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

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 

More Burning Questions for Saturday's AGM

UKIP Annual General Meeting.
Saturday 3rd April 2004.

The annual financial accounts will be presented for reception by the Party Treasurer at the Annual Meeting of Party members on Saturday 3rd April 2004. This annual general meeting is in accordance with section 9.2 of the constitution, and is supplemental to the Party Business Meeting of the Party Conference held in October 2003. The NEC has recommended a membership fee increase. This matter will be discussed at the meeting and a vote will be held.

The event will be held at 2pm at Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, London WC1 4RL. The meeting is for paid up members only, and membership cards should be presented.

Questions to put to Mr de Roeck might include :

- Why? If the MEPs are putting so much EU money into the party, do Farage and Titford not appear on the Electoral Commission's list of donors - ever!

- And what are the costs to date of Ashford, and its profits?

- Which other regions have call centres? What were the losses on those operations now closed?

- What are the costs to date of the move to Birmingham?

- Are there any actions pending for unfair dismissal of the HO staff, and how much has the treasurer set aside for any possible awards?

- How much has been paid so far to Max Clifford?

- How much has been paid to the disgraced Dick Morris?!

The meeting takes place to inform the members, to whom the party belongs, how their money and the party's accounts are being managed for the future. After the various scandals of the past year it will be the one occasion on which hard facts can be obtained and those responsible identified.

posted by Martin |9:03 AM

Tuesday, March 30, 2004 

Stop Press UKIP MEP to Hold Meeting!

The following is a notice from the North Devon Gazette, at least somebody at Birmingham Head Office got the message about the upcoming election down to Devonshire!

MEP at meeting

THE forthcoming European Parliament elections will be one of the issues under the microscope at a meeting in South Molton.

Under the heading of “Who Governs Britain?” the North Devon UK Independence Party has arranged for Graham Booth, UKIP Member of European Parliament for the South West, to address the gathering at South Molton Rugby Club on Wednesday, April 14.

He will be joined by Prospective MEP Trevor Coleman.
The Rugby Club is on Pathfields Industrial Estate, off the A361, and the meeting begins at 7pm. Refreshments will be available.

Link to North Devon Gazette

posted by Martin |9:56 PM

What Commitment to EU Withdrawal?

Barbara Booker considers a new party leaflet, recalls an earlier failed attempt to dilute the party's commitment to EU withdrawal and reminds us of some earlier extremely important but unanswered questions.


'Passport to a Sell-out'

There is also a new recruiting leaflet which fails to say that UKIP will withdraw from the EU. It is an A4 glossy folded card, giving party name and phone no. 0800 107 0690. On the front is "SAY NO to European Union". On the back, "Immigration to soar!", with details and a cartoon about enlargement allowing in 73 million from Eastern Europe, and the words "Say NO to EU immigration rules with the UK Independence Party".

Inside is "It is time to send our politicians a message that we will not put up with their lies and deceit over who governs Britain", followed by some good points re the constitution, cost of membership, loss of our national assets etc, plus another crack about immigration and a coupon to send to a Freepost address in Herne Bay for a free colour brochure. In all this the only reference to leaving the EU is "the UK Independence Party is convinced that we will be Better off Out of the EU and that the best people to govern Britain are the British". The wording here is interesting - UKIP is 'convinced' we would be better off out; it does not say the party will take us out.

The words 'withdraw from' or 'leave' the EU do not appear anywhere.

It is extraordinary that a political party which insists it is not just a pressure group, but constantly proclaims its full manifesto, should produce a leaflet that makes no policy statement whatever.

How is one supposed to 'say no' to the European Union and to EU immigration rules? Sign a petition? Go on a demonstration? Wave a placard?

I am reminded of the time in 1997 when Nigel Farage and David Lott were among those who tried to kill off UKIP and replace it with a new party into which UKIP and the remnants of the Referendum Party were to be absorbed. At a by-election in Winchester in November that year
UKIP's NEC endorsed Robin Page, who I believe was not then a UKIP member, as candidate for the 'Referendum /UK Independence Alliance'.
As in the new leaflet, Mr Page's election communication made some good anti-EU points, but no policy statement and no mention of leaving or withdrawing from the EU. The closest he got was: "No other candidate promotes Britain as an outward looking country, trading freely throughout the world, while maintaining it's status as an independent nation state" (note 'maintaining' its status, not changing it by withdrawal); and in a forerunner to the 'Say No'
leaflet he said, "Use your vote to send a message to complacent career politicians that you want your MP to represent you - not betray you" (the Alliance vote dropped to 521 from a combined RP and UKIP total of 2,074 six months earlier).

I am wondering if, as in 1997, the ground is now being prepared for UKIP's absorption into some bigger alliance of parties, this time European ones. As withdrawal is unlikely to find favour with MEPs from other member states, UKIP's representatives may be forced to compromise on it to gain entry to a new EU grouping. When setting out their political programme, the party's 'Say No' leaflet will give proof of UKIP's sceptic and anti-immigration stance, but not a single
policy that might disbar its MEPs from joining an otherwise integrationist European party. My questions to Damian Hockney regarding UKIP's negotiations with other parties, his own role as a potential GLA member, and the possibility of forming an EP group with the BNP are still unanswered. Are not UKIP donors, party workers and voters entitled to know exactly what they are supporting?


The questions put to Damian Hockney, were published on the Blog on 22nd March in a post titled 'Considerations a Competent UKIP Leadership should now be Debating'

posted by Martin |8:11 AM

Monday, March 29, 2004 

New Ad in the Mail

In today's Mail, P31 (right hand facing) is a 7 3/4" x 2 3/4" column ad . The text is as follows:

" SAY NO [No+EU flag] to the EU Constitution

89% of the British public want a referendum on the EU Constitution.

The government is refusing to allow us a say - is this democracy?

"The UK Independence Party is the only party actively campaigning against this constitution and the European Union.
We seek an amicable divorce from the political EU, replacing it with a genuine free-trade agreement which is what we thought we'd signed up for in the first place.

But we need your support. For more information about our campaign or to help us with a donation call Freephone 0800 072 7730 or complete the coupon below and send it to UKIP, 63 Beaver Road, Ashford, Kent TN23 7SE.

Support UKIP NOW and keep British Independence! "

Phone number repeated in bold


Once again donations seem to be being gathered nationwide for the benefit of Ashford and the South East. The Party's founding and supposed driving principle EU withdrawal being quashed, presumably for reason of future alliances and financing in the next European Parliament.

posted by Martin |11:49 AM

Councillor Defection gives UKIP hope for Balance of Power in Walsall

icBirmingham carries that report in an item on Walsall Council linked here.

In other good publicity for the woefully manged and split party Frank Maloney its London Mayoral candidate got first rate coverage in the Sports section of the Telegraph today also linked from here.

posted by Martin |11:39 AM

Blocking Off the Trough

A contributor to an internet discussion forum 'eurofaq' spelt out the requirements one anti-EU party is imposing on its candidates in the coming June elections:-

".... let me share with you how another party is planning to deal with any future MEPs':

' For a start, every prospective MEP has had to agree that 40% of their salary, after tax, will be paid to the Party nationally, so as to pay for additional HO staff, and a properly financed legal team.

- the same percentage of the Attendance Allowance must also be given up to pay for staff, within the Region.

As to the 8,000 pounds per month secretarial expenses. This must be paid by any MEP to individual workers chosen, wait for it, yes, chosen, by the Party, to do the work for which the money is officially intended!

Any potential staff members, i.e. researchers and secretarial staff, employed because of MEP funding will be interviewed by the collective leadership, and be appointed on merit, taking the MEP's own preferences into account, but not being bound by them.

There will, in short, be no such thing as a ' free ' lunch at the party's - or the long-suffering taxpayers expense '.

That contributor, who was responding to a suggestion that some constraints be put upon UKIP's MEP candidates by the party then added ' Not quite the same proposals as laid out.... , but nonetheless, a damned sight better than the arrangements enjoyed by Farage & co. Indeed, can anyone honestly see any UKIP MEP agreeing to be bound by such constraints? The fact that they wouldn't proves that their interest in EUroparl. is more akin to the feeding trough than to the well being of Britain'.

In fact there was an agreement at the time of the last European elections, and I presume it must indeed have been signed by the three successful UKIP candidates. This agreement quoted below, had to be signed by all UKIP candidates at the last Euro elections, as it formed the basis of the party's manifesto commitment:-

"Recognising the widespread corruption in the EU, all UKIP candidates have given written undertakings which prevent them benefiting personally from their expenses and allowances as MEPs. They have also undertaken to make their expense accounts available publicly".

(We shall look forward to seeing those expense accounts which we will then summarise on this blog during the course of the coming campaign!)

Before trusting the party with its vote this time, the electorate might well ask how far last time's 'solemn declaration' has been adhered to by candidates and NEC. Have all European parliament allowances been used as directed by the NEC? Has a trust fund been established by the NEC, and received all MEPs' excess expenses? Has the NEC received detailed quarterly
accounts from the MEPs as promised?

If not, why not?


Candidates' Agreement - 1999 European Elections


UKIP Euro Campaign Office, PO Box 1714, Salisbury SP1 2UQ

Dear candidate

The National Executive has agreed that all candidates should be obliged to sign a declaration covering the use of allowances and expenses by this party's MEPs. I should therefore be grateful if you would complete and return to me the attached form, signed and witnessed
as indicated, by Friday 30 April latest.

Official nomination papers, which must be signed by all candidates and reserves, will be sent out in due course.

Yours sincerely
pp Michael Holmes

Declaration by all UK Independence Party candidates

I . . . . . of . . . . .hereby solemnly declare and covenant that in consideration of my nomination by the United Kingdom Independence Party as a candidate for the . . . .region in the European Parliamentary election to take place on June 10 1999 I will:

(1) use all allowances generated as a result of my membership of the European Parliament as directed by the United Kingdom Independence Party National Executive Committee and in a manner consistent with the EU regulations for the use of such expenses.

(2) pay all expenses over and above those necessarily and reasonably used by me in fulfilment of my duties as a Member of the European Parliament into a trust fund to be established by the said National Executive Committee for interalia the assistance and/or defence of victims of European Union regulations.

(3) provide the said National Executive Committee with a quarterly detailed account of monies received and expended under (1) and (2) above.

Signed in the presence of
(Name and address of witness in Block Capitals)
Signature of witness:


These questions, (with others we will be suggesting during the course of this week), will be worthwhile raising at next saturdays AGM when UKIP's Party Treasurer John de Roeck will be presenting the accounts. A reminder of the time and place:-

The event will be held at 2pm Saturday, 3rd April at Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, London WC1 4RL The meeting is for paid up members only, and membership cards should be presented.

posted by Martin |8:31 AM

Sunday, March 28, 2004 

What is now UKIP's Objective?

In trying to uncover what it is that motivates UKIP's Leadership over the past few months, high on the list of for most readers of this blog, I would imagine, must come money. As the European Parliamentary elections approach, however, it is interesting to see how the aspiring UKIP MEPs now present their objectives. Barbara Booker has done some research and contributed these comments to an internet discussion group yesterday evening:-


"Regarding commitment to withdrawal I notice UKIP avoids the word wherever possible, preferring phrases such as 'taking back our freedom'. In their 16-page brochure seeking votes in the European elections, the 'W' word doesn't appear at all until page 14 and then only tentatively as in: If Britain withdrew from the EU 30 billion pounds would be returned to the British economy (note 'if', not 'when'). Even this scares them a little because they continue with, "A vote for UKIP is a vote for national prosperity" (not 'a vote for withdrawal'). In answer to their own question, "What is the UK Independence Party?" they reply: "Its sole objective is to provide a government that will produce a secure independent environment in which the British people can enjoy peace and prosperity". Since the party constitution says further aims are to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom, return autonomy to all levels of local government, and reject regional assemblies I cannot help wondering if the now proclaimed "sole objective" of providing a secure independent environment heralds a revision of the party's aims following the Euros. I have recently asked what negotiations the MEPs are conducting with regard to EP groups or pan-European parties UKIP will join in the new parliament, any of which might necessitate dropping the current commitment to withdrawal. So far there has been no response.


It seems that the party now seeks to deny even its own name. The best purpose UKIP now serves in these elections is as a terrible example of the corrupting power of the European Union. Any independents, who might try to gather votes on the back of the public's growing disgust with all politicians and political parties could want no clearer illustration of how easily those who go to Brussels and Strasbourg can be diverted from their stated aims. Hopefully they will find the source material compiled here on this blog of help in that task.

posted by Martin |10:21 AM

Saturday, March 27, 2004 

Is UKIP's SW Regional Organiser a Tory Activist?

The following very curious e-mail exchange was circulating on internet fora yesterday;-


Dear Malcolm,

One expects one's political enemies to distort the truth, but eurosceptics (we prefer the term eurorealists) Conservatives and UKIP should be making common cause to fight our case.

Having listened carefully to Howard being subjected to the usual Today programme grilling and attempts at entrapment, Howard came over pretty well, whatever one's misgivings of him might be, and made it clear that he and the Conservative party are implacably opposed to the Constitution. Croucher's quotes, out of context, one can only presume were deliberately aimed to give the impression that, on this issue, the Conservative party cannot be trusted.

If we are going to be allies in the European elections, it is not very clever having the UKIP press officer sniping at one's back.

Regards, Bill &Ann


There followed another longer e-mail discussing tactics in a similar vein, both of which then apparently received this extraordinary reply:-


----- Original Message -----
To: office@ti.....
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [eurofaq] Tory policy on EU Constitution 'wilfully
misleading' - UKIP Pre...

Dear Bill,

I caught the Today interview myself and it is true that Naughtie was trying to entrap Howard as to whether his opposition to the constitution would last through to him entering Downing street as the Telegraph suggested he should do this morning.

I presume that you & I are together on wanting him to commit to a referendum whether the constitution is signed by Blair or not. Whilst it may not be realistic for him to announce his intention to lead us out of the EU (having repeatedly said he would not) his committing to a referendum seems the bare minimum we can expect.

Perhaps you could reassure me that we are of one mind on this narrow point?

As far as Croucher is concerned it is a common fallacy that UKIP are all Tories like you and I but this has never been the case. You might be interested to know that Mark comes from a Labour background and will feel no compunction in having a crack at Howard at the same time as Blair and Kennedy. My agenda has always been to save the Tory Party from itself by the carrot and stick of fear on the one hand and opportunity on the other but that's my personal gospel.



Extraordinarily the 'Malcolm' concerned seems to be none other than the salaried UKIP SW Regional Coordinator Malcolm Wood, (albeit the name having a different spelling on the UKIP SW web site linked from here).

Earlier mention of this individual and his role in the apparently deliberate destruction of the United Kingdom Independence Party are linked below:-

'Aiding an Advancing BNP' 20th March 2004.

'UKIP/BNP Is There a Difference?' 9th February2004

'In Defence of Andy Edwards' (Part Three) 7th February 2004 (see also preceding posts).

'UKIP's Malcolm Wood announces BNP Electoral Pact' 25th January 2004

'UKIP's SW Regional Organiser' (Petitions furore) 4th January 2004

AND similar numbers from last year most notably, from my point of view, on 27th May when he rejected, apparently single-handedly my appeal against wrongful canditature disqualification 'Cole's Appeal against Disqualification Rejected'

Readers can now draw their own conclusions as to Wood's motivations and the means by which he has been undertaking the undermining of the UKIP.

posted by Martin | 9:19 AM

Friday, March 26, 2004  

Nigel Farage MEP - A Creature of the EU?

We have re-visited the Nigel Farage Home Page. This time we went to 'Speeches' which page is linked from here .

Listed are eight 'so-called' speeches, all without exception being contributions to debates in the EU Parliament. Is this the record of a person actively working towards Britain's EU withdrawal? Or one already enmeshed in the system and pointlessly working his passage at the expense of us all?

The 'In Print' page leads off with an interview for 'Sovereignty' Magazine, a strange choice indeed and hard to pin down as to likely date. There then follows an item which shows that UKIP's Leading Light makes the odd foray to address ordinary British voters, but then we get a a neither well put nor particularly interesting letter to the 'Slough Express' in which we are informed each MEP costs the taxpayer one million to three million pounds a year! Value for money perhaps only in ego? More follows but the point, I think, is already well made!

A better illustration of how far UKIP has travelled from its founding objectives would be hard to find.

posted by Martin | 8:49 AM

Thursday, March 25, 2004  

Nigel Farage MEP

The (to me) new web site (linked from here) of UKIP's driving force, Farage, seems to have omitted or sanitised large parts of his previously available biographical details, which now appear only as follows:-

Following his education at Dulwich College, Nigel joined a firm of Commodity brokers on the London Metal Exchange and built a career as a Commodity Broker. In the early 1990's, he formed his own brokerage business, which closed in good standing in 2002, and is now in partnership with his brother.

The background we obtained when starting this blog was far more detailed and our post of 18th April 2003 which looked at his history more thoroughly and is linked from here or the side bar, and is titled 'Who are the Leaders of UKIP' and so naturally began with Farage.

The failures of both Drexel Burnham Lambert and Credit Lyonnais, and the strange links between the two companies, resulting in the recent massive fine just agreed by the French Government over the Executive Life scandal were also covered in considerable detail on our sister blog Ironies in the archived files for last December.

posted by Martin | 6:45 PM

Elections? What Elections?

UKIP put out its first Press Release for 16 days yesterday. What did it cover? Some Mass Membership Rally? A Keynote Speech by the Party Leader? An Elaboration of the Party's Policy position on the Brussels Summit commencing this evening? No, none of those! Just a rather tired critique of the Tories Policy on the Constitution all of which was covered in much more detail and insight on this and our sister blog Teetering Tories.

See the press release from here and its immediate predecessor of 8th March from here.

Someone has suggested recently that UKIP are deliberately trying to fail in the Euros, certainly a more convincing case can be made for such an argument than that they are actually doing anything to win on 10th June!

posted by Martin | 9:11 AM

Wednesday, March 24, 2004  

Howard Re-Clarifies his Clarification on the Constitution

At 21:36 this evening local time I received this further expansion on what Howard might do, if he were ever to be Prime Minister, regarding the EU Constitution if such had already been ratified.

This time the statement comes from Conservative Central Office, under the title 'Michael Howard promises EU constitution overhaul' linked from here.

The essence now seems to be the following:-

Rather than the earlier Telegraph explanation of - "thinking he would be able to do what should be done to safeguard the vital interests of the country" (which is always a comforting thing to know about ones future leader, but otherwise means nothing), he has now .... promised that an in-coming Conservative government would seek to re-negotiate a new EU constitution adopted by Britain under Tony Blair.

I find these further updatings increasingly disturbing! 'Seek to re-negotiate' note especially, not demand, not progress and conclude negotiations just 'seek'. At least these constant amendments are making his true intent perfectly clear!

In another paragraph mention is made of opening negotiations "a Conservative government would re-open negotiations on it. I would start negotiating about it to change those arrangements." but that is not, as I read it the commitment. All know that the rest of the EU will quite simply refuse to contemplate such a course, so soon after a difficult and dangerous ratification process. They will tell Howard to give Britain's notice to quit or go away. And today's various statements make clear that Howard has no intention of pushing the matter nor even contemplating using empty threats.

Here is the further explanatory waffle put out by the now clearly and openly eurofederalist Conservative Party Central Office, Howard is quoted by his party as follows:-

"This constitution is unacceptable to me and, I think, to a majority of the people in this country. Were I faced with that position, I would do what has to be done in order to change a situation that is unacceptable. I think we will be able, as an incoming Conservative government, to do what needs to be done to safeguard the vital interests of this country," he said.

Mr Howard insisted that it would be possible to change the constitution - "if you have a very clear idea of what is in the interests of your country and you are determined to be resolute and firm about the way in which you negotiate to secure that objective. That is the kind of approach I would take after the election if I were faced with that position".

The Leader of the Opposition, now quite clearly, is totally unable to either say or commit to repeal or at the very least re-negotiate any EU Constitution passed by Blair!. Which is exactly the point where I began on this blog this morning. In the interim, I regret having taken up so much of this blog's space on what more properly belongs elsewhere namely Teetering Tories, where anything further on this topic will be found.

posted by Martin | 8:50 PM

Howard makes a definitive statement on his Prime Ministerial Plans for the EU Constitution

The following is what Howard said in his Radio Four interview on the 'Today' programme this morning:-

MH: This constitution is unacceptable to me and, I think, to a majority of people in this country, and were I faced with that situation, I would do what needs to be done to change that situation

JN: What does that mean?

MH: There are a range of things, and I will consider them at the time and see what the best approach is

The Electronic Telegraph around midday today put on the web an article which contained this 'clarification?' of the actual Conservative Party Policy :-

Mr Howard said that if Britain signed up to the constitution, a vast range of powers would be handed to Brussels and, that while he favoured a Europe in which member states could intergrate further, Britain should not be forced to do so.

"I think we will be able, as an incoming Conservative government, to do what needs to be done to safeguard the vital interests of this country."

For me that ambiguous and clearly disingenuous two paragraphs, which do not clearly relate to one another, translates as follows:- "In order to retain the unity of the Conservative Party it is not possible to be specific on anything related to the EU. Therefore acting in the sole interests of the Conservative Party and our regaining the perks and pretence of office (all real power having bled to Brussels) the interests and one time sovereignty of the country can go hang!

The mid-morning Telegraph article, in my view misleadingly titled 'Tories 'would change EU constitution' (as that is not what Howard actually says he will do) is linked here.

posted by Martin | 5:19 PM

An Objection to 'How not to Fight the EU'

I received a protest from Christina Speight regarding my first post of today, which has now been placed on other internet fora. Following an exchange of e-mails I sent the following:-


Well I have read it again, and I felt as I had said that as it was my comments interleaved in bold it could not be represented as a statement of fact, but in respect for your views I have further clarified the matter by changing the sentence to the following:-

'The key sentence is of course the clear statement that the Conservatives are not committed to repeal it, which in my opinion clearly means they WILL NEVER DO SO.'

If you have anything however vague which gives a basis for your belief that Howard's Tories are likely to consider any renegotiation of the Constitutional Treaty let alone repeal, I would be delighted to see it.



The original sentence read: The key sentence is of course the clear statement that the Conservatives WILL NOT repeal it.

The complete exchange of e-mails may be found on the blogspot Teetering Tories which seems a more appropriate forum.

posted by Martin | 12:23 PM

Gould Predicts Labour MEP meltdown

The following quote is from today's The Scotsman linked here:-

Mr Blair has already been told by his pollster, Philip Gould, that private surveys of voting intentions in the June European elections could see Labour reduced from 29 to 20 seats.

One MEP says Mr Gould’s figures are predicting a “meltdown” in Labour’s traditional support at the elections. There is also worry that Downing Street appears unconcerned about the prospect of defeat, and has done little to rally troops ahead of the campaign.

The self-inflicted wounds borne by the leaders of Britain's eurosceptic movements, could still be tended in time to rally the growing popular revulsion against the EU, the proposed EU Constitution and party politicians in particular ahead of the crucial 10th June, once in every five year elections. This has to be the best opportunity all in the country will have to protest in a meaningful way - but time is running short! The route suggested in today's Torygraph is most certainly NOT THE WAY see the posting immediately below.

posted by Martin | 11:13 AM

'How Not to Fight the EU'

The Daily Telegraph in its Leading Article this morning titled 'EU Constitution refuses to wither away' highlights the real dangers that euro-realists now face, namely - of being sidetracked by false promises from the conservatives. This is most vividly illustrated in the concluding paragraphs, quoted here, in italics with my comments interleaved in bold:-

Nevertheless, it is quite likely that a European Constitution Bill will be brought before Parliament this autumn. The Conservatives would oppose it, but they are not committed to repeal. It is, in any case, a moot point whether the courts might not regard the incorporation of the European Constitution as an irrevocable transfer of sovereignty.

The planned progress of the legislation was outlined in yesterday's Guardian linked here. The key sentence is of course the clear statement that the Conservatives are not committed to repeal it, which in my opinion clearly means they WILL NEVER DO SO. The concluding sentence makes no sense in this context and seems to have been inserted to deliberately confuse. The courts by then will be totally subject to European Control and will be entirely powerless to do anything other than the EU requires from enactment onwards.

For this and many other reasons, the House of Lords should be given time to consider all the constitutional implications. Even if its passage were slowed by scrutiny, the Government could force it through, albeit against convention, by invoking the Parliament Act.

What about a referendum? Labour and the Liberal Democrats will resist to the death any plebiscite on Europe, while the Tories won't promise a retrospective one. Various competing campaigns for a referendum have failed to coalesce.

The second paragraph is untrue. The Liberal Democrats support a referendum on the constitution (see conference report linked from here).

There are, however, European elections in June. The Government is determined that the constitution should not be an issue. If Michael Howard means business, he needs to turn the European election into a referendum on the constitution. Were he to succeed, the next general election could even turn on this issue. On Europe, Mr Howard really can speak for the country.

In view of everything stated by the Leader Writer up to this point, this conclusion is patent nonsense. But extremely dangerous nonsense, as it would deliver a huge conservative majority within the European Parliament, all of them manifestly opposed to any repeal of the constitution allowing the federalists full, final and complete victory.

The role for a repectable and upright eurosceptical party standing everywhere in the Euro elections on June 10th is what the Telegraph is arguing for, but then muddying the waters with its clearly ridiculous conclusion, hence, presumably the need for the lie about the Lib Dems as by telling the truth about that party's stance on a referendum it would be immediately obvious that Charle Kennedy could equally well make the case as speaking for the country as can Howard!

The tragedy of UKIP and their shameful leadership becomes daily more apparent as 10th June approaches. With today's leadership the party cannot hope to get any media support nor any principled vote. The Daily Telegraph, convoluting the truth and thereby diverting many eurosceptic votes towards the yet again secretly euro-enthusiastically led Conservative Party gives clear warning of how the EU constitution and resulting irrevocable total absorbtion of this country into the EU are about to be accomplished.

Ordinary UKIP members still tolerating the continuance in Office of the UKIP cabal are now becoming co-perpetrators with supposed eurosceptic Tory MPs and MEPs in the hand-over of their country!

posted by Martin | 8:09 AM

Tuesday, March 23, 2004  

EU Constitution

Reproduced below is this morning's post on the blog Ironies regarding the EU Constitution which once again now represents the most threatening, very clear and immediately present danger! Ironies will now return EU Constitutional matters to the top of its agenda , and as in December will provide multiple daily updates on the unfolding disaster.


We link a summary of the main provisions of the Constitution from today's EUBusiness (here). It now looks like being rushed through at breakneck speed, in my view to allow France and Germany to avoid the fines under the Maastricht Provisions which will then become void. I consider these elements as particularly unacceptable:-

- EU LEGISLATION: EU law shall have primacy over national legislation.

Current raft of legislative devices are to be replaced by six legal measures: laws, framework laws, regulations, decisions, recommendations and opinions.

- LEGAL STANDING: The constitution establishes the EU as a legal body with power to sign international treaties.

- CITIZENSHIP: "Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union."

If the voting compromise proposed by France and Germany is accepted by the Poles and the other fawning member states' leaders (latest situation also described by EUBusiness linked here) then nearly all our laws look like being made by EU qualified majority voting of just above the simple majority. This is absolutely outrageous and to me it is inconceivable that any British Government could consider agreeing such an arrangement even with some of the longest standing Commonwealth members who share our basis of law and democracy, let alone the Continental powers who down through history, continuing right up to the very recent past, have no tradition of those in authority respecting the individual and to whom, even today, the concept of 'fair play' seems alien.

It is absolutely unacceptable on any basis and must be stopped!

posted by Martin | 9:29 AM

Monday, March 22, 2004  

'Considerations a Competent UKIP Leadership should now be Debating'

Barbara Booker has been thinking beyond the European Parliamentary elections
and put these important and interesting questions to Damian Hockney, UKIP's leading candidate in the London Assembly Elections:-


I have asked repeatedly what stipulations the NEC has laid down regarding European parties or EP groups their MEPs might wish to join in the next parliament, and last September Mark Croucher replied that groups would be decided by negotiation after the election, until when speculation was pointless. Yet the EU Observer reported on 8 March that "frantic dealing is going on behind the scenes to plot the political landscape for the next five-year term", and the emergence of at least three new pan-European parties has already been announced - a left wing/Communist party, a united European Green Party, and a European Free Alliance Party. There is also talk of a new 'centrist federalist group' or party, gathering around MEPs who may defect from the EPP.

It is simply not believable that the UKIP MEPs are sitting out this frantic dealing, leaving whatever emerges after June to be settled by others before the election. For instance, might the European Free Alliance (EFA) be a possible party for UKIP to join? It is apparently "an association of regionalist and democratic nationalist parties" and already includes Scottish National Party and Welsh MEPs. Has UKIP held discussions with the EFA? I would guess also that negotiations must be taking place with a view to forming a pan-European party from those opposed to EU enlargement and immigration, such as Vlaams Blok and the Austrian Freedom Party. These are also UKIP policies. Have the MEPs been taking part in such discussions, and which of the three is conducting negotiations on UKIP's behalf?

I ask Damian these questions because he may become part of whatever is being agreed now, and should therefore be aware of what is decided. If UKIP fails to return any MEPs (and with highish profile independents like Martin Bell and Neil Herron splitting the protest vote this is possible) but Damian wins a seat on the GLA, he could turn out to be crucial to the formation of a new European party. A so far unremarked aspect of the regulations for the funding of pan- European parties is that the party (which can be formed from an alliance of small parties such as UKIP) has to be represented in a quarter of member states 'either' by having gained 3% of votes in the last EP elections, 'or' by having Members in the European parliament, or national parliaments, or regional parliaments, or 'regional assemblies'. The 'quarter of member states' requirement might mean the new party was reliant on a UK element for its formation, which would make Damian, or any other UKIP member of an elected RA (and it is worth noting that UKIP's policy is to campaign for immediate referendums on RAs across the UK), a pretty important guy! This would only apply if UKIP plans to join a pan-European party. EP groups consist of MEPs only, and would not include RA members. Does Damian know how negotiations are progressing?

A further question concerns the BNP, which shares UKIP's stance in a number of important policy areas. Both want to keep the pound and withdraw from the EU; both are opposed to EU enlargement; both take a tough line on immigration and asylum. Therefore, if both are successful in the Euro elections their MEPs are likely to be confronted with similar problems, and similar opportunities, in seeking alliances with MEPs from other member states. Doors which are slammed or flung wide to UKIP, may be similarly shut or opened to the BNP. Would UKIP members object to their MEPs sitting in the same EP group as BNP MEPs, or fighting future European and possibly regional elections as part of the same European party, and on the same common manifesto as the BNP?

These are important questions for anyone who sees UKIP as our only hope of getting out of the EU. Most members seem to believe that progress towards that depends chiefly on the degree of success in the Euros, and are not concerned with what happens in Brussels once their MEPs are elected. This is a mistake. The EU's institutions are evolving as it heads towards a single Eurostate, and the pieces are being put in place now for a structure which may not be fully visible for another one or two parliamentary terms. UKIP's internal difficulties should never be allowed to obscure what members' financial and other contributions are actually building. It may have nothing whatever to do with getting out of the EU.


posted by Martin | 6:24 PM

Reform UK

The Leader of the Reform UK Party, Harold Green has circulated a letter which I have received, although it has yet to appear on the party's web site, so I am unable to provide a link. Our blog Reform UK from UKIP tells a little about this party that was formed following the first large breakaway from UKIP.

After discussing the various rumours now circulating regarding an early general election, following a full move next door by Brown, Reform UK's leader turns to the Tories and concludes with the following:-

"Certain leading Tories have long been predicting a split which may well result in two quite separate parties emerging and replacing what is now the Conservative party. These would be a Eurosceptic Conservative party and a Europhile Conservative party. It is worth noting that Ian Duncan Smith has been advised to keep quiet over the next few months.

Either he has not heard the message or he prefers to ignore it because he seems to be prepared to speak out whenever the opportunity arises. If IDS is speaking out to try
and consolidate his position, as the leading anti-EU politician within the UK, then he will undoubtedly attract much support. If he is just going to sulk on the back benches, like Ted Heath has done before him, then he will just fade away into obscurity. It is interesting to note that the HoC enquiry into his wife's salary and expenses has now completely exonerated him from any wrongdoing. This only serves to underline the fact that the move to remove him was nothing more than a europhile plot.

Even if the Europhile half of the Tory party is able to project itself as the official Tory party it is unlikely that the public will be swayed by this. Evidence that this is happening is provided by the fact that Michael Howard is starting to dismantle some of the anti-EU measures put in place by his predecessor by returning the Tory MEP's to the federalist grouping of the EPP. Michael Howard is, therefore, quietly and clearly establishing his credentials as 'John Major - Mark 2.' However, should the Tories do well on what will inevitably be a strictly domestic manifesto, at the Euro election, Howard will doubtless say to himself 'look how the public love my europhile policies!'

In the year 2004 deceit will be rife, on all sides, with the major parties ignoring the all too apparent consequences of our continuing membership of the EU and the extreme fringe parties trying to hide their more unsavoury objectives.

I believe that final paragraph, to which I added the emphasis, hits the nail on the head. That leaves well-informed euro-realists such as independent-minded readers of this blog, with nowhere to sensibly place their votes in the coming Euro elections. Unless more independents materialise, abstention presently seems the most effective protest.

posted by Martin | 7:15 AM

Sunday, March 21, 2004  

Exploitation of our Youth?

UKIP's web-site has in its Headlines a report on the party's 17,500 th member, Jummy Olajibe, aged 17 years, who is pictured in the accompanying story with Mike Nattrass and a UKIP van which carries a very special message for the featured Comrade Deputy Party Leader. See the picture of Nattrass and the van from this link.

We wonder if this is an attempted or subliminal response to all the questions raised recently on this blog regarding Nattrass's past membership of the 'Observer' labelled 'avowedly racist far-right party New Britain'? If not it would be interesting to know on what precise basis member number 17,500 was selected, the statistical chances of her being available to visit the new Nattrass controlled Head Office from London and to be immediately available for volunteer work and the photo-op seem fortuitous. Other questions arise, such as how many other new UKIP members are below voting age and might it not now be an idea for the party to start a youth organisation?

The widespread distrust amongst pensioners in the West Country, and adverse reaction to the party following the involvement of Max Clifford would indicate it is now more likely registered voter membership retention rather than youth recruitment that needs attention. Nattrass and the rest of the cabal taking the message from their van to 'GET OUT' is of course the only real hope for this party!

posted by Martin | 9:48 AM

Saturday, March 20, 2004  

Calne Result (correction)

Thanks to Barbara Booker for the following correction, comment and detailed result with BNP reaction. However one looks at it, this is a shocking self-contrived setback for UKIP, even more astounding coming after all the warnings given over the past year regarding the BNP and no official explanation having been offered, as far as I am aware, for their policies either in the North East, Yorkshire and N. Lincs, the South East where an ex-UKIP member is apparently BNP's lead candidate nor now with this shambles in the South West! Herewith the comment received regarding the post below:-


Sorry to nit-pick but the BNP seem to think they came third in Calne, not second. Below is the report from their website.

Surely the important thing is that they gained a higher percentage than at the last local elections, which UKIP might have prevented had they stood.


18.5% in Wiltshire . . AND WE BEAT LABOUR!
Clive Wakley reporting
CONGRATULATIONS to Robert Baggs the BNP's candidate in the Abberd Ward by-election for Calne Town Council in North Wiltshire after polling 18.5% and pushing the Labour Party candidate into 4th place.

Last May, Robert polled a very encouraging 118 votes which amounted to nearly 18% of the vote, but this contest offered three vacant seats in the ward so Robert's "core" first choice votes would have been boosted by voters giving him their second and third choice votes to achieve the impressive result.

This time round there was only one vacancy, so there were no 'soft second choice' votes for the BNP. But not only did Robert beat the Labour Party candidate, he quite clearly substantially improved on the party's standing in the town in terms of the percentage of Calne residents who regard the BNP as their party of first choice.

posted by Martin | 10:53 AM

Aiding an Advancing BNP?

UKIP as part of its BNP strategy is not fighting local elections in the South West of England. This policy was announced by Malcolm Wood the UKIP SW Regional Organiser at a party meeting as reported in our post of 25th January and welcomed by the BNP as a conciliatory gesture on their SW region web site. The posting titled 'UKIP's Malcolm Wood announces BNP Electoral Pact' is linkedfrom here

A local newspaper in Devizes Wiltshire, reported on Thursday of the strong challenge mounted by the BNP in a by election at Calne held last week linked here.

The inevitable result has now occurred with BNP gaining 18.5 per cent of the vote on a low turnout, but a huge boost for that extremist party ahead of the Euros where such margins would be certain to guarantee seats.

We recall the once very active Wiltshire branch has suffered senior resignations in disgust over recent party leadership actions and hear that Gloucestshire and the M4 corridor feel UKIP's efforts are unduly concentrated on Devon. Other rumours put the UKIP situation in Cornwall as also being far from tranquil.

Andrew Edwards who brought the incident to our attention had this comment:-

"True, the turnout was low (council by-elections usually are), but, even so, the % gained was enough to put BNP into second place. And remember, this election took place in the backyard of, John Ryan, Malcolm Woods' right hand man, and Chairman of the UKIP SW Regional Committee! (It's also, btw, the home area of Alan Wood, who' just happens to be the UKIP Regional Agent for the June EU elections).

I hope there's egg on all of the faces responsible today, because this result is due in large part to their blind refusal to listen to good advice. Additionally, the result clearly shows what can and will happen when Malcolm Woods' advice not to stand in such by-elections is followed!

BNP go forward to June buoyed up. UKIP, SW, with a, Regional Organiser, who's afraid of the ballot box, must be close to tears."

What motivates UKIP's Leadership? Surely it is not to get the BNP installed into Europe? Other conspiracy theories have been propounded on flimsier evidence and at some point there must be a limit to the sheer negligence and incompetence of even these buffoons. At present we seem yet to have reached it! Can these reverses all be simply put down to folly?

posted by Martin | 8:38 AM

Friday, March 19, 2004  

Who Are UKIP's Planned 10 MEPs

As reported yesterday by EUobserver, the UK Independence Party is aiming to win 10 seats in the upcoming elections of 10th June for the Europan Parliament.

Who are these candidates and are they worthy of your support. The three sitting MEPs Booth, Farage and Titford, must be on UKIP's list, in spite of the illegalities of the video copyright theft involving two of them and all the other very unsavoury goings on reported here. But what of the others. We would guess that half a dozen of these newcomers would normally be presumed to come from the regional list's lead candidates, unless they are hoping for two winning seats in the South West where Party Leader Roger Knapman is number two. But surely Ashley Mote and Tom Wise cannot also be hoping to gain success on the shirtails of the sitting MEPS. Even were that so, it would leave four of the hopefuls to come from the other lead candidates. Here then are three high profile names topping certain regional lists for one to consider.

Look at the names closely for they should be very familiar to regular readers of this blog:-

Peter Troy - Scotland (many entries on this blog most recently below on this page).

Mike Nattrass - West Midlands ( Can he seriously expect to win? Many entries , some immediately below and Sidebar).

Derek Clark - East Midlands. (Kangaroo Court Chief with atrocious record of arbitrary authoritarianism, see multiple entries and Sidebar)

I would not care to speculate as to who UKIP might be pinning their hopes on as other potential victors. Any having the time to waste on such fruitless speculation can study the list and assess the impossibility for themselves from here.

Not that some of the people listed may not indeed be perfectly able and hard-working dedicated euroscepitics, who in a decently led party, might well have some real hopes of success. Rather it is the impossibility caused by the venality and incompetence of those in charge of the party and with whom they are now choosing to run, that seems certain to doom them to failure. Are they all really prepared for the slating UKIP seems certain to receive in the press once the real campaign gets underway? If an extremist tag can be pinned to some senior candidates, even maybe if only on one if he be very close to the top, will it not rightly be seen as applying to all?

I don't think the ruling cabal have even begun to think it all through, in spite of a year of warnings from this blog! The latest attempts to unseat and replace their own NEC Election Returning Officer, coming on top of the fiasco of the replacement of the Appeals Chairman in the Hockney Discipline matter with the attempted appointment of two illegal replacements would normally have reduced UKIP's affairs to a level of total farce. It is no laughing matter, however when it results in depriving Eurorealist voters in most of the country of a proper choice next June! Particularly with the EU Constitution now about to resurface.

posted by Martin | 8:54 AM

Thursday, March 18, 2004  

Further Unconstitutional Action - Now over the NEC Returning Officer

We have received a copy of a letter, sent to the NEC by a candidate in the postponed NEC election. It was not written by any of those mentioned within the letter!


Dear NEC members and candidates for election to the NEC

There seems to be some misunderstanding on the NEC about the role of the Returning Officer in the forthcoming NEC elections, and about the ability of the NEC to interfere at will with the process.

Over the weekend before the 15th March 2004 NEC meeting, the Returning Officer put out a statement to all the NEC making clear what action he was taking to ensure fair elections. The Returnng Officer had already put out a statement in February 2004 making clear that Party Chairman David Lott's actions had caused the suspension of then NEC elections.

One of the important aspects of these fair elections is the need to correct and balance the damage done by David Lott's vicious attack upon Damian Hockney to the branch officers on 26th January 2004, and subsequent attacks by other party officials on a number of candidates during February 2004.

As you know, these attacks have included a number of falsehoods and smears, and they all unquestionably broke the party's rules and constitution. As you also know, and I am sure you all agree, simply because the Party Chairman or Nigel Farage might disagree with someone, this does not give them the right to break the party's rules and attack those members in a malicious attempt to ensure that they are not elected.

At the time of that 26th January 2004 attack, the papers for the NEC elections were just about to be distributed and were ready at the distributors to be despatched. The attack was clearly timed to cause maximum damage to candidates' chances of being elected and timed in with the political attempt to discipline candidates like Damian Hockney and Michael Harvey using false information and flawed procedures.

Members of the NEC - some of whom are up for election - may not now interfere with the process of the elections, giving orders to the Returning Officer which countermand or simply ignore (as the meeting appears to have done) the course of action outlined by the Returning Officer.

The NEC cannot now simply state that it will replace the Returning Officer if he does not do the will of the nine who, for example, voted unlawfully and unconstitutionally to expel NEC election candidate Damian Hockney - that will which is clearly to damage certain candidates' chances of being elected by attempting to force them into an election race where falsehoods and lies stand uncorrected.

Similarly, as you are now aware, a leadership supporter and NEC election candidate John Moran (implicated in the false claims that Michael Harvey was planning to barricade himself into the Broadwick Street office) has now issued a defamatory statement attacking two candidates for the NEC elections. The information came from Monday's NEC and can only have come from certain sources.

It is unlawful and unconstitutional for the NEC to stop the Returning Officer from acting through the threat of being sacked.

I will regard any attempt to unconstitutionally remove or interfere with the Returning Officer's already-stated plan of action as a direct attack by the leadership and a part of the NEC upon the candidacies of a number of members, as it clearly is.


I have witheld the name of the signatory of this letter as he is unknown to me, and therefore not able to be contacted for permission.

The lengths the cabal appear willing to go to maintain their grip on the party, and the absence of protest from the general membership and Branch Chairmen now truly beggars all belief. Can this farce really continue much longer?

posted by Martin | 6:11 PM

UKIP in for Fierce Fight, predicts EUobserver.

EUobserver this morning carries an item on the upcoming battle for seats in the European Parliament next June and quotes the UKIP web site which carries the parties ambitious pledge to aim to win ten seats. Read the full article linked here.

The EU specialist news monitoring service linked with the EDD, either does not know, or has chosen to disregard the embattled position of the UKIP, particularly its totally split NEC and the rumours and scandal circulating regarding its possible pact or 'understanding' with the extreme right-wing and racist BNP. The danger of the latter party gaining a foothold in the EU is however discussed - imagine the backlash against UKIP if they are presumed to have connived in such an outcome!

The article gives a good overview of the European Parliamentary situation and we recommend using the link.

posted by Martin | 1:02 PM

UKIP and its Corrupted MEPs

It is now almost a truism: "Any who go to the EU, become corrupt."

UKIP had its disagreements in its formative years as to whether or not the party should put up candidates for the European Parliamen, at first it decided NO, then after some internal disputations it decided YES. Today the party has three MEPs all of whom are seeking re-election as Lead UKIP Candidates in their respective areas.

It was on 4th May last year when this blog first made a posting on this complex topic, highlighting the difficulties that might be incurred by Nigel Farage as a result of his computer having been stolen: Reselecting UKIP's Sitting Meps. The Daily Telegraph article reporting the Prince of Wales potential for embaraasment from this incident may be read from here.

I suggested to the party that one possibility for the party to consider to overcome the huge campaigning difficulties that would be bound to be suffered as a result of the endemic Brussels' corruption and UKIP's MEP Candoidates' benefits from it, might be to have them move down the list by one place after each successful election. Failure to win two regional seats might then provide new sitting MEPs and high-profile ex-MEPs to fight the all important Westminster General Election.

In a proposal I then put to the party regarding removal of this blog, which was just beginning to cause the ruling cabal some embarassment, I formalised this idea. The details of that proposal were published on the blog on 19th September and may be read from this link to a post titled 'Reforming UKIP' which sets out my detailed proposals.

Time has moved on, of course, and some of those ideas and suggestions seem no longer valid, but new and more revelant ones could always be discussed. I am available to give whatever input any in UKIP solely concerned with UKIP's survival as a party existing to restore sovereignty to Westminster might request.

In the campaign ahead UKIP will not be really able to maximise the campaigning benefits from the 'truism' spelt out in this post's opening sentence, if we are led by three of the overpaid and over-perked and overly expensed members of the past European Parliament within the party's ranks ! Especially not with a thoroughly disgraced leadership still directing the party!

posted by Martin | 7:53 AM

Wednesday, March 17, 2004  

Further Defamation and Disinformation

The NEC of UKIP have today been informed of an e-mail sent to a list of blind copy recipients by known Farage henchman and Ashford office operative, John Moran.

This is not the first time this name has cropped up on our pages as can be seen from these links:- 17th December Crisis Update, 23rd December The Head Office Lockout, 4th January UKIP's SW Regional Organiser and 28th January Four Letter Filth.

Moran's highest profile action came during the so-called recent office lock-out. It was Moran who called Surrey member Chris Browne from New York and told him - mid December - that he had been told that Michael Harvey was planning to barricade himself into the party's Head Office. Very embarrassingly for Moran, Chris Browne is a very straight guy and simply wrote on ind-uk that he had been told this by John Moran, and gave that as a (very reasonable)
explanation as to why he had been persuaded to go up to head office and help eject the staff.

We understand that although pressed, John Moran has never convincingly explained why he might have said this nor who told him to do so. So who is he? This is what we know. If anything here is incorrect we will of course amend any wrong details on being so advised.

We understand Moran might at one time have been a double glazing salesman, nowadays he is certainly a close associate of Nigel Farage. He seems deeply involved in the Ashford Telesales operation even possibly being a director of the company running the business. Does John Moran earn money from the telesales operation in any way, or as a result of his involvement with the party's Ashford operation? It is a question that several have asked but no definitive answer has been found. If he does then a situation has now arisen duplicating that of Mark Croucher, UKIP's press spokesman, who while drawing a salary directly resulting from UKIP's MEP representation within the EDD group in Europe is used as an attack dog against volunteers freely devoting their time, energies and money to UKIP in an effort to promote the real objectives of the party and its members.

In this instance the attack was launched within hours of the end of an NEC meeting.

It's clear he must have been briefed just after the meeting ,most probably by Nigel Farage or Chairman Lott, but in any event, clearly by them or one of their close supporters.

I attach John Moran's e-mail of 16th March 2004 here.



I am deliberately BCCing this e-mail to you.

It is shocking to learn that the Party Treasurer was forced to admit at yesterdays NEC meeting that he was wired for sound and recording and that he has done the same at all NEC meetings for over a year!

It was agreed that the NEC elections would go ahead next month, notwithstanding Damian's threats to all and sundry.

Please do not forward this e-mail, but you are free to use the information as you see fit.


John Moran


We have put this matter to Damian for his reaction which was as follows:-

"How on earth can we have fair and proper elections if these type of attacks are inspired by NEC members on the basis of false information and smears, and issued within hours of the NEC meeting to attack candidates?

Two candidates have been smeared here. John de Roeck was not "forced to admit" anything. And I do not issue, and have not issued, "threats to all and sundry" in regard to the NEC elections. This is a clear statement that the NEC elections are going ahead in spite of threats made by myself. No such threats have ever been made. So the attack is untrue.

In comments also made to other members of UKIP's NEC we understand that Damian has amplified on this as follows:-

" As you all know, the NEC elections have been delayed by the attacks of the Party Chairman upon candidates, including myself. These are serious smears to add to the earlier ones, are clearly malicious and inspired by the leadership, and I am asking Nigel Farage and David Lott here: "Did you inform your colleague John Moran of what happened at the NEC to enable him to mount this divisive attack?". David Lott and Nigel Farage both work closely with John Moran at Ashford, but it may indeed be someone else who has passed this information

The matter is made worse by the fact that John Moran is a candidate for these elections.

On the last occasion when John Moran was involved on behalf of the leadership in a problem, it was claimed by Surrey member Chris Browne that John Moran had told him on behalf of the leadership that Michael Harvey was planning to barricade himself into the party's former head office. This of course was untrue.

If it was not Nigel or David, then who did give John Moran this partial information of a confidential and as-yet unminuted meeting to enable him to mount an attack on two NEC election candidates?

Does John Moran earn money from the telesales operation in any way, or as a result of his involvement with the party's Ashford operation? If that is the case, then it is like the Mark Croucher situation - unacceptable that a consultant/employee is used to attack other party members within hours of the end of an NEC meeting.

These are outrageous remarks by John Moran designed to damage candidates' chances in the NEC elections and specifically referring to the NEC elections in relation to one of the candidates. Does anyone disagree with this assessment?

I regard it as despicable to use staff and paid consultants like Mark Croucher to spread smears on behalf of the employers.

posted by Martin | 12:16 PM

The Deliberate Destruction of UKIP in the North East and Yorkshire & N. Lincs

UKIP's corrupt cabal might protest until the day they enter their well deserved perdition that they made no deal with BNP regarding the European Parliamentary June elections in certain North Country electoral regions, but who is likely to believe them?

Their own web site now provides yet further evidence of the success of what might well have been their deliberate strategy; where once existed fierce competion for the opportunity to represent the eurosceptic party and fight a potentially winning campaign for moderate eurorealism, there is now nothing left but an apparently clear run for the extreme right wing and racist British National Party in its two strongest and only potentially feasible winning areas.

Looking at UKIP's web page for Euro Candidates, linked from here, we see that the North East Region is now down to only one MEP candidate (from seven), namely, Charlotte Bull, generally considered by many who attended the North East hustings as the least likely to top the poll. In Yorkshire & N. Lincs they are down to only four candidates for the six available seats, headed by Godfrey Bloom, close friend of Nigel Farage, but from what we hear hardly the flavour of the month amongst party activists.

For those who have derided all the evidence put forward on this blog over the past year, all clearly pointing to something very suspicious and underhand taking place at the top levels of the party, and have always demanded the absolute concrete proof that we have even now never been able to absolutely provide, we suggest you use the above link to the Party's own web site and examine the concrete evidence of missing competent, qualified and locally well supported candidates in either the North East or Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire and draw the only possible conclusion.

The absence of good candidates to run against the EU in less than three months time, when the EU is at an all-time trough of unpopularity, could only have been brought about by EITHER a party leadership of complete and utter almost breathtaking incompetence - OR it has been contrived as a deliberate strategy by one, some or all of the ruling cabal for reasons that must have been completely contrary to those objectives for which UKIP exists as a party. In either such event the ruling cabal MUST be immediately removed as in both cases they are clearly incapable of, or not to be trusted with, properly directing the absolutely critical final European Parliamentary campaign.

posted by Martin | 7:47 AM

Tuesday, March 16, 2004  

The Circular Letter that FINALLY got some Reaction

The following letter was circulated among UKIP members last weekend, and resulted in many telephone calls to the leadership, who then reversed the decision regarding Michael Harvey's suspension just before yesterday's NEC meeting, for a fuller report on which please see the post immediately following this.


Dear UKIP Member

I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but Nigel Farage, Roger Knapman, Mike Nattrass and David Lott have started more divisive attacks on members - this time it's the turn of Michael Harvey, the party's former General Secretary.

You may find this extraordinary, but they arranged a secret discipline hearing, with no panel members present, no details of the charges made available...and they arranged for him to be suspended, then telling him that it was "democratic" that he "must not be told of the reason why you are suspended from the party".

Those who have found out have started lobbying the leadership about this secret attack, and a meeting is going on right now where the leadership is under siege to stop its attacks and to reverse this divisive and absurd secret Kangaroo Court decision. I urge you to add to the pressure, ensuring that the attacks on members are stopped. At this stage it is vital that we do not lose heart, but that we restore commonsense to our leadership which is acting to seize complete control and to remove anyone who asks inconvenient questions.

Again, they have broken all the rules of the discipline procedure, and they trawled through everything possible and made up charges based on something that happened three years ago, which is not even a discipline matter.

The real reason they want to "get him", to use Nigel Farage's words, is that Michael Harvey is standing for the NEC elections in a ticket of party reform, alongside four others.

They are all standing on the ticket of a strong "loyalty pledge". They want all candidates elected to the European Parliament (and other bodies) to sign a pledge which will tie elected members to the party. Other parties do this. Nigel Farage, Graham Booth and Jeffrey Titford have done everything possible to frustrate this plan, a plan which was proposed by Damian Hockney and Gerard Batten at a recent NEC. The leadership claim that it is "not possible", but this is simply not true and is a diversionary tactic. And that is one of the reasons why the leadership want rid of these people - to stop them winning through and enforcing a strict policy which makes elected MEP's accountable.

You may remember that David Lott sabotaged the NEC elections last month by breaking party rules and attacking party members standing for the NEC, so desparate are they to ensure that the reformers do not win. No doubt you received the Returning Officer's report which made clear that David Lott had wrecked the elections and thrown the party into turmoil.

I urge you to stop these people from wrecking the party with their divisive attacks upon members like Michael Harvey, a general secretary who kept the party HQ in good order, efficient and smooth-running.

You can call Roger Knapman on ****, David Lott on ****,Nigel Farage on **** and Mike Nattrass on ****. Alternatively call UKIP HQ to stop this rot.


The telephone numbers were included on the copy of the letter we received, and can be supplied to UKIP members wishing to call one or more of their leaders, if requested by e-mail to the blog!

posted by Martin | 12:55 PM

Chaos at NEC as leadership crumbles over kangaroo courts

We deliver this report, as received from one of our most reliable sources:-


It was a cold day in Brum for UKIP's leadership as it began to see its campaigns against party members crumble.

In an extraordinary move, Michael Harvey's discipline case began to fall apart as the cabal grasped the true extent of anger growing throughout the party at their antics. You may remember that Farage, Chairman Lott, Mike Nattrass and Knapman arranged the suspension without any trial of Michael Harvey.

They had him suspended and then told the chairman of the panel to tell him that he "was not allowed to know why he had been suspended". They said that this was "fair" and "democratic".

The only thing that has altered all of this - and UKIP members please remember this - is that a major donor told them in no uncertain terms to "pack it in or else". Important because it means that lobbying and calling them WORKS. It's only when UKIP members say nothing and think "Oh well he must have done something. We must just get on. Only 90 days to go"...that's when the cabal get away with things.

How did they "pack it in". Well they used an extraordinary device. Half an hour before the meeting they spoke to the panel chairman and told him to say that he had "miiscounted' the votes to suspend Michael Harvey. "What you have to say is that you thought someone who voted to suspend Harvey in fact voted NOT to," said Nigel Farage. "Then you have to say that someone else called you and changed their minds. We can fix it that way."

And can you believe it, that is what happened.

More antics from the NEC later in the day, including: Sinclaire's last stand as she tries to wrest the Returning Officer's job from Craig Mackinlay; the shouting match over Damian Hockney's demand to know whether the leadership has done a stitch-up with the BNP, and the refusal of the leadership to answer the questions (without answering his questions, they said they wouldn't stay in the room with him so he addressed them for 10 minutes and left, having put on record his concerns).


posted by Martin | 11:53 AM

The Clements/Delderfield Letter in Full

We have had no report that yesterday's NEC removed any ex-New Britain Party members from the approved UKIP MEP candidates list. We therefore now reproduce the letter signed by Dennis Delderfield leader of the New Britain party (and others) to which several very senior UKIP members once belonged, which was referred to in The Observer article which described New Britain, correctly in our view having read what follows, as the avowedly racist far-right party New Britain.

We abhor the contents of this letter, and thought hard before reproducing it in full. The claims of non-extremism in the first paragraph are quickly demonstrated to be the reverse of the truth. In my view, it would clearly be impossible for anybody with any personal knowledge of a signatory to the letter, such as M. Nattrass (certainly for one) present deputy leader of UKIP and lead MEP candidate for the West Midlands, not to have been aware of the racist views of the New Britain party leader. This is made clear in our post of last Saturday "Seriously...." which may be found by scrolling further down this page.

The letter was addressed to Michael Holmes MEP (although we did not obtain our copy from that source) at UKIP South West Regional Office in Salisbury and was dated January 31st 2000:-


Dear Mr Holmes,

We, the signatories of this letter, are in no way extremists nor are we people who dislike others because they are different in race, colour or creed from ourselves. We are simply British patriots who strongly object to the fact that our country is slowly but surely being overrun by non-British immigrants and their descendants.

Most ethnic Britons resent the immigrants' presence. And who can blame them? Even in the Borough of Havering, where few immigrants live as yet, practically every newsagent's, every sub-post-office and every pharmacy is owned or run by Asians. In Ilford, every other shop-assistant seems to be coloured as do about 50% of people on the streets. In East Ham, one has to look hard to find a white person. Suburb after suburb and town after town across the land have been taken over by Asians, Africans and Afro-Caribbeans:- East Ham, Stratford, Hackney, Hounslow, Southall, Slough, Leicester, Birmingham, Bradford and so on, almost ad infinitum.

Immigrants and their descendants already control many aspects of British life indirectly by threatening to refer disputes to the Commission for Racial Equalitiy if they fail to get whatever they want. In the not too distant future, they will have direct political control in many areas.

Some 20% to 25% of the population of London were reckoned to be immigrants [or of immigrant stock] in A.D. 1999. The official forecast is that 40% of Londoners will be immigrants [or of immigrant stock] by A.D. 2004, an increase of 15 to 20 percentage points in just five years. Crude extrapolation from these figures suggests that 55% to 60% of Londoners will be immigrants [or of immigrant stock] by A.D. 2009 and 70% to 80% by A.D. 2014. London, the capital city of the United Kingdom, will then be run by a coloured Mayor, a predominantly coloured Assembly and predominantly coloured borough councils.

Our forebears did not fight two terrible and bloody world wars for the British Nation to lose its identity in this way.
Richard Clements
Greta Smith
Norman Good
Ken Redgrave
May Clark
Avril Clark
Jim Fellowes
Terry Murray
Len Wadham
Earl of Burford
Dennis Delderfield

N.B. The signatories of this letter - which was written by Richard Clements - are not members of any one political party or group. The first nine are friends or acquaintances of varying degrees of closeness. The Earl of Burford and Mr Delderfield offered to sign the letter after reading a draft of it.

Identical letters are being sent to H.M. The Queen, H.R.H. The Prince of Wales, H.M. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Tebbitt, Lady Thatcher, Lord Massereene & Ferrard, Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, the defence Chiefs of Staff, Sir Paul Condon, leaders of political parties, certain M.P.s and P.P.C.s and the editors of some twenty-five newspapers and magazines.


It is inconceivable that anybody holding such views, or even having the least sympathy with the sentiments of total intolerance expressed, could consider themselves as having any part to play in a non-racist political party such as UKIP purports to be, which even today states on its web site as its Aims:-


The UK Independence Party is an inclusive party and is guided by the principle of non-discrimination: we seek the support of persons of all races and religions who share our aims.

The Party's commitment to non-discrimination receives special protection in the constitution.

If there are any party members reading the above letter who have a problem in seeing the huge contradiction, between the letter and such aims, then they are surely in the wrong party. If any such are on the UKIP NEC then it is perhaps most UKIP party members who are so misplaced!

posted by Martin | 8:33 AM

Monday, March 15, 2004  

More Humbug

Further to my posting yesterday about Jeffrey Titford's hypocrisy in joining a chorus against the far right, I have now received this follow-up from Barbara Booker:-


Jeffrey Titford told the Bishop's Stortford Citizen:

"The BNP are opportunists, picking up the mantle of immigration and asylum. The European parliament has no say in immigration and I hope the electorate will bear that in mind when they vote in June".

UKIP has consistently focused on immigration and asylum, from Ashley Mote's 'In Peril' speaking tour to Nigel Farage's letter to the Times warning that every new member state is poorer than Britain and enlargement "will bring a flood of people from Eastern Europe seeking benefit". This is almost indistinguishable from the BNP spokesman's complaint to the Citizen that it is "outrageous" that enlargement will allow people from poor countries to come here and claim benefits.

UKIP's website article of the week is a piece by Jeffrey Titford on how our "overcrowded island" "simply cannot accommodate a major influx of migrants from Europe", and the party's new brochure lists 'Freedom from Overcrowding' as one of 5 essential freedoms, saying that a vote for UKIP is a vote to end illegal immigration.

Jeffrey Titford's remarks about opportunists picking up the mantle of immigration are sheer hypocrisy.


This is not going to be an issue that slips quietly away. The mystery for me, and one that has grown deeper as the time passes since I first raised the possibility of a North East Region electoral pact between the UKIP and the BNP a year ago, is where is the benefit for UKIP?

I still am no closer to an answer on that question and must assume that certain senior figures hold certain opinions that they are ashamed to make known in public. In that respect and assuming such supposition is anywhere close to the truth, then the leaders of BNP seem almost straightforward and honest by comparison. At least they have the nerve to openly and clearly express their hate-filled and intolerant views!

posted by Martin | 9:49 PM

A Culture of Continuing Lies

UKIP's corrupt ruling cabal of R. Knapman Leader, M. Nattrass Deputy Leader, D. Lott Chairman, N. Farage MEP and G. Booth MEP have overseen a totally disastrous year for the party where lies have become such a commonplace that one becomes weary of their constant recitation. We must therefore particularly thank Andrew Edwards for this detailed expose of the recent situation regarding the hiring of Max Clifford, its reporting in the FT Observer Column (blog report linked here) and the resulting lies of Party Chairman Lott, the Party Press spokesman Croucher, and a mysterious apparently untraceable letter to the newspaper from Farage. The quotes which caused the furore were these:-

No repentance on Wednesday from the UK Independence party after Observer revealed Max Clifford, its recently hired PR Svengali, was a fan of the euro and would vote Labour in a general election.

Ignoring a Labour call to "back or sack Max Clifford", UKIP MEP Nigel Farage said: "Max agrees [with us] 100 per cent on one thing: power should lie in Westminster not Brussels. I know what he was trying to say."

Herewith the report from Andy Edwards:-


So to begin, at the meeting of London Branch Chairmen and officers on 26th January, David Lott told the meeting that the remarks attributed to Max Clifford in the Financial Times on 21st January were 'four year old statements'.

This fits in with 'bumbling amateur' Mark Croucher's public email on 22nd January, that: 'Max Clifford's comments were pulled from earlier interviews he had given and cobbled together in an article.'

THIS SEEMS TO BE A - DECEPTIVE AND UNTRUE STATEMENT BY MR CROUCHER. But, did he know it was so, or did he blindly follow Lotts' lead without researching the story for himself? I doubt we'll ever know! But knowingly or otherwise the statement was as I've described!

David Lott had already put out an email on 22nd January when he was heading off criticism of the Gary Titley affair by talking about the misrepresentation of Max Clifford by the hostile FT. However, a study of the Financial Times' story reveals that, except for one quotation as being clearly labelled 'at the last election' (2-1/2 years ago - not four years ago) all the statements were in the current tense.

A phone call was made to the Financial Times to enquire whether or not the story was cobbled together from four year old statements. The FT unequivocally replied that all the quotes from this article were made by, Max Clifford, in the last few days just before the story was published
(except of course for the one correctly labelled as having been made at the last election.)

In particular the quote 'I'll vote Blair. He's heads and shoulders above anyone else' was a January 2004 quotation by Clifford - AFTER HE HAD TAKEN THE COMMISSION TO REPRESENT UKIP!!!

The FT stated that anyone who disputed that story should contact Max Clifford who had not and has not denied it. David Lott is wrong and so is Mark Croucher - THERE WAS NO MISINTERPRETATION!

Why THEN did David Lott make incorrect statements to the London Officers?

Simple! It was self protection! He was trying to head off any potential criticism for his hiring, at great expense, of a man often described (in less than complimentary terms in the media - ed). A man whose main speciality was sourcing to the media, unpleasant, and (scandalous - ed) stories, about extra marital liaisons with consequent dire consequences for the families involved.

A further deception occurred when asked why no press release putting the facts allegedly straight was not put out. This would have been a denial of the attributed remarks by Max Clifford. David Lott gave the reply that it would keep a false story going in the press - the same reply as Croucher gave on 22/1/04.

Yet, amazingly, David Lott also announced that Nigel Farage had written to the FT pointing out the error of their story about Max Clifford but the hostile FT had not published it. To my simple mind, this seems to contradict the idea of not keeping a false story going? doesn't it?

So, we go back to the FT to check David Lott's story, again. The FT Observer column has no record of Nigel Farage's letter. This has been confirmed by the ' Observer' column, Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Editor and the 'Letters to' Editor. It, therefore, seems that this was another incorrect statement by Lott. BTW, does anyone ever recall seeing a copy of this Farage letter to the FT?

posted by Martin | 2:51 PM

UKIP could be saved at today's NEC

All that is needed is a decision to run no candidates in the June European Elections. As Jeffrey Titford MEP and then Party Leader, so rightly pointed out in his speech A Journey to the Rotten Heart of Europe to the Bruges Group on 4th November 2000 linked here nothing can be achieved by elected MEPs anyway!

The run-up to these elections has seen UKIP tear itself to pieces, the fight against the EU has been forgotten, and the prospects for any victory are now forlorn.

Best to regroup, salvage what is left of the party's reputation and at least retain some eurosceptic credentials for the far more important Westminster elections that must soon follow.

Herwith some significant quotes from the former Party Leader's speech:-

"So we go through this charade, this parody of democratic process"

"In little more than an hour in that hemicycle, we may be required to cast 200 votes or more - one vote approximately every 20 seconds - each having a direct effect on the lives of hundreds, sometimes millions of people, led by a bored so-called president who sits at the front, for all the world like a weary teller in some huge bingo hall."

"Remember: In this parliament there are no private members bills. Not a single measure originates in the parliament. Every directive and regulation is written by the commission, passes through this charade and becomes European Law."

"Our votes cannot check a directive. We are there merely to furnish the illusion of democracy, providing a veneer to conceal what is a fundamentally undemocratic process. The cast may change, but the show always goes on, with the actors collecting their wages from the stage door and dashing off for a self-congratulatory drink after the show."

"Far from being at the centre of things, the European parliament is a cul-de-sac."

"What we are uncovering is much more important because it is insidious, covert and unseen and whatever is insidious, covert and unseen in the process of government is of its nature undemocratic. This is what we have come to know as "creeping integration", the slow but relentless absorption of our institutions, customs and freedoms, ignored by the media and concealed from the public."

"...yet amounts to nothing less than the deliberate deception of the electorate."

posted by Martin | 6:16 AM

Sunday, March 14, 2004  

Ex- 'Avowedly Racist' New Britain Party member Jeffrey Titford Now Condemns the Far Right

Jeffrey Titford, ex-leader and now again MEP candidate for the UK Independence Party, which has for months been the subject of rumours and speculation that it has been in some kind of secret electoral pact with the extremist and Far Right BNP, has now laughably joined with other Eastern Region MEPs to condemn the far right!. A full report can be read in the online edition of the East Anglian local newspaper Citizen linked from here and titled 'Call for far-right boycott'.

Earlier the same newspaper had reported on Martin Bell's campaign call to send no money which was linked from this posting on our sister blog WE WON'T GO which also reports in Titford's own words why any sitting MEP is not worthy of re-election!

posted by Martin | 1:19 PM

Has 'New Britain' metamorphosed into UKIP?

Certainly New Britain seems to have all but effectively disappeared at about the same time as various of its ex-members seized almost supreme control of UKIP.

Below is another possible instance of links between the two parties, albeit received some time ago, and possibly therefore out of date as to present New Britain plans :-

The New Britain Party, which has policies very similar to UKIP, has specifically targeted Yorkshire as a region where it intends to stand in the 2004 EU elections. Winters was appointed as the paid recruiter for New Britain, although it is now claimed that he is no longer active in that post. Notwithstanding that claim, Winters has approached UKIP members and prominent EU sceptics and tried to involve them in New Britain. Winters has reappointed himself as the UKIP Bradford committee with the full support of the leadership and against the representations of the (since suspended - ed.,) Yorkshire regional committee. Winters?s role in New Britain is (it has been reported to us) seemingly particularly protected by Mike Nattrass, David Lott and Derek Clark, all of whom have refused to take action despite being fully aware of the situation. Winters has been described as ?an infiltrator? who has supplied some useful information to UKIP.

If this is the same Ivan Winters, described in the widely circulated UKIP news sheet 'On the Grapevine' Issue 1 of 24th February 2001, then he seems to make a practise of infiltrating different political parties, having been described therein as having reportedly served a nine month jail sentence for defrauding the Conservative Party (of which we assume he must also at one time have been a member).

As the West Midlands seems to be an area with particular connections with New Britain it is noteworthy that one of those named as planning to join the party in the New Britain magazine of June 1997 was a Paul Gilbert (of Meriden), which also happens to be the name of the present UKIP Regional Organiser for that region, who is also listed as contact for the European Election campaign, of which, of course, Mike Nattrass is, to UKIP's shame, still the region's Lead Candidate.

While I have yet to gather together all the documentation on the connections between New Britain and racism, nor received a reply from the NEC member I approached in the hope that they would propose a motion to the NEC proscribing New Britain membership as inconsistent with the UKIP candidature declaration, I nevertheless believe there is enough information on this blog and elsewhere within the public domain to make such a finding at tomorrow's NEC meeting a foregone conclusion. If they do not so decide, I trust any remaining non-racist MEP candidates on UKIP's lists will do the sensible thing and step down before they too are tarred with the inevitable 'racist' brush.

posted by Martin | 8:13 AM

Saturday, March 13, 2004  

Seriously! Did Nattrass and Titford Really Not Know that the New Britain Party was Racist????

Ha Ha! Does anybody REEEEEAAAALLLLLLY!!!!! believe they did not. If so watch this space! Only the vagaries of the postal service prevents us from bringing yet more facts. Meantime consider this e-mail sent from a previous fellow NEC member of Nattrass's to UKIP Uncovered some months ago:-

I remember being in Mike Nattrass's car going down to an NEC meeting.....I had a copy of a letter signed by Dennis Delderfield and other extremist unworthys (so also proving DD's links to these other nutters) moaning about the coloureds' control of local shops all over London (amongst other things). I made the point to MN that his and other associations with New Britain right at the top of the party was only going to store up trouble for the party come any future elections - no matter how reasonable they claimed to be. He was trying to assure me that New Britain was not a racist party. I showed him the letter and his angry reaction was merely "What on earth is Dennis doing signing letters like that"----- angry only that the cat had been let out of the bag and not that the cat actually existed!

Do the NEC of UKIP Seriously believe the voters are Stupid? Well isn't it time to stop the pretence, maybe after Monday it really will be too late!

posted by Martin | 10:15 PM
www Ukip Uncovered
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.
Copyright © 2006 Martin Cole.
contact us
my other blogs
nigel farage
landmark links
fired treasurer
glw incitement
glw & farage
a complaint
a neutered nec
graham booth
derek clark
mark croucher
michael harvey
roger knapman
mike nattrass
buy my book
Copyright © 2003/6 Martin Cole.