UKIP Uncovered

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

Sunday, October 31, 2004

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