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

Sunday, October 31, 2004 

A letter to 'The Times' on a possible NEC Kilroy expulsion

I have received the following copy of a letter to the editor of The Times from a correspondent previously a UKIP branch chairman and discipline panel member.


I was surprised to read that Mr Robert Kilroy-Silk will be expelled from the United Kingdom Independence Party, but most especially that “on Monday … the UKIP national executive will vote to throw him out of the party.”

[Report, The Times, October 30th, page 22.]

The UKIP constitution does not empower the National Executive Committee to take any such action. According to the party rule book, the independent Discipline Panel “shall be responsible for investigating all matters that may result in the removal from office of an elected official of the Party or the expulsion or suspension of a Party member from membership." No member can be expelled except through the clearly defined multi-stage complaints procedure, including the opportunity for a formal hearing with a minimum of fourteen days notice, and a final appeal stage.

If UKIP members permitted their leaders to carry out arbitrary expulsions, without due process and in flagrant disregard of the constitution and rules of their own party, what credibility could they have when speaking against the European Constitution?

Yours faithfully

posted by Martin |5:45 PM

Kilroy's Sunday Express column in full

The posting below, in which we call for a motion of NO CONFIDENCE in Nigel Farage and Roger Knapman to be passed at tomorrow's NEC meeting,
contains brief extracts from today's article. The full piece was as follows:-

"What a relief I’ve split from UKIP bosses" or as trailered on the front page of the paper
"The truth about my row with UKIP fools".

Immediately after UKIP’s victories in the European elections in June, I suggested a meeting of party leaders so that we could build on our success and develop future strategy. UKIP leader, Roger Knapman, the European parliamentary leader Nigel Farage, the two main financial backers, Paul Sykes and Alan Bown, my wife Jan and I met in the Goring Hotel, London, on Monday June 13.

We agreed that we needed to establish a London HQ, assemble a research team, develop policies, draw up the manifesto for the general election, appoint spokespersons and plan a series of initiatives throughout the summer, leading to the October party conference which, I anticipated, would unveil the manifesto.

Nothing happened. Weeks passed, nothing happened. Several times I told the party leadership that we were losing the political initiative that we had gained in June. We should, I stressed, be exploiting the panic we had occasioned in the Tory Party and the alarm felt by the Prime minister about his project to create a superstate called Europe being wrecked.

Nothing happened. The leadership of the party went AWOL for three long summer months. We wasted precious time. We threw away our advantage. It was unforgivable, criminal. The British people had placed their trust in us and we were letting them down.

So what was I to do? Say nothing? Cover it all up? Pretend that we were politically active and had new policies? Say everthing was fine?

This was not possible because I was constantly being asked to act as the party's spokesman on TV and radio, where I was inevitably asked what Ukip's policies were apart from withdrawal from the EU. "What are your policies on health?" I was asked on Sky News. "What is in your party's manifesto on immigration and asylum?", otheres enquired. Well, the latter, actually, was what the leader once suggested when I pointed out that he did not have a particular policy.

Telling lies was not an option. Throughout the election campaign I had contrasted the lies, deceit, and spin which characterised the old political parties with our approach. We were honest, open, talked straight. I could not now engage in a fraud on the electors by asking them to support an invisible and absent leadership, a party without policies or direction, a party going nowhere.

So, after what had now become four wasted months, I made public my view that it would be necessary for there to be a change of leadership of the party if it was to progress. I suggested that we should have an open and even robust debate about the future of the party in my speech to the conference in October - where incidentally we looked back "in celebration", not forward with new ideas.

In a letter to the members I asked: "Do you want Ukip to be a serious political party that can dominate political debate, or do we want to remain a pressure group? Do we want the leadership to be democratically elected and publicly accountable or are we content to continue to be governed by a self-selecting cabal? Do we want a party in which conference decisions - like not making shoddy election deals with the old parties - are respected and implemented, or are we happy for that to be dismissed?"

These an the othere seven question s I posed were regarded by an inexperienced and insecure leadership as amounting to a disciplinary offence. I was informed, throught the media, that the parliamentary whip would be withdrawn from me - though, farciacally, it was reported that I would be disciplined for, among other things, "erratic behaviour", upsetting Joan Collins for not attending her book launch and starting a new political party. All were untrue.

It was also alleged that I was not a team player, would not toe the line and attracted negative publicity! But there was not team to play in, there was not line to toe and the publicity we wree attracting was increasing our porfile and the number of members.

Moreover, it was strange to be told by Knapman, the party leader, that fleelow MEPs would support them. They had also ignored or cavalierly disregarded that if someone is alleged to have broken a rule there first had to be rules. There are none.

There also has to be a proper procedure for dealing with alleged offences. There is none. Aproperly constituted independent tribunal and a right of appeal has to be in place. They were not. This was amateur politics. Invisible as a leader and incompetent as a whip. We would, in the absence of due process and any attempt to adhere to the rules of natural justice, let alone the Human Rights Act, have been in the courts for years.

They were in a hole. I helped them out of it. They had made it clear that they did not wish to work with me. Obviously I would not therefore wish to work with them. I resigned the whip. To be honest, it was a great relief. It means that I do not have to publicly defend them when the leader and parliamentary leader childishly tear up their ballot papers on their first day in Parliament. It means that I do not have to attempt to explain away deputy leader Mike Nattrass's claim that we will have to fight our way out of the EU in the same way that the Chechens attempted to fight their way out of the Soviet Union - just days after the Beslan school massacre.

More important, I will not continue to be embarrassed by being associated in the parliamentary group with parties from Poland and elsewhere that are alleged to be anti-semitic, homophobic, anti-feminist and, by many, as racist.

It is sad for the good, hardworking members of the party that we should have a public row. They has a right to know the truth, that they are being let down by their leadership and that only the members have the power to change things. The future of the party is in their hands. The members have to decide: do they want to remain a fringe group or become a serious political party? Do they want a party that is democratic, open and transparent or one run by one man as his plaything? Do they want to win?

As I said in my conference speech, the British people are disenchanted with the old political parties. They are fed up of being lied to, talked down to and not listened to. They want a party that talks straight, tells the truth and will fearlessly stand up for Britain and the British way of life.

This could have been Ukip. It could have seized the opportunity. You cannot do it by going missing for a third of the year. The chance will not come again. Take it now and we could change the face of British politics for ever. Do nothing and we shall regret it for the rest of our political lives.

As I said in my conference speech, the British people are disenchanted with the old political parties. They are fed up of being lied to, talked down to and not listened to. they want a party that talks straight, tells the truth and will fearlessly stand up for Britain and the British way of life.

This could have been UKIP. It could have seized the opportunity. You could not do it by going missing for a third of a year. The chance will not come again. Take it now and we could change the face of British politics. Do nothing and we shall regret it for the rest of our political lives.

posted by Martin |3:36 PM

Kilroy on UKIP - Time to Censure Farage & Knapman

Richard North on his blog EU Referendum, linked here, has commented on the Robert Kilroy-Silk column in today's Sunday Express. The Kilroy article (quoted in full above this post) concluded as follows:-

As I said in my conference speech, the British people are disenchanted with the old political parties. They are fed up of being lied to, talked down to and not listened to. they want a party that talks straight, tells the truth and will fearlessly stand up for Britain and the British way of life.

This could have been UKIP. It could have seized the opportunity. You could not do it by going missing for a third of a year. The chance will not come again. Take it now and we could change the face of British politics. Do nothing and we shall regret it for the rest of our political lives.

No indication there that Mr Kilroy-Silk is patiently waiting to be unconstitutionally expelled by the party's NEC tomorrow as indicated in yesterday's The Times. It appears that the 'meet the people tour' trailered here last week remains on the agenda.

Like this blog - Kilroy does not yet seem to believe that the possibility of a defining moment in British politics has suddenly passed due to last week's panicky tantrums of Farage and Knapman. Nor that the trampled constitution and organisation of the UK Independence Party is beyond all hope of providing the launching pad for the flight of such a phoenix.

Dr North makes his views after several years close association with the power behind the present UKIP structure very clear in the linked posting. I quote:-

And for Farage – the acknowledged power behind the throne, who manoeuvred Holmes out of the party, bullied Titford unmercifully until he got his way, and then slid Knapman into place as a willing cipher – policy was never an issue. As long as he could climb up on a platform and talk about an "amicable divorce" and a free trade area with Europe, "which was what we thought we had signed up for in the first place", he was content. He did not want to know the detail.

In fact, Farage was and remains the problem. Having left school early to join the city as a trader, he had no further education, did not understand it, and was suspicious of "intellectual" endeavour. People who had ideas were "dangerous" and, if he could not isolate them, he got rid of them.

UKIP's problem as well as that of many others who seek a practical way to pursue the fight against the non-democratic and ever encroaching EU within Britain - is and remains Nigel Farage MEP. Disciplinary steps were rumoured to have been instituted against him last week, those like earlier moves a year ago will likely be ignored. What is required from tomorrow's NEC is a vote of NO CONFIDENCE against both the Leader of UKIP Roger Knapman and the leader of the party's MEPs, Nigel Farage. (My post below this on the Ashford operation is yet another reminder of the leadership abuses that many in the party must now surely recognise, and which most certainly the NEC knows only too well and now has no further excuse to continue to ignore.)

Few can now seriously doubt that these two men today represent the European Union's best chance to finally extinguish peaceful and democratic British resistance to that institutions takeover and subjugation of our nation.

posted by Martin |2:35 PM

Could Ashford operations be next in Serious Fraud Office sights?

I posted this morning on The Strasbourg Cesspit blog, linked here, an article in The Hindu, read here, about the progress of the complaint by Ashley Mote and Marta Andreasen against the EU.

It is interesting to see someone closely connected to UKIP, thinking outside the box and taking a problem beyond the immediately obvious channels. If I was UKIP's Leader or the party's present or immediately preceding Chairman, or indeed any ordinary member of its National Executive Committee, which is due to meet tomorrow two weeks ahead of the date originally planned, I would be more than a little concerned at such a thought. The Electoral Commission has proved itself disinclined to treat complaints against UKIP seriously. Other bodies, however, might show more concern for the interest of the public whom they exist to protect!

The furore of the Democracy Movement's removal of John Moran, its Kingston Branch manager, for the unconstitutional donation of DM funds to Nigel Farage has been enthralling certain eurosceptic chat-rooms for weeks. That Robert Kilroy-Silk's Research Assistant this week raised a complaint about the involvement of the Ashford operation should set alarm bells ringing loud.

In response to an earlier query raised by Tony Bennett the Party Secretary, Tony Stone, had replied on 21st October:-

“You will have to ask Ashford if they intend divulging the results of the straw poll.”

On 29th October, as part of a series of follow-ups came these:

QUESTION 5: By 'Ashford' do you mean UKIP Ashford or a private telesales company based at Ashford?

QUESTION 6: Who instructed 'Ashford' to carry out the Chairmen's poll?

Unspoken, but clear is the suggestion of involvement by John Moran, a matter of some rumour, in the unconstitutional telephone poll, presumably ordered by Farage. Such suggestions can only once again highlight all the doubts and suspicions over Ashford that so confused and concerned the NEC over much of last year. As this blog chronicled those events quite closely, I have linked below some of the highlights, which might be particularly useful for any NEC member attending tomorrow's meeting who may wish to be fully informed although still at potential risk from these events.

'When money is tight look out for a fight 25th September 2003" (See also Danger to Wealth and Legal Liabilities just below). Firing of the Treasurer (12/09/03), Michael Harvey memo linked here which stated:- "Also he (the Treasurer) has been attempting to ensure that proper financial and database protection controls are implemented over the new operation in the South East region."

In October last year, following the flop of the Branch Chairmen's meeting in not calling for an EGM, I posted this on the June National Petition being used by Ashford for fund-raising, titled 'Fighting for funds'. It is linked here. Immediately above that posting on 6th October, the Vice Chairman Damian Hockney's long list of complaints includes this statement:- 'In recent months, the NEC has become increasingly concerned at actions being carried out by the leadership which involve the party breaking party rules and the constitution, and in some instances the law. In most situations, the NEC has been specifically denied information, and kept in ignorance of important matters. This is a serious breach of the Constitution'.

Damian returned to the problem of the ineffectiveness of the NEC here. By mid-month following a non-informative AGM a post titled 'Misappropriation of Funds?' linked here, raised a long list of concerns directed at Party Chairman David Lott. These were inadequately answered, read here, and re-stated here. The latter set of grave accusations concluded as follows:-

It would appear from the above that a rogue financial unit has been operating within the party for some months, with no commitments to the party whatsoever, while being the recipient of various fund-raising activities, and that an attempt has been made to keep the Party's NEC in ignorance of this operation.

A further frank exchange of views then took plac and was blogged on 19th October, linked here.
The following day I posted a report from The Kentish Express on the Ashford activities of which this is a quote:-
The move is just the start of expansion plans with another 20 staff expected to be working in town on their campaign for the European elections next June.

On 24th October I posted more demands for an explanation regarding the Ashford operations from the Party's Vice-Chairman to Chairman Lott. This is linked from here and included these quotes:

I think the point is that, given the fact that Ashford is dealing with national data, the NEC have been promised for some months that we will have financial details of the Ashford operation and have not had any thus far. The promise of details in time for the October NEC in the September minutes was not met. Similarly, we need to know the facts - it did not help that Nigel said, when asked by Judith for Ashford donor details: "I'm not telling you that.", and then refusing to divulge those details under pressure.......

Again, the lack of provision of those details when asked by Judith is not constitutional, and creates a situation where you loosen the collective liability of the NEC and allow the exclusion from liability of every member of the NEC who puts on record that you are breaking the rules and have rendered his or her ability to be involved in the making of financial decisions impossible.

On Tuesday 28th and Monday 27th October 2003, just over one year ago the facts became clear. In a posting titled simply Nigel Farage, linked here, in which I accurately summarised:-

The latest revelations regarding the rogue Ashford office can hardly come as a surprise to readers of this blog, or any aware of the early days of UKIP and therefore the earlier scandals surrounding Farage's name.

The mystery is why he has been allowed to get away with so much for so long?

Since my association with UKIP, the party has been effectively neutered as a campaigning force against the EU, while Farage's abuses and manipulations have dominated all activity.

The day before the real rogue nature of the Ashford operation had been revealed in a posting, titled 'Proof Positive' linked here which included thess statements from the Party Treasurer:-

I am advised that the South East Regional Committee has resolved to disassociate itself from the Ashford Telesales operation at it's committee meeting of Friday,17th October 2003. This has important consequences under the Political Parties Elections and Referendum Act 2.
I have received a copy of the following correspondence from the Treasurer, of the South East Region. "It must be stressed, however, that the Ashford office has been set-up by Nigel and others without any discussion, consultation, approval or acceptance in any official capacity by the SE Region committee to date.
The South East Regional Committee has decided to no longer take responsibility for the Ashford telesales operation.

As a consequence I have no option but to carry out my duties as National Treasurer under PPERA, and immediately take on direct responsibility for reporting activities and ensuring compliance of PPERA, of the Ashford telesales operation through Central Office.


If XXXX and Nigel Farage continue to take responsibility for the operation and remain the signatories to the bank account for Ashford telesales, it is important that the Party receives a written agreement from them, in which they agree to indemnify the Party from any losses, consequential losses or other liabilities incurred by the Ashford operation, or give a similar written undertaking acceptable to the NEC. A detail to consider is whether the operation should be converted into a limited company.

2. Accounts from the Ashford telesales operation should also be prepared for the NEC in future on a monthly basis so that we can establish the effectiveness of the operation. As the operation is using data collected nationally from UKIP, we have a duty on the NEC to receive reports and in turn report to membership. This is in addition to the Party Treasurer's responsibility of reporting to the Electoral Commission. In the September NEC meeting Nigel Farage agreed to supply accounts although none as yet have been produced.

I wonder if those indemnities were ever given and if the commitment to provide monthly statements has ever since been fully met?

posted by Martin |7:35 AM

Saturday, October 30, 2004 

Too Late for UKIP?

The following e-mail has been received from Sandra Robinson, one time member of the Reform UKIP Group, which is published as received:-
Yes, I think Robert Kilroy-Silk would make the best leader for the party. Yes, I think Robert Kilroy-Silk is the only person who can achieve real reform in the party, despite the valiant efforts of many, over I think, the best part of eight or nine years.

To achieve both of the above, the logical.pragmatic approach is to organise a leadership election and win it. I, probably alone, believe it is too late. I'm not sure when the moment passed for reform of the UKIP, but I believe it has for two reasons. Firstly, there will almost certainly be a General Election in May, 2005 or possibly earlier, and I understand it will take to the New Year to have a new leader in position. For once, the UKIP will have to hold a proper election, so that it is done properly and known by all to be done properly. Secondly, the political brand UKIP is tainted.While 20-25.000 members learn of serious necessary reform and some others who turned their back on it do an about turn, a leadership election has to be organised and fought. Meanwhile, the General Election clock is ticking away. Millions of disaffected voters are wooed by the usual, disingenuous career politicians, while ten years after it's formation, the party set up to fight the EU is cleaned up.

Maybe, Robert Kilroy-Silk can do both and I know many are devoted to the brand UKIP and cannot let it go. But the cleaning up of the UKIP is of no interest to the wider electorate who have waited in vain, nor is there a great deal of time to inform and woo them, when you are starting from such a disadvantaged position. Whilst there is a chance Robert Kilroy-Silk can do both, there is a question mark over how much can be achieved in this time-scale. For a party to have gone up hill and down dale largely in the wilderness, still a million miles from it's true destination as the day it set off-- to suddenly sprint to where it should be in 5 months, while belatedly examining it's navel, is not likely, though not impossible. Starting from a non-tainted position and wooing millions of people over five months, plus all the UKIP people who would follow Robert Kilroy-Silk, appears to me to be a much better proposition. As I say, I'm probably in a minority of one.


Sandra Robinson.

posted by Martin |7:14 PM

Too Late for UKIP?

This thought provoking e-mail, received from Sandra Robinson (of the Reform UKIP Group) is quoted as received:-

Yes, I think Robert Kilroy-Silk would make the best leader for the party. Yes, I think Robert Kilroy-Silk is the only person who can achieve real reform in the party, despite the valiant efforts of many, over I think, the best part of eight or nine years.

To achieve both of the above, the logical,pragmatic approach is to organise a leadership election and win it. I, probably alone, believe it is too late. I'm not sure when the moment passed for reform of the UKIP, but I believe it has for two reasons. Firstly, there will almost certainly be a General Election in May, 2004 or possibly earlier, and I understand it will take to the New Year to have a new leader in position. For once, the UKIP will have to hold a proper election, so that it is done properly and known by all to be done properly. Secondly, the political brand UKIP is tainted.While 20-25.000 members learn of serious necessary reform and some others who turned their back on it do an about turn, a leadership election has to be organised and fought. Meanwhile, the General Election clock is ticking away. Millions of disaffected voters are wooed by the usual, disingenuous career politicians, while ten years after it's formation, the party set up to fight the EU is cleaned up.

Maybe, Robert Kilroy-Silk can do both and I know many are devoted to the brand UKIP and cannot let it go. But the cleaning up of the UKIP is of no interest to the wider electorate who have waited in vain, nor is there a great deal of time to inform and woo them, when you are starting from such a disadvantaged position. Whilst there is a chance Robert Kilroy-Silk can do both, there is a question mark over how much can be achieved in this time-scale. For a party to have gone up hill and down dale largely in the wilderness, still a million miles from it's true destination as the day it set off-- to suddenly sprint to where it should be in 5 months, while belatedly examining it's navel, is not likely, though not impossible. Starting from a non-tainted position and wooing millions of people over five months, plus all the UKIP people who would follow Robert Kilroy-Silk, appears to me to be a much better proposition. As I say, I'm probably in a minority of one.

Sandra Robinson.

posted by Martin |5:40 PM

The Times says 'Time's up for Kilroy-Silk'

The article by Alan Browne, linked here (for subscribers), makes the following points:-

The United Kingdom Independence Party will vote on Monday to expel the former BBC television presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk five months after he joined. Mr Kilroy-Silk demanded to be the leader of the party at its annual conference last month. Supporters of the present leader, Roger Knapman, insisted that he would serve the four-year term to which he had been
elected. Mr Kilroy-Silk has also said that he got nowhere with attempts to make the party professional.

Mr Knapman said of Mr Kilroy-Silk on BBC radio yesterday: "I will miss him, but not for very long. I think I could sleep at night without him." Mr Kilroy-Silk said of his impending departure: 'I can't wait until it's all over.'

I began to wonder on what grounds he could possiby be expelled, then recalling my own experiences with UKIP - immediately realised - these people never bother with such niceties.

posted by Martin |1:17 PM

Leadership lessons for UKIP from yesterday's YouGov Poll

As reported on Teetering Tories, linked here, yesterday's YouGov poll showing that only 19 per cent of the electorate would trust a future Michael Howard led government shows the complete shambles of the Tories. The reason for such deeply held suspicion is clear - as I repeatedly pointed out during the ousting of IDS - Howard as an ex-Major minister would never be given the public's trust. The poll results may be read from this link.

One year ago this weekend Michael Howard had yet to be annointed Tory leader. The plot to destroy euroscepticism within the Conservative Party, and the neutering of the Conservatives as an effective organisation with which to confront the euro-federalist forces of New Labour and the Liberal Democrats could still have been thwarted. It is no defence to say nobody could have foreseen that such was what was afoot because I warned throughout late October and early November on both Teetering Tories, Ironies and my posting on this blog of 31st October titled 'Tories finished as anti-EU Factor' linked here. Others also saw the dangers.

Not only that, as I am sure he will recall, I repeatedly pleaded with the most noted Tory euro-sceptic John Redwood, to challenge for the leadership, but he considered his chances as hopeless. So one year ago, anti-EU forces within Britain suffered a huge setback. The reputation of all Conservative MP's has now been so seriously damaged there can be no short, nor possibly even medium term prospects for anyone to lead the party away from the deep, deep suspicion and mistrust in which they are now held.

Now, however, one year later, almost exactly to the day, another such battle is being waged. Another disgraced ex-minister from the Major years seems stubbornly determined to permanently destroy a party's reputation by the taint he bears from having been a whip in that government. All the indications are that this man, Roger Knapman, will do for the UK Independence Party what Michael Howard has managed for the Tories.

A year ago, even as Howard was being manipulated into place, it was perfectly clear that no election victories or successes can possibly be gained. Like Howard, both physically and in soiled background Roger Knapman is a spoiler, positioned to destroy and thwart the democratic aspirations of the nation and his countrymen and women. There is still a chance to remove him. Just such a chance as existed for the Conservative Party a year ago this weekend. They did not accept the challenge and they are a spent force.

It might still be possible to see the dreadful performance of Knapman against the Deputy Prime Minister last weekend by clicking here, no defence was realistically offered (nor could there have been) against the constant taunts of Tory associations and his record as a member of 'Maastricht' Major's shameful administration. How can UKIP hope to progress under a leader of such poor pedigree, forever vulnerable to possibly the dirtiest taunt that can now be thrown in British politics - 'TORY'.

UKIP has precious little time to ensure that they too do not flinch and now similarly betray the country. Roger Knapman must step down.

posted by Martin |8:23 AM

Friday, October 29, 2004 

The EU Constitution signed today

Please visit Ironies for a very important analysis of the possible consequences of the pomp, circumstance and destruction of democracy and liberties that took place today in Rome.

Part I of Anthony Coughland's hugely important pamphlet, click here.

Part II of the paper please click here.

posted by Martin |8:53 PM

Kilroy is BBC's 'Face of the Week'

Quite a feat in the week a BBC icon died - read it from this link.

posted by Martin |8:39 PM

Comments from 'Lead On Kilroy'

The leadership poll I instituted on the new blog, as titled above, continues, as do the comments. Here is the latest contribution to the pro-Kilroy side:

I was a Labour Party member for many years but resigned after the Bush/Blair lies on going to war with Iraq. I would never vote Tory and the Lib Dems seem inadequate. So it looked as though I would abstain at the next election. Nevertheless these three main parties seem to ignore how most people feel about Europe Immigration Asylum Seekers and the damage caused to many of our traditional industries.

I had heard of UKIP but it wasn't until Kilroy Silk threw his hat into the ring that my interest was aroused enough to find out more. The result being I joined the party. In my opinion he is articulate has the leadership qualities, intelligence and the charisma, most important in politics today. If he is allowed to go then I think many converts to the party like myself will leave and not bother to vote for any party.

Latest comment from the far more active anti-Kilroy comment section, (much of it in his favour however) is this:

Well you've won. You've driven out UKIP's dream ticket to election success. By the way Messrs Farage and Knapman - When did aspiring to be the leader of a party become a sackable offence?

Mind you, Kilroy must feel good tonight, cut free from that self centred power hungry pack. I don't suppose he knew what hit him when he was elected. Perhaps he should have read this blog first!

The poll which still has Farage at derisory levels, has most recently been receiving much greater support for Knapman though Kilroy maintains his healthy lead. Farage has received a derisory two votes. I will post a snapshot here, after the one hundred mark is passed.

posted by Martin |5:52 PM

Support from the Branches for Kilroy Gathers Pace

I have just received this news from a reliable source close to events:

"I've just spoken with [name withheld]. The Branch Committee [in the South East Region] met last night and voted 12 to nil with two abstainers for both an immediate election and that they want Robert Kilroy-Silk for leader. [Name withheld] was deputed to inform Petrina Holdsworth, Party Chairman, ASAP".

This news makes the number of Branches wanting an immediate leadership election 66.

Earlier this report had also been received:-

A West Midlands Branch held a Branch Meeting last week at which the main item under discussion was whether or not there should be a leadership election, and who people would vote for in that election. The result was: Hold a leadership election now: 27-1 in favour; vote for leader: Knapman 1, Kilroy-Silk 27

A South East Branch has recently (last few days) oveturned the view of its Chairman. At their Branch Committee Meeting held this week, the Committee voted 5-0 in favour of an leadership election now, with one abstention"

The number of Branches now calling for a leadership election has risen to 65. Advice has been received that as the Electoral Commission only knows about 181 Branches, it would be sufficient if 37 of those Branches (i.e. 20%) called for a leadership election.

posted by Martin |2:02 PM

Twelve Burning and Unanswered Questions put to the Party Secretary

A UKIP member has asked the Party Secretary 12 key questions - see below -regarding recent matters of controversy in the party. A week later (29 October) he has yet to receive a reply to these straightforward questions. We will try to post up the replies here as soon as the Party Secretary gives the answers:


QUESTION 1: Will a Branch Chairman who wishes to obtain a definitive list of all Branch Chairmen, in order (a) to verify how many valid, registered, Branches there are and (b) in order to contact other Chairmen who wish to call an Extraordinary General Meeting if the leadership does not call a leadership election, be refused?

QUESTION 2: If they wil be refused, will it be on the grounds given by Mike Nattrass yesterday, that 'it is a breach of the Data Protection Act', or for some other reason?

QUESTION 3: If it is (as Mike Nattrass claims) because of the Data Protection Act, please specify what part of the Data Protection Act prevents a Branch Chairman of an organisation from knowing the names and addresses of other Branch Chairmen of that same organisation, quoting the relevant Paragraph or Regulation of any of the Data Protection Acts
YOU WROTE on 21 OCTOBER: “Should the need arise, we could invite the branch wishing to contact all the others to send enough copies of any 'letter to Branch chairmen' to Birmingham, with the appropriate postage. However, to have several chairmen asking for their message sent to all the others would be an unacceptable situation. I am taking advice as to what action we should be considering taking here”

QUESTION 4: Please state what advice you have now received on Branch Chairmen wishing to contact other Branch Chairmen, and from whom
YOU WROTE on 21 OCTOBER: “You will have to ask Ashford if they intend divulging the results of the straw poll”

QUESTION 5: By 'Ashford' do you mean UKIP Ashford or a private telesales company based at Ashford?

QUESTION 6: Who instructed 'Ashford' to carry out the Chairmen's poll?

QUESTION 7: Did the Party N.E.C. authorise the poll to be carried out?
YOU WROTE on 21 OCTOBER 2004: “If there are only 181 branches 'registered' then it is clear that any notification system must have fallen behind schedule even before I took over a month ago. I will investigate. I understand the figure of 233 to be correct”

QUESTION 8: I have downloaded the list of 181 Branches from the Electoral Commission website. Can you please supply at least a list of Branches, i.e. their names, even if not the names and addresses of Branch Chairmen. Presumably when Mike Nattrass said yesterday that there were '233 Branches' (incidentally 13 more than in the survey announced on Tuesday) he was working from an official list

QUESTION 9: What is the penalty for failing to register new Branches within the statutory 14 days?

QUESTION 10: What action are you now taking to ensure that the Electoral Commission has an up-to-date lsit of UKIP Branches?
YOU WROTE on 21 OCTOBER 2004: “Because the UKIP Business meeting now takes place in the Spring no new disciplinary panel appointments were made at conference and the existing panel is deemed to be carrying on”.

QUESTION 11: I have read the UKIP Constitution carefully and it is quite specific in stating that members of the Discipline Panel are elected until the next Annual Conference. If you say current members of the Discipline Panel are 'deemed to be carrying on', when, if at all, did the N.E.C. 'deem' them to be continuing in post and are you absolutely sure that - given the strict wording of the Constitution, the N.E.C. is *allowed* to 'deem' that they continue to be members of the Panel?
YOU WROTE on 21 OCTOBER: “Any vacancies arising from resignations before the Business meeting will be filled by names I may nominate. The current Disciplinary Panel Chairman is George Stride. Why do you need to be able to contact him and the panel members? All discipline matters should be referred in the first instance to the Party Secretary”

QUESTION 12: For the avoidance of doubt, please state the current procedures - and the various options open to you as Party Secretary - for investigating a complaint, on your being notified of a disciplinary complaint that a UKIP member wishes to raise against another member

posted by Martin |11:26 AM

Publishing Problems

I have experienced problems with all my blogs this week. I apologise for the duplications, errors and lack of the normal volume of postings and information. I believe my server has now returned to their usual first class service.

posted by Martin |8:51 AM

Knapman tries a brave face

Appearing on the Radio Four today program this morning, the mouthpiece of the unscrupulous Nigel Farage MEP, UKIP's titular leader Roger Knapman, tried to put a brave face on the loss of UKIP's most effective anti-EU fighting force and the complete shambles which these two individuals selfish pride and blind ambition have now delivered the entire UK eurosceptic movement.

Drawing attention to the signing in Rome today of the EU Constitution, even this incompetent proves that he cannot be unaware of the true nature of the pending disaster into which he is now most certainly complicit in delivering his country.

The report on the broadcast from The Scotsman is available from this link.

posted by Martin |8:39 AM

Thursday, October 28, 2004 

More threats and counterthreats!

The Scotsman has a very detailed story this evening on the latest twists in the raging battle at the top of the UK Independence Party. Their report is linked from here, and the following are some selected quotations:-

Mr Kilroy-Silk told PA News: “The party was virtually bankrupt and had very few members before I joined. Now we have thousands of members. I have voiced legitimate differences with the party and its response is to reach for the expulsion trigger.

“If they expelled me they would be pressing the self-destruct button.”

The former chat-show host renewed his attack on the party leadership, saying he had found it “embarrassing” to defend.

“I could not go on pretending we were a serious political party when we had an absent and invisible leader and no policies,” he said.

“I feel frustrated and guilty. I told the electorate we were a serious political party. But there is nothing there. My wife says I have carried out a fraud on the electorate.”

Later this critical item on the cowed and perpetually ineffectual National Executive Committee is made:-

The party’s ruling national executive committee will discuss Mr Kilroy-Silk’s recent actions on Monday. It is unlikely to move to expel him as that would require disciplinary action.

Disciplinary action is, of course, presently impossible; due to an oversight by the hard-pressed (and then recently much resigned) Party Secretary, to re-appoint the previous Disciplinary Panel, who had become known as the 'Kangaroo Court' during their earlier, and now happily terminated, period of office.

Please read our posting further down this page, to see the voting shenanigans that have already been perpetrated in this latest dispute. Farage and the Phone Poll, lots of numbers - 'how many times did you vote?'

posted by Martin |8:07 PM

Kilroy's 'Relief' & 'Embarassment' and Knapman's 'Yes Nigel, No Nigel'

The Times, linked here, seemed to have the most vivid reporting on yesterday's rift:-

Mr Kilroy-Silk said that he took the decision to leave yesterday morning, hours before the UKIP’s 11 MEPs were due to meet in Strasbourg to discuss whether he should be expelled from the group.

He said that it was a huge relief to distance himself from the UKIP MEPs whose behaviour he had found embarrassing, and accused Nigel Farage, the MEP closest to Mr Knapman, of secretly running the party.

“I’ve won and I’ve walked away,” Mr Kilroy-Silk said after attending a session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. “They’ve backed down, they were going to withdraw the whip, but I kept saying, this isn’t due process, and not the way to run a political party.

“Not only do we have an invisible leader, we have incompetence on a large scale,” he said. “Nigel treats the party as a one-man plaything, and the leader just says ‘yes Nigel, no Nigel’.

“I’m relieved not to have to defend some of the strange things they’ve done,” he said, citing UKIP MEPS who had told women to clean behind the fridge, and another who compared withdrawal from the EU to the Chechen struggle for independence from Russia, “days after the Beslan massacre”.

posted by Martin |4:07 PM

Blatant Election Rigging in Farage's South East Telephone Poll

The results of the telephone poll published by UKIP, reported the following for the South East Region:-

Number of Branch Chairmen:

Not wanting an election - 62

Wanting an election - 06

Undecided - 03

For Roger Knapman - 62

Robert Kilroy-Silk - 04

Undecided - 05

Number of SE Region Branches as per the Internal Directory prepared by Regional Organiser Steve Harris and dated 26th May 2004 is as follows:-

Berkshire 8, Bucks 7, Hants 18, Kent 17, Oxon 6, Surrey 11, Sussex East 8, Sussex West 8 giving a grand total of 83 Branches.

Numbers contacted in the ring round detailed above seems to be 71, representing a contact success rate of 85.5 per cent, in line with the national average reported as 88 percent.

Problem if all 82 Branches listed in the SE Region Branch Directory had voted the following counties would have had Chairman with votes as follows:-

Berks - One Chairman One Vote, Two Chairmen with Two Votes and One with Three = 8
Bucks- One Chairman One Vote, Two Chairmen Two Votes and Two No Chairmen = 7
Hants- Seven with One Vote, Three with Two Votes and Five without officials =18
Kent - Ten with One vote, One with Two, One with Three and Two without officials =17
Oxon - Three with One Vote, One with Two and one with no officials =6
Surrey - Four with One Vote, Two with Two Votes and One with Three Votes =11
Sussex East - Two with One Vote, One with Two Votes and One Three One no off. =8
Sussex West - Seven with One Vote One with no officials = 8


Who voted for the Branches with no officials if any such were included. These numbered twelve branches last May. Are any now active - it appears so as if not the contact rate amongst other Branches was 100 per cent - 71 Branches which then guarantees that some Chairmen had a vote counted more than once.


Even if all the twelve Branches with no officials in May now had different chairmen and each voted separately there must still have been some dual voting.

Assumed Twelve new Chairmen in immature branches = 12 votes

Other Single Voting Chairmen = 35 votes

Total Chairmen with Multiple voting possibilities = 16 single individuals




posted by Martin |2:50 PM

Evening Standard reports UKIP London reviewing position

The article is linked from here.

John Kampfner in the New Statesman, linked here, quantifies the likely continuing cost to euro-scepticism if Roger Knapman cannot be quickly removed from his sham UKIP leadership role. A quote:-

Instead, there are already signs that tactical voting is being used specifically against Tony Blair.One example was the Hartlepool by-election, where the already small Tory vote was shared between the UK Independence Party and the Liberal Democrats. With Ukip involved in fratricide over its leadership, its threat to the Tories may be waning. There is, however, increasing evidence that Conservative voters, especially those opposed to the war, are comfortable opting for the Liberal Democrats in seats where they pose the only serious challenge to Labour.

posted by Martin |1:40 PM

Support Kilroy as UKIP Leader

The following e-mail is being sent to Kilroy supporters, by his research assistant:-


Dear Branch Chairman/UKIP Member/Kilroy-Silk Supporter

re: Your Response to Robert Kilroy-Silk’s ‘10 Questions' to Party Members

This letter is being sent mostly to those who have taken the trouble to reply to Robert Kilroy-Silk's '10 Questions' letter, who have responded positively to his diagnosis of the Party's problems and his suggestions for the future direction of the Party, and who broadly support his bid to lead the Party as the way forward for the it. It is by no means a complete list of the many supporters who have contacted him in recent days, by e-mail, post or 'phone, to offer their support. It includes non-members, some of whom have said they would re-join or join the Party were Robert to become Leader.

If I have incorrectly placed you on this list, please inform me ASAP. Thank you in particular to those of you who have gone into detail about the future direction of the Party and what you/your Branch would like to see happen in the future. A report, which will include all the responses to his letter, including all the specific suggestions made by you and others, is currently in preparation.

Mr Kilroy-Silk is in Strasbourg this week. As you will know by now, he has decided to withdraw from the UKIP group in the European Parliament, but at the same time in his radio and TV appearances and press comments he has emphasised that he will remain a member of the Party, that there are many good, honest, hard-working members of the Party, and that he has not abandoned his hope of leading the Party.

An informal support group which aims to secure a leadership election in the party ASAP, and hopefully elect Robert Kilroy-Silk as leader, is in the process of being establishd and Ken Evans, Chairman of East Lincolnshire Branch (which recently unanimously called for Robert Kilroy-Silk to lead the Party), has offered to help organise calls for a leadership election. He and I are in touch with around 60 Branch Chairmen who would support the call for a leadership election, above the 20% figure of 47 Branches apparently required under the Party Constitution [it is said that there are 233 Party Branches, although only 181 are currently registered with the Electoral Commission].

Ken can be contacted at:

If you have any queries about this e-mail, please let me know.

Tony Bennett
Research Assistant to Robert Kilroy-Silk


posted by Martin |9:40 AM

UKIP in Turmoil

The Daily Telegraph, linked here, has the following statement in its report on UKIP and Kilroy:

There was undisguised delight within Tory ranks over the turmoil within UKIP. One Tory MP said the party appeared to be pressing the "self-destruct" button.

Many Tories feared that if Mr Kilroy-Silk, a former television presenter, became the UKIP leader, he would have given the party a much higher profile in the coming general election.

LET ME REPEAT - Many Tories feared THAT IF Mr Kilroy-Silk ........ became the UKIP leader, he would have given the party a much higher profile in the coming general election.


Other morning press coverage may be read by clicking on the titles of the following papers: The Times,The Guardian and The Independent. Many more with any search engine.

posted by Martin |7:47 AM

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 

Kilroy goes it alone - Sky News report etc.

The report may be read from this link. The Scotsman's view may likewise be found from here. The Evening Standardhere.

I can imagine that the reported welcome UKIP officials are supposedly giving to this news will last about as long as that of Farage and Knapman when their Conference Motion was defeated.

posted by Martin |7:24 PM

UKIP abandons attempt to unseat Kilroy, following whip resignation.

Having resigned the party whip, it has now been confirmed that Robert Kilroy-Silk MEP will continue to sit in the EU Parliament . A report in the Guardian this evening, linked here, had the following report:-

Mr Kilroy-Silk intends to remain a member of the party but will now sit as an independent MEP - however, Ukip initially insisted that he should now resign his European seat, since he was elected under the "closed list" system under which voters select parties, who decide the running order of their own candidates.

However, a spokeswoman for the European parliament's London office later confirmed that Mr Kilroy-Silk would be able to remain as an independent MEP - or join other parties, if he wished.

Speaking from Strasbourg Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "These people wanted to metaphorically hang me a few days ago. Now they have found they can't and they want me to be their friend. I don't do that and I have resigned the whip."

As the true facts of the Farage/Knapman methods of party rule become more widely known throughout the membership and across the country, informed opinion suspects that a complete change of leadership within the fast growing UK Independence Party is now on the cards. The bandwagon led by real branches with a strong drive to fight the EU is now in train to propel Robert Kilroy-Silk to the forefront, if not the pinnacle of British politics!

An emergency meeting of the party's ruling NEC has been brought forward to next Monday, and Kilroy, this evening on the BBC, quoted the legally trained Party Chairman as now having indicated her support for his position.

Many other normally loyalist Farage supporting NEC members will be almost certain to slink back into the shadows over the next day or so, as the true reality of the Farage/Knapman rule, already available from the archives of this blog, becomes ever more widely known. Neither they nor their already tattered reputations deserve our sympathy if they do not!

posted by Martin |6:47 PM

Kilroy & Farage MEPs on the PM programme this evening.

The broadcast may be heard from the BBC Radio 'Listen Again' facility, linked here. It got under way at five thirty, therefore it will be necessary to use the fast forward facility to go directly to the interview. The five thirty news headline reported Kilroy as stating the behaviour of his fellow UKIP MEPs had been farcical and silly.

Kilroy was interviewed immediately after this quote. He stated that the attempt to remove him had been made with no due process, it was legally impossible, outside the party constitution and that Nigel Farage had insufficient votes, so his resignation was intended to help them out. Asked what the electors might think of this he explained that the agreement of two weeks ago (that he had written) had been breached and he was told by the media that he was to be subject to a disciplinary procedure.

At this point Nigel Farage was brought into the conversation. Farage said there was no appetite in the party for a leadership election.

Mr Kilroy-Silk was asked if he had said at the weekend whether he would set up another party, and he denied having said so. (The link from this blog to reports of the interview bears this out).

He re-emphasised the problem was the UKIP MEP leader in the EU Parliament (Nigel Farage), who was a one man cabal, seemingly busy and hyperactive but achieving little (paraphrase - ed) and the lack of any activity since last June. Mr Kilroy-Silk had no problem with the party nor with all the MEPs - he had earlier suggested there were now four such supporting his side of the dispute.

posted by Martin |5:26 PM

Farage and Kilroy will be on the PM programme shortly

I will post a link when available.

posted by Martin |5:16 PM

Kilroy Severs Links with Fellow UKIP MEPs

BBC Radio Four news at five pm carries this announcement. Kilroy states he has become increasingly embarassed but has not left the party..... updates will follow.

Ireland Online is the first with an online report - linked here. The latest from the BBC web-site is available here.

posted by Martin |5:01 PM

ITV Poll on Kilroy Expulsion

I am told ITV are running a poll on the expulsion of Robert Kilroy-Silk. I hear he is reported as stating that 'he is going nowhere'. Vote as you see fit!

posted by Martin |4:28 PM

Kilroy, quoted from Turkey, shows leadership skills

This report from AFP published in, linked here, indicates all too clearly the ridiculousness of Farage/Knapman's desperate clinging to party power. The putative UKIP leader, the only MEP named in the article was reported as follows:-

"Another symptom of the EU's looming malaise came in June elections for the EU assembly which saw the lowest-ever voter turnout coupled with a record surge in euroskeptic parties.

One such group, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), was among the first to welcome the slap delivered to the Commission in Strasbourg. "I think it's really good for parliament," said UKIP star MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk. "If they want to hold the (EU) executive to account then they've got to show that they are serious. This is the beginnings of that."

posted by Martin |4:15 PM

BBC reports on Kilroy in EU Parliament

After years of UKIP representation, it was Robert Kilroy-Silk MEP who finally hit the headlines in the EU Parliament today. Notably he was trying to make an intervention in a debate on one of the few matters this huge and shockingly expensive body is allowed to have a say - the once in every five year chance to either fully accept or to totally reject the new EU Commission, (nothing more of course, note the awesome powers the only democratically elected officials in the entire EU are actually afforded). The new EU President eventually shied away from a vote fearing defeat, thus throwing the EU into yet more uncertainty - Excellent!

***Later Update - this report from The Scotsman details the interjection - linked here***

The news item, linked here, which also trailers Kilroy's looming non-constitutional suspension may be read from this link. The following are quotes from that report:-

UK Independence Party Euro MP Robert Kilroy-Silk has been shouted down as he demanded a say during a heated debate in the European Parliament.

The former chat show host caused uproar as he made a point of order during a debate on the new European Commission......

....A UKIP spokesman said Mr Kilroy-Silk's expulsion from the party "is on the cards".

posted by Martin |2:20 PM

NEC advanced to Monday next! More Doubts on the Phone Poll!

I have had confirmed that the NEC meeting has indeed been advanced to Monday 1st November, although the agenda is still in dispute!

It seems generally agreed that the FT report that Kilroy might be abandoning his leadership bid was almost certainly pure speculation. Reports reaching the blog this morning indicate the MEP is now scheduling a 'meet the people' tour beginning in Kent, on November 10th, London, November 12th, and Yorkshire on November 19th - with more to follow.

I also hear that one UKIP Branch Chairman is actively collating Branches that are calling for a leadership election, and that he already has the names of 60 likely Branches, 13 in excess of the minimum number required.

Another disturbing fact regarding the recent telephone ring around is the factor of multiple Branch Chairmen. I do not believe this has yet been raised but it is nevertheless extremely significant. An informant with access to a directory of South East Region branches has pointed out for example, that Steve Harris the Regional Organiser and a known Faragist fixer is shown as Branch Chairman for both Fareham and Hampshire East - while he is given as the sole name and contact number for several other Branches. This is not an isolated incident apparently - Newbury/Reading East/Reading West are three branches all with the same Chairmen as of 26th May 2004, when the directory was dated.

There are a dozen others cases of Branches with the same Chairmen for more than one Branch, so once again we are faced with clear evidence of ruthless manipulation of a supposedly democratic process by Farage and Knapman. Party members must at least demand to know - HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS ACTUALLY STATED AN OPINION IN THE TELEPHONE RING ROUND AND WHAT WERE THE TRUE VOTING FIGURES?

posted by Martin |1:46 PM

MEPs tell Press - Kilroy faces UKIP expulsion today

Such a move would be totally outside the Party's constitution. The only steps the MEPs may take today are matters regarding their presence and activities within the corrupt and non-democratic European Union - aspects that are not of any interest to the party at large whatsoever. The report is linked from here.

posted by Martin |1:21 PM

ICM has UKIP on 4 per cent - Imagine the Kilroy effect!

The Guardian has the latest political poll, linked here, which shows the continuing hopelessness of the Tory plight and thus the growing urgency fore Kilroy to take over the reins of UKIP and start projecting the UKIP as a feasible alternative government to Blair's lying Labour Party.
A quote:-

"This is six points ahead of the Tories who have fallen from 33% to 32% in the last month with the Lib Dems consolidating their position on 23%. These figures would be enough to give Labour a third term in government with a majority of more than 100 seats.

The continual erosion of the Tory position - down from 35% share of the vote on the Guardian/ICM poll in March to only 31% - is matched by the rise of Ukip's share which reached 4% this month. "

posted by Martin |8:19 AM

UKIP MUST have a new leader.

The following is a quote from a report from the suspended officials of the North East Regional Committees that appeared in one of the very earliest postings on this web-site, on 16th April 2003, linked here:-

"Also to our dismay, Head Office has removed from the candidates list Mr Martin Cole, who is of unstained character. It was he who alerted UKIP Head Office to possible membership irregularities in the first place. As reported earlier in your newspaper, he had already indicated his unwillingness to continue as a candidate while the Party has its current leaders, and he has now been disqualified by London."

The party officials who wrote that letter and tried to resist the non-constitutional manipulations of the North East MEP Candidate list by Farage and Knapman remain suspended to this day! One, Judith Wallace, is Chairman of the real NO campaign in the North East run by Neil Herron, which fighting operation has been the subject to some neutralisation by UKIP. The two others Michael Rollings and Martin Rouse likewise continue to resist the advances of the EU.

posted by Martin |7:44 AM

Demand for UKIP Emergency General Meeting Grows!

News reaches 'UKIP Uncovered' of more moves towards holding an Emergency Meeting of UKIP, if the leadership does not concede a leadership election.

We hear that another Midlands Branch, like Chester, has overturned the view of its Chairman by holding a Branch Committee meeting last week. The vote went 10-0, with two abstentions, (a) in favour of a leadership election ASAP and (b) backing Robert Kilroy-Silk to be Party Leader.

Meanwhile a Branch in the Home Counties is due to meet later this week, when a resolution will be tabled by one of the officers expressing no confidence in the N.E.C. of UKIP - and calling on them to resign. A further development is that another UKIP Chairman, whose Branch recently and unanimously called for a leadership contest - and wants to see Robert Kilroy-Silk installed as leader (understood to be from the east of England) is organising a 'round robin' letter to those Branches which appear to favour a leadership contest. At the latest count, this was over 60.

This blog will continue to offer regular updates of all UKIP developments and moves towards reform of the party as has been the case for more than eighteen momths.

posted by Martin |7:35 AM

Tuesday, October 26, 2004 

icBerkshire reports on Kilroy's Wokingham speech.

The first detailed report I have seen is now available from the electronic edition of a local paper, linked here.

posted by Martin |2:40 PM

Rumours are circulating that Kilroy migh abandon his bid!

Worse the same report states that he might remain within the corruptly led party! The first report came from a reporter called Jimmy Burns and appeared in the Finacial Times I understand but I have found no link. It staes the following:-

Kilroy-Silk to drop UKIP leadership bid
By Jimmy Burns
Published: October 26 2004 03:00 | Last updated: October 26 2004 03:00

Robert Kilroy-Silk is expected to offer to drop his bid for the
leadership of the UK Independence party today as part of a compromise
deal aimed at healing the rift in the party.

However, his expected insistence that the party should fight every constituency at the next general election, including seats held by Tory eurosceptics, might still make unity difficult. Roger Knapman, the UKIP leader, and his supporters have remained opposed to Mr Kilroy-Silk's
declared aim of "killing off" the Tory party, arguing that tactical alliances with eurosceptic Conservatives should be considered. Despite his continuing public defiance over the weekend, Mr Kilroy-Silk, a UKIP MEP, appears to have conceded that he cannot force the party's
leadership to make way for him in the run-up to the next general election. Jimmy Burns

We must hope this is disinformation from the fantatically eurofederalist financial paper. Elsewhere the only hint such a move comes from ePolitix linked here Its headline carries the same import as the FT report but again without any source or supposed basis for the supposition.


Members of the N.E.C., many of them utterly fed up with a group around Nigel Farage publishing distorted stories of 'surveys' on the UKIP website, which later have to be amended, and then learning of unauthorised telephone surveys carried out by what is thought to be Nigel Farage's private company 'Ashford Employment Ltd'., now have difficulty knowing when the next N.E.C. meeting is.

The N.E.C. decided at its last meeting it would be on Monday 15 November. Earlier this morning, N.E.C.members received what purported to be an authoritative e-mail from Party Secretary, Tony Stone, telling them it had been put off until 22 November. Seconds later, an e-mail from Petrina Holdsworth was sent out stating that the next meeting had been brought forward to Monday 1 November.

Who's in charge?"

posted by Martin |1:38 PM

Can UKIP members continue to ignore the Cabal's conspiratorial convolutions?

QUESTION: When is a UKIP Branch a 'duly registered Branch?' - under Paragraph 6.10 of the UKIP Constitution?

"When it is properly notified to us and registered as an Accounting Unit with the Electoral Commission under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000" - 'Conrad Wells, Registrar, Electoral Commission'.

Reject the offer of Robert Kilroy-Silk to take-over and bring order and decency back to the party in order that it can effectively fight for the democracy and independence of the people of Britain or continue like this:-

QUESTION: When is a UKIP Branch a 'duly registered Branch?' - under Paragraph 6.10 of the UKIP Constitution?

"When we say it is" - Nigel Farage, David Lott, Petrina Holdsworth, John Moran, Mike Nattrass, Tony Stone, Andrew Smith, Tom Wise, Roger Knapman, Derek Clark, Graham Booth and staff of the Ashford Call Centre

As pointed out in our posting below, which contains details of the cabal's arrangements to create multiple phantom branches concurrently with instituting a rule change on calling Emergency General Meetings by Branch Chairmen, thus raising the number required from a mere twenty to the forty-seven apparently needed today if the cabal's statement on the number of presently existing branches is to be believed!

Can anything better illustrate the depths and lengths theses people will go to cling to power. Their actions constantly prove, not least in their total absence from the present campaign against Regional Assemblies in the North East and their backing of the clearly counter-productive Tory NESNO campaign, that such power is not being used to counter the EU's advances.

posted by Martin |8:45 AM

Monday, October 25, 2004 

Background on Branch Growth and Mismanagement

The following exchanges of e-mails says much about the present confusion over the official number of branches UKIP has registered, but far, far more about the manner in which the party has been mis-managed by Farage/Lott/Knapman and Nattrass.

It is somewhat long but full of insights into the methods of the leadership cabal.

The first e-mail was sent by the former General Party Secretary to the then Party Chairman David Lott and copied to the entire NEC, EEC and Regional Organisers and the editor of ‘Independence News’ on 13th February 2004. It was titled “Phantom Branches”


As you know, it is your responsibility to ensure that constituency associations are properly constituted (Constitution 12.3).

It has been brought to my attention from three unrelated sources that improperly constituted branches may be being formed:

1) Your undated newsletter to branch chairmen in January claims 240 branches. This surprised me as Head Office had just under 200 accounting units registered in December and new branches were being formed at the rate of about ten per month. The sudden increase (over the Christmas period) looked somewhat improbable.

2) Several new "branches" in one region are C/o the regional organiser. This is in breach of the Constituency Association Rule Book (CARB), which clearly specifies the minimum requirements for a new branch.

3) Another regional organiser is allegedly unilaterally forcing multi-constituency branches to split against their will into separate associations. This is in breach of the Constitution and CARB, which gives autonomy in such matters to existing branches.

Initially I put the sudden spurt down to the leadership's Soviet-style need for an endless stream of "cheerful statistics" to bolster morale (I take this opportunity to remind you that I still await an explanation of the 31st December press release which fallaciously stated that membership was "expected to break the 20,000 mark in early January").
However, Derek Clark's proposed constitutional amendment puts things in a more sinister light. I also note that there is no trumpeting in the latest 'Independence News' of this sudden spectacular expansion of the branch network, nor mention of any apparent activity in any of these forty-plus new branches.

I recommend that you launch an immediate investigation to establish the bona fides of branches registered since 17th December 2003, and that you ensure that regional organisers are properly briefed on their duties and responsibilities. ROs are not authorised to intervene (except by invitation) in the business of properly constituted branches and should establish new branches strictly in accordance with the CARB.

Following proper procedures when establishing new branches is particularly important in the wake of the Brayshaw incident, although from what I can gather, the RO did follow correct procedures in this case. The problem is that the paperwork for the branch either didn't get done or didn't get sent to Head Office. Maybe ROs should be made formally responsible for checking that branch documentation is completed and returned to Head Office.

You also need to establish who is formally responsible for maintaining the register of branches, a job previously done by me. I note in this connection that Derek Clark recently wrote to Branch Treasurers blaming "London staff" for errors in his mailing list of treasurers. For the record, I point out now that the database needs to be updated from the paper records BEFORE address lists are printed. Derek clearly failed to do this, hence the several errors in his list.

Please let me know if I can help in any way with your investigation. I trust it will be more thorough than your alleged investigation into the "missing petitions" affair, the report of which (and an apology) I still await.

I am copying this e-mail to NEC/EEC so that all who need to know what is going on are kept in the picture.


Deputy Leader Mike Nattrass was the cabal member chosen to reply, and as his way he sought to avoid the issue or obscure its gravity:-


Subject: RE: Phantom Branches

I note that you say Derek is setting up "Soviet style" branches ! I CAN ONLY ASSUME YOU ARE BEING FUNNY and if he has reds under his bed no wonder he looks so tired!!!

Can you please name a few of these branches so that i can understand what on earth you are talking about.
Whilst applications for new branches have come in, these are formal applications which are being processed.
I take it that David Lott pressed 240 instead of 200 on the keyboard and this is a capital offence which should be used to send everyone into headless chicken mode. Why are we sending this to everyone and their dog when they should be being asked to leaflet.
What a total waste of time!! Are you creating a wild goose chase to divert attention and time,or what?

To which this reply was sent, the same day:-


I didn't say Derek Clark is setting up Soviet-style branches. Setting up branches is the Party Chairman's responsibility, not the Party Secretary's. If David Lott did make a typing error, that is not, as you rightly say, a capital offence, but perhaps he should have said so himself in his subsequent newsletter to branches. If the troops are to have confidence in the leadership, it is essential that they are not supplied with duff information as ammunition. Please can we therefore have confirmation of the correct number of branches, and a list of new branches formed since 17th December?

At the same time, can you also ask David Lott to clear up the membership numbers mystery? I have asked him in writing on at least four occasions, without any response whatsoever, about the fallacious claim in a press release issued on 31st December that membership was "expected
to break the 20,000 mark in early January". Was this also a typing error, and if so, why was a further statement made in a press release dated 8th February that "we have doubled our membership to over 20,000 in just over a year."? I understand that the actual figure (as reported to the February NEC) is about 16,700. I know it is tempting to exaggerate membership figures for publicity purposes (something I always resisted pressure to do while I was General Secretary), but I remain convinced that honesty is the best policy.

You ask me to name some of the new branches. I will make life easy for you and stick to your own region, West Midlands, where Cannock Chase, Lichfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Solihull, Stoke on Trent, Stone and Sutton Coldfield are all apparently newly formed branches. Birmingham Hodge Hill, South Staffordshire and West Bromwich & Wolverhampton appear to have split from other existing branches. Who are the Chairmen, Secretaries and Treasurers of these ten new branches, have they all signed declarations, and when were the inaugural general meetings held?

You may think this is nit-picking, Mike, but David Lott points out elsewhere, "the problem is that we have just expelled two branch chairmen who were BNP or BNP sympathisers. There may be more..." If the BNP National Treasurer can become a UKIP Branch Chairman so easily, I
don't think senior UKIP officers can afford to be quite so complacent as you sound. I will not embarrass anyone here by entering into debate about the circumstances of the second expulsion - indeed, I'm not even sure which expulsion David is referring to.

Equally disturbing is that, following my original e-mail, a Branch Chairman who has quite legitimately declined to split his branch up is now being threatened with disciplinary action. Since there is no question of him breaking any rule, this would be laughable, except for the fact that the disciplinary procedure is now being run not to uphold Party rules but to attack members who displease the leadership. The Regional Organiser concerned is caught in the unenviable position (which I recognise only too well) of being instructed to carry out his employer's orders in breach of party rules. This is no way to run a Party. If anyone finds themself in this appalling situation, my advice is to ask for the instruction to be put in writing.

I circulated EEC members because otherwise I get no response from the leadership. I think it only fair that senior Party officers and officials should be aware of what is going on. That way it is less easy for the leadership to pick off individuals with smears and bogus disciplinary action when they start asking awkward questions. Mike will no doubt brand me a trouble-maker (or worse, as others have already tried) for raising such uncomfortable matters, but I think our loyal and hard-working activists who he wants out leafletting at least deserve to be told the truth.


Can anyone reading the above now doubt that a party leadership change is essential. It is clear that with the rule change being instituted at around this same time, whereby Emergency General Meetings would require a twenty per cent Branch Chairmen request instead of the previous total of twenty, the corrupted cabal were already anticipating the kind of crisis that they actually face today. A crisis that in reality only threatens their rule but is in truth a golden opportunity for the party and its membership to make a massive forward advance for thei cause of Independence and a restoration of Sovereignty.

As the prospect of fines looms over the party, who will be liable: the negligent culprits - Knapman, Lott, Farage and Nattrass; or once again the hard strapped membership funds? I think we know the answer to that, unless the members wake up and grab this opportunity to rid themselves of those who have passed beyond incompetence at the party's peak!

(The above e-mails are now widely circulating on the internet, so I feel sure the broader membership, in whom the future of the party now happily rests, deserves the chance to see a small sample of routine intra-party exchanges.)

posted by Martin |7:16 PM

Two excerpts from the lively internet debates on the UKIP leadership

On the Robert Kilroy-Silk broadcast on GMTV yesterday :

In interview he is commanding and in control of the whole process unlike most politicians and he is saying nothing that I believe any UKIP member can disagree with and a lot that I am sure most would very much agree with.

He seems dynamic and in a hurry to get on with GE preparations - I believe we should let him show us what he can do.

I do worry that the present leadership are against him simply because they fear he would easily win in a poll of all members and that they would lose the grip they have on the Party.

If they are not frightened of this then let them prove it and have an election now, at least it will put the matter to bed and we can move forward whatever the result. RK has done a good job for which we are very grateful, but time moves on and I feel that in RKS we have a man who can move us up into another league altogether, but time is of the essence.

From another debate comes this review of the Roger Knapman performance against John Prescott, which is linked from an earlier posting on this page.

(Viewed by internet)

Faced with wide allegations that he is 'faceless', Knapman nominated himself or permitted himself to be nominated, to appear on JV's 'Politics Show', discussing the NE Regional Assembly referendum campaign. This was rather unwise since under the aegis of Knapman and Farage UKIP in the NE was reported to have been devastated and the committee forced out. There is much hatred of UKIP leadership in the NE because of this, and because UKIP leaders have been conspicuous by their absence throughout the campaign.

Nonetheless, Knapman was presumably tempted by the easy ride ahead since he was to face only the lightweight John Prescott.

Who could not wipe the floor with him?

Following a review, not of the NE but of the SW regional efforts, debate finally got under way. Cue : John Prescott. He gave a prepared speech emphasising the vague benefits to the 'people'.

Cue : Knapman ; he too had a prepared speech, and it was fine, until he made the fatal and very unprofessional blunder of inviting Prescott back on camera by asking him a direct question, rather than giving the answer so that the camera stayed on himself. The question was along the lines that after Labour has skimmed off both the top and bottom layers of government what percentage of laws would emanate from Westminster(sic)? As the camera turned to Prescott an embarrassed Knapman choked out 'I mean Brussels'. Prescott knew that. He had an answer ready and nailed Knap-man with it in seconds :

'You were the Tory Whip who forced through the Maastricht Treaty. That gave away more powers than ever'. He then talked and talked to hold the camera. Knapman never really recovered from losing the service like that. Most views of him thereafter
showed him sitting with head on one side and mouth hanging open while Prescott talked. Though he had Knapman on the defensive he still missed one or two openings.

When Knapman was foolish enough to charge Prescott with : 'I was elected.You were selected' it was the perfect chance for Prescott to reply that he was never elected by his party and was at that moment desperately trying to avoid or delay an election.

Prescott however had him on the ropes anyway by that time. That lost chance made little difference ; Prescott was having it all his own way. He flooded the camera with statistics - not necessarily true - but that was no matter ; Knapman was totally inert. He failed to land all those blows available to UKIP. What about the way the Tories were given £100,000 for doing a lousy job in urging a NO vote ? What about the corruption of postal ballots ? Knapman was cowering on the ropes and a good referee would have stopped the fight.

Seeing Prescott having it all his own way ; claiming that the regional assemblies would save not cost money, JV mentioned the cost of the Scots Parliament building. Prescott talked about the peoples' choice and hectored. At this stage Knapman took off those large owlish glasses. He should have done it sooner. They emphasise his 'Billy Bunter' appearance. Unfortunately he soon put them back.

By now Prescott knew he had nothing to fear from Knapman, and actually changed the subject with a ridiculous claim that Labour had spent more on schools hospitals
and 'services'. Knapman did not know how to answer this or to force him back to regions. When he spoke, Prescott hit him again with being the Tory whip who forced through the Maastricht Treaty. In desperation to get a word in Knapman claimed 'That was why I left'. It was a foolish lie, and JV nailed it with 'Not at the time of Maastricht you didn't' JV then taunted Prescott with delaying the NW Regional referendum. Prescott had the nerve to say they had to in case the Electoral Commission should raise criticisms over the postal votes. This was unbelievable. Prescott was landing a blow Knapman should have landed the other way round. ; but Knapman was out of his depth. JV closed by bringing up the leadership of the Labour Party, only to hand the camera to Knapman as he also had a leadership crisis. Knapman had a prepared cliché which we have heard before. The problem was that
it was nonsense. He rapped out 'I was elected (really?) for four years three years ago when nobody wanted the job (really?). Now they want a one man one vote election among our 27,000 members. That is progress.' Well it will be if they get it. Cue : Curtains.

posted by Martin |5:54 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.