UKIP Uncovered

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

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”

Quote
David

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.

Regards,
Michael.
Unquote

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:-

Quote

Subject: RE: Phantom Branches

MICHAEL
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?
MIKE
Unquote

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

Quote
Mike

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.

Regards,
Michael
Unquote

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