supposed £17,000 per annum saving; especially so since the free office space being provided is only for a period of one year. There are no equivalent savings in following years. A more sensible solution would have been to find alternative office space in London at the most cost effective price.

I am sorry to say that this decision was arrived at for reasons that have nothing to do with genuine cost savings. It is transparently obvious to me, and I think to many others, that it has been done in order to it make as difficult as possible for Michael Harvey to continue in his role of General Secretary. But why should the Party Leadership want to do this? Michael showed remarkable courage and judgement after the September NEC meeting when he did the job of the Party Leader, the Party Chairman and the Party Secretary for them by keeping the Party on a constitutional and legal basis when he pointed out the unconstitutional and illegal nature of their initiative to remove the Party Treasurer from office, and by his actions caused the Treasurer to be re-instated and the NEC to retract their ludicrous decision.

This absurd decision can only be seen as a form of retaliation on Michael as a result of his actions to save the Party Leadership from the consequence of their own foolish decision over the Treasurer. The Party activists were in full support of the Party Treasurer's reinstatement, and of Michael Harvey's actions in the matter, as they demonstrated at the meeting in London on 20th September. I would not be surprised to find that they will take a similar dim view of this latest fiasco.

I therefore hope the Party Leadership will not implement this decision
until alternative accommodation in London can be found, and then a decision
based on a proper consideration of the real costs can be made at the next NEC meeting in December. I would urge those NEC members who vote for the motion to reconsider and to contact you to do as I suggest.
Yours sincerely,
Gerard Batten
Unquote

posted by Martin |8:19 AM