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

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 

Next Monday's NEC Meeting

With the East India Club 'Bar Bill' contretemps still apparently unresolved the Faragistas tonight are reported to have been diverted from their skirmishes against the Kilroy-incursionists and instead been forced to divert their limited mental resources to the looming problem of the location for next Monday's monthly NEC. While pub cellar bar-stool hideaways sufficed adequately for the past month or so, even these venues are now coming under pressure as the festive season and yuletide revelries force their own demands upon the Capital's limited executive meeting cheapskate resources.

Reports reaching UKIP Uncovered yesterday, that the buffet-bar between platforms 8-10 at Clapham Junction had been secured for the majority of NEC members, with a runner service to the half-lit and uncovered shelter on Platform 6 where the London contingent would be kept advised of proceedings and their votes, have now been found to be untrue.

Once again NEC members have been advised to monitor their mobile phones closely for calls from Nigel as the meeting time approaches, learning how to use the text message reading facility will probably not be necessary, as the sending mechanisms are still prone to periods of unreliability.

If a vote on a motion of no confidence in Roger Knapman's leadership looks likely to be on the agenda, as it most certainly should, chances are the venue will be where nobody can hear what anybody else is saying! What a Party for the party season!

posted by Martin |8:22 PM

Robert Kilroy-Silk Press Release


Robert Kilroy-Silk, Independent M.E.P. for the East Midlands, has today written to the Chief Constables, the Directors of Education and Social Services and the Chairmen of Regional Health Authorities in eight authorities across the country where local communities have been under severe pressure from asylum-seekers. The authorities include Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in his East Midlands constituency. The others are: Burnley, Nelson and Bootle in Lancashire, Manchester, Doncaster and Swansea. His letters follow a recent House of Lords written answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal revealing that the Chief Constables of these areas had demanded, and secured, bans on further dispersals of asylum-seekers to their areas.

Mr Kilroy-Silk said: “I first became aware of the scale of this problem when I read about a leaked Home Office report highlighting a startling degree of disruption caused by asylum-seekers being dispersed to the city of Peterborough. There were reports of severe pressures on local Social Services, health and schools. And Peterborough saw five days of rioting in May this year, between four of the different ethnic groups in the city.

“Now that eight police forces have called for a ban on further asylum-seekers being dispersed to their areas, it is clear that the problem is on a much bigger scale than I realised. I want to know what pressures the Police and other departments are under for the Chief Constables of these areas to feel it necessary to take this extraordinary action. I have therefore today written to ask the Chief Constables and the Directors of Health, Education and Social Services in each area to let me have detailed reports on how asylum-seekers have been adversely affecting local communities, including the impact on policing, on race relations, health and social services, and schools. We need to know what is the problem - and who is being affected by it.

“No-one has asked these local communities whether they consent to large numbers of asylum-seekers being imposed upon them. They have not been consulted. They have not had a vote on the issue. Yet the quality of their lives and of the local services they use is being profoundly affected. If local communities are suffering under the burdens caused by the influx of asylum-seekers, then it is clear that the policy on asylum-seekers will have to change”. In September, Mr Kilroy-Silk made a major speech calling for annual immigration to be limited to 100,000 a year, to bring it into approximate balance with the 91,000 who emigrated from Britain last year.

posted by Martin |2:31 PM

Farage's rare foray into Print

The posting immediately beneath this sets out the latest on the Leadership Elections. Quoted here is the bizarre response of Nigel Farage mentioned therein.


To all UKIP South East Branch Chairman

You will have now received a letter from our Party Chairman, Petrina Holdsworth, outlining the procedure for an EGM. It is a lengthy business that would destroy a General Election Campaign.

Unfortunately you will also have received an email from Michael Harvey, who works for Damian Hockney. This is part of a desperate, failing campaign where a handful of disaffected London members are supporting the sanity of Robert Kilroy-Silk. Please ignore Mr Harvey, who doesn’t
even have the authority to bother you, and let us get on with the job.

After all these years of building a broadly based political party we cannot let one man’s ambition steer us off the course.


Nigel Farage

M.E.P, UK Independence Party, South East.

Damian Hockney's comments on this, I hope he doesn't mind me sharing them with blog readers, was as follows:-

New UKIP rule - you need a permit from Nigel Farage to "bother" members.

An extraordinary memo from Nigel Farage hits the poor saps in the South East. Clearly rattled by the growing call for a leadership election, he has written to South East branches querying the "sanity of Robert Kilroy-Silk" and saying that one of the co-ordinators of the campaign to get a leadership election, Michael Harvey, "doesn't even have the authority to bother" branch chairmen.

Nice to know isn't it, that you now need a permit, presumably from Nigel Farage, to "bother" other members (ie get in touch with them). Presumably as the architect of most of the bother in the party, Nigel Farage is an expert in the matter and is well-equipped to spot a bit of bother when he sees it…coming round the corner is the biggest bit of bother he has faced...


posted by Martin |8:14 AM

Leadership Election Developments

The following brief update on the progress of the move to achieve a quick leadership election, was sent from the London co-ordinating centre to supporters last evening:


We have now submitted the call for an EGM from the 50 branches, and our lawyers' advice has been passed to the Party Chairman and the Party Secretary, who have not themselves taken legal advice. We would of course prefer to achieve a leadership election without having to have an EGM, and have made this clear to the Party Secretary and Chairman.

The lawyers' advice is clear. The pre-February 2004 Constitution is valid in regard to the calling of an EGM. If you have been told that each branch has to have a branch EGM, that each branch must pay £100, and that 20 per cent of all branches need to be collated to convene such a meeting, then that information is inaccurate. Now that the list of branch chairmen has been submitted, you may also receive calls trying to pressurise you into withdrawing. If so, please call Michael Harvey on xxx (office hours) or xxxx.

Some branch chairmen have received calls from senior party members making some bizarre claims about the relative merits of RK and RKS. Also, it has not helped that Nigel Farage has sent e-mails questioning Robert Kilroy-Silk's vanity (or sanity according to the first draft!), and attacking the 50 branches who have signed the call for an EGM.

This issue must be decided on hard facts, not emotive personal attacks. For the record, RKS has made it absolutely clear that he will work with whoever is elected.

Many thanks for your support. We will keep you posted


posted by Martin |8:01 AM

Monday, November 29, 2004 

Another Dodgy Petition in Preparation, this time from Knapman!

Another extract from the extraordinary circular campaign circular put out by the 'hero craving' David Lott:-

In addition Roger has developed a petition on the subject of Regionalisation for activists to use to collect signatures to present to John Prescott during the election. The petition last year was an outstanding success in raising the party’s membership. This will be available very shortly

Strange menial task for Farage to delegate to his leader, does he not trust him an inch? Why has Knapman accepted it though, has the man no shame at all?

posted by Martin |5:30 PM

Does Farage perhaps picture himself leading the Tories?

I was blogging an item on Teetering Tories about Michael Howard's hopeless position and the interview with IDS in today's Independent, and began to chew on the options now available to the Conservatives given the incredible paucity of talent within their present Westminster contingent.

Suddenly the thought occurred - could this perhaps explain the bizarre behavioure of Nigel Farage MEP. Can he possibly imagine bringing his little band of UKIP MEPs, with all their EU cash, into the Tory fold and then takeover and lead his old party to where he believes it should be going.

Normally such speculation would be absurd and unworthy of wasting the increasingly precious daily time available for postings on this blog, but after the extraordinary statement by ex-Chairman and senior Cabalist David Lott, which I repeat here.......... maybe not?

I am sure you will all agree that Nigel Farage over the last week has played a blinder attacking the record of Commissioner Barrot. Do not forget that he has been personally threatened and I would urge you to give him your loyal support. If only we had already built up a head of steam, just think how we could have made him a national hero if we had already been on a roll.

Phew? stirring stuff is it not - I certainly will be trying not to forget that he has been personally threatened - how brave and fearless he truly is! Except of course, Farage in typical style timed his revelation to solely serve his own image against that of Robert Kilroy-Silk, far too late to save the continent from the appointment of the now acknowledged criminal Barrot.

But 'national hero' with such dreams might he not awake for his aspirin in the night and muse of perhaps filling the shoes of those lowlier ordinary men such as JohnMajor, William Hague, Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Howard. Who knows, perhaps even thoughts of taking up the challenge of the Iron Lady herself, might at times come unbidden to his mind? The intricate mind of UKIP's putative 'national hero'

Heavens Forbid!

posted by Martin |2:31 PM

Ask this man about the By-Election Results

John Harvey has been the editor of UK Independence News, the in-house newsletter of UKIP for most of the last ten years and is one of the founder members of the Party. (Photo from

Hodge Hill Result

36.5% Liam Byrne (Labour): 7451 votes (-27.4%).

34.2% Nicola Davies (Liberal Democrat): 6991 votes (+26.1%).

17.3% Stephen Eyre (Conservative): 3543 votes (-2.7%).

AND don't forget Leicester South, where Farage's fellow MEP and reputed eurosceptic Christopher Heaton-Harris a sitting Tory MEP (still within the EPP) was handed a clear run by UKIP and managed only third place with a pathetic 5,796 - what does that auger for the General Election now that Knapman and Farage have brought the party to a rating of only one per cent in the latest opinion poll.

At this rate the Liberal Democrats, the most European Federalist and EU obsessed party of any in the country will be looking to form the next Government.

Ask yourselves UKIP members - Can this really be co-incidence?????? For the second General Election running????????????????????????

Why not also ask, if you see Mr John Harvey, (or have his e-mail address) whether he does not feel that after almost ten years a change of editorship and sharper edge might not be appropriate for the main publication of a party supposedly aiming for seismic political change?

It is past time for hard questions to be further deferred!

posted by Martin |1:32 PM

Here We Go Again!

The following was received from a past battler for the reform of UKIP, now retired from the fray, but with some striking similarities to note:

The attitude of the leadership towards the outcome of a possible EGM is EXACTLY the same as that of the "rump" NEC which refused to accept its dismissal at the hands of the conference and AGM in 1999 . I now believe that the constitution was deliberately set up to preserve the power of the London/South East Mafia.

By controlling the newsletter and most of the major events, the Cabal effectively controls the personalities who become well-known to members, thus assuring their election to the NEC. With the NEC elected by all the members, no elected member has any other constituency but (in theory) the whole party and the AGM/Conference and (in practice) the real constituency
of insiders who decide that he is malleable/stupid enough for their purposes.

Another similarity is Derek Clark's assertion that new members only cause expense. A similar remark by Craig MacKinlay (then the treasuruer who refused to produce accounts) was reported to me in the run-up to the 1999 brouhaha. Hearsay and not evidence I know, but it suggests a remarkable continuity of attitude. Plus ca change....

posted by Martin |11:35 AM

UKIP crash to One per cent in latest Poll

It would appear the short-lived comfort of last week's YouGov poll, itself way below potential levels under a Kilroy leadership, is over for Farage fans for far worse was reported in yesterday's Independent on Sunday with support for the party down to a barely visible one per cent. (No link possible the online poll report did not carry this figure. A usually reliable source has provided this information from the print edition)

As the eu-fanatical liberal-democrats were reported in the same poll as the most likely beneficiaries of the latest well deserved Tory Party slump, this is harrowing news for all eurorealists. The blame clearly lies with Roger Knapman and Nigel Farage.

For my commentary on the implications for the Conservative Party read this link to Teetering Tories' post of yesterday.

posted by Martin |10:23 AM

The Enemy Within

David Lott has distributed a General Election Update to his UKIP Campaign Directors. Amongst the usual guff one has come to expect from this dinosaur of political strategy comes a summary at the end calling upon Robert Kilroy-Silk to throw his talents behind the shambles contrived by himself and the other cabal members. Part of that call is as follows:

"The enemy is out there; wounded, debased, corrupt, weak and vulnerable, propped up by fragile loyalties."


After extolling the virtues of this glory seeking little man and calling upon UKIP members to turn him into a "national hero", the severe personality disturbance of the cabal caused by months of bunker mentality and increasingly dreanged 'group think' becomes apparent.

This call to fight then continues:

"In all my life there has never been a greater opportunity for a new party with radical and exciting policies to capture the imagination of a disgruntled and despairing electorate."

Here for once is a statement with which I can agree. But no NEW PARTY will ever emerge from the shadow of this corrupted cabal. There is one chance and that is for Robert Kilroy-Silk to be handed the reins and undertake the necessary reform. Failing that the country must wait for Robert to see that a NEW PARTY is indeed what the country needs - AND IT NEEDS IT NOW.

I cannot help but quote just one more gem. Remember this from the man who has been destroying UKIP's electoral chances for almost as long as the party has existed, but for one fluke result at his first time of trying - "But we have botched two months and I call upon everyone to unite, put that down to lack of experience...."

posted by Martin |8:09 AM

Sunday, November 28, 2004 

A Cross Section of Comments as the Crisis Deepens

Here are a few brief quotes (most from UKIP Branch Chairmen, apparently) from the ever-growing volume of e-mail that is now arriving from hither and yon, all intended to do what is best for the party, the country and in my view, hopefully, but only occasionally read between the lines - a restoration of hope, purpose and decency to our cause!

'things have gone much too far now to draw back from the once-and-for-all sort-out which has to take place.'

"....the membership has had enough of this puppet show and now are demanding a full change from the top down."

"You know as well as I that this row is not just about Kilroy-Silk or Roger Knapman as Leader. It is a roar of frustration from the membership (or at least the activists) at the way the Party is being run"

Well folks we have it all to play for and as for Frank Leeming wanting to know what Geoffrey Kingscott is up to perhaps you ALL would like to ask
John Bradley that same question.

The sooner Robert is in place to lead with a competent team the sooner we can get on and win seats at Westminster (Even if it costs us our MEP's) Its MP we need!

It is allegedly being run by a cabal with one man as the puppeteer. I do not like that man, do not trust him, and am dismayed by accounts of his past actions.

More to follow, with some from the cabal themselves .... Farage stating Westminster seats are impossible to win, Derek Clarke that new members are not worth the bother, cost and expense.... and to warm you up for those - this cracker from the the same schoolmasterly sage and erstwhile overseer of the kangaroo courts, UKIP's now apparently sole East Midlands MEP himself, who recently told one of that regions Branch Chairman regarding by-elections:

"UKIP's got no policies - the press will eat us alive". Is that deliberate? You decide!

posted by Martin |7:14 PM

Cabal connive to have their Derby City Chairman re-installed

We have reported from the Derby City UKIP Branch difficulties earlier on the blog,
see here, and here, the latest attempts to reverse the the properly reached resignation of the previous Chairman. The following is an extract from the resulting response from the Branch:-

Josephine Rooney [former Secretary] resigned because she did not want to answer questions about David Black writing the minutes of the October meeting. David Black is not the Chairman of the Derby City branch. He announced his resignation from the Branch and the Party at the November 17th meeting, before he could be questioned about the inaccuracies of the October meeting. He was asked twice to return to the meeting and explain the inaccuracies and who wrote the minutes presented to the November meeting. Twice he refused to return to the meeting and then left the building. This is all recorded in the minutes taken by myself as acting Chairman and Secretary on the night of November the 17th.

posted by Martin |5:03 PM

Of Ashford, Treasurers and Money!

This report from a regular correspondent raises some interesting queries on subjects of much past interest on this blog:-

Of more than passing interest is the apparent absence of UKIP's National Treasurer, one Andrew Smith from Epping, from UKIP's last two N.E.C. meetings.

He was, we are told, substituted by one Robin Collett, about whom little is known except that he has an unexplained connection with the dubious 'Ashford Operation' (see elsewhere on this blog). Collett was also seen at the UKIP Annual Conference Dinner trying manfully to cope with a considerable amount of alcohol intake, whilst sat next to one John Moran, believed to be the owner or joint owner of the private Ashford operation.

Questions about the finances of the Ashford operation have been blocked by the leadership on the grounds that Andrew Smith 'has too much on his plate'. It is believed, however, that, contrary to promises, the Ashford operation has not been handing to the Party any amounts in excess of the first year's membership fees, which Ashford keeps entirely to itself by agreement. It is not known, in fact, whether UKIP has received *any* money in respect of membership fees obtained by the Ashford operation since it began.

The Ashford operation is credited with having signed up 10,000 or more new members.

The standard membership fee is £20 a year. Some have been signed up for 3 or 5 years, on the strength of the sales team's notorious opening line: "Shall I sign you up for 5 years? - most people are signing up for 5 years these days".

The likely income received through Ashford during the past year in respect of membership fees alone - never mind donations - is around £250,000 - a handy sum. What has happend to it? A 'good question', most UKIP members might say.

Whether any more light can be shed on these murky matters during the next UKIP N.E.C. meeting remains to be seen

posted by Martin |4:55 PM

Farage's Bar Bill and the veunues of the NEC

Information about the inner workings of UKIP is pouring in to 'UKIP Uncovered' at the moment. The latest information concerns the extraordinary way in which the dates and venues of the N.E.C. are fixed by Nigel Farage.

In the days when Nigel Farage and John de Roeck, the former Party Treasurer, were on friendly terms - and both being members of the East India Club - John de Roeck made a four-year booking of a comfortable room in the club for UKIP's monthly NEC meetings. This was terminated by Farage after his contretemps with John de Roeck. After the very next meeting at the East India Club which took place after the contretemps, there was an almighty row about the size of Nigel Farage's 'bar bill' which apparently remains unresolved to this very day.

The result is that the NEC doesn't know until the last minute where it will be meeting. Its last meeting was in a downstairs room at the Red Lion pub, Whitehall. The previous one was in a totally unsuitable room in King's College. The NEC has now failed to meet for 5 weeks and is now due to meet on Monday 6 December. No-one knows where yet, until they get a call on Farage's mobile!

posted by Martin |4:49 PM

The origins of a UKIP 2004 pro-Tory Conspiracy?

On 30th June this year in a blog titled ‘Kilroy’s Dilemma’, linked here, I stated the following:-

"….he would now register as a UKIP candidate for Hodge Hill, and take the fight forward! Either he believes what he said in all those televised speeches during the campaign......or he does not. Simple really: one way lies truth and the tough fight for principles and the restoration of the democratic rights of ordinary people.....on the other, more lies, deceit and shuffling of debts with the likes of Nigel Farage....who is in reality ....THE BOSS!"

The need for UKIP to follow their successes of 10th June was so clear, and the reasons for no candidate coming forward so unbelievable that I blogged on the topic again and again and again as may be read here, here, and here (where it appears I nailed the wrong conspiracy) but had this telling point:-

The fact that a presentation was prepared and made to the NEC only about the Hartlepool by-election indicates that this may be the first by-election that UKIP is now able to stand due to secret undertakings presumably made by Farage to the BNP.

In this post titled ‘Farage Fiddles while Westminster Waits’, of the day before, linked here, before I protested the following:-

Meantime back in the EU colonised, subjugated and virtually de-democratised UK a fantastic opportunity to turn the tide of domestic politics by sending an MP to Westminster committed to withdrawing Britain from the EU nightmare of which Nigel Farage is now so clearly a part, is totally ignored by a party that gathered support from 51 per cent of the sample of over 2000 respondents in a YouGov poll issued only yesterday.

UKIP should be attacking the lies and manipulations of the professional political parties and booting them from office. Instead of being part of the solution, Farage has chosen to make them part of the problem. His antics in Brussels over the past week offer proof positive of his personal power-pursuit, as does UKIP's running scared in Hodge Hill demonstrate their disgraceful duplicity in the recent campaign.

There is of course much more for the months of June and July on events recorded at the time. How does the matter appear today, in view of all else that has since occurred? Worse, but now the nature of the plot becomes yet more obvious and the parts played by those involved more clear. This for example (here) ends with the comment 'Totally shameful'. Who other than Farage and possibly his stooge Knapman (were he consulted) might be to blame or throw some light on the matter? Here are two:-

John Harvey was the non-NEC member who undertook the study of Hartlepool that was presented in such a manner at the NEC before the Hodge Hill decision that these now almost certainly well-proven dupes seemed to have accepted the decision not to field a Hodge Hill candidate without actually having a motion formally proposed, let alone taken a vote. Who is this Farage stooge? Once on the NEC he is reported to work in Farage’s South East office, he keeps the editorship of the party’s one publication, The Independence News, under such tight control that its ineffectual content seems assured to condemn the party to virtual obscurity and assured ineffectiveness.

Read what I reported on the blog on 25th June linked here, amongst much urging for the party to stand, entitled 'Hodge Hill is UKIP's Strongest Birmingham Constituency':-

Some within UKIP, apparently having their case put forward at the NEC by non-member but powerful cabal confidant John Harvey, are extolling Hartlepool as the ideal by-election possibility. Harvey has been a powerful presence within the party (I am told since its inception) works closely with Nigel Farage in the South East and keeps tight control of the totally lamentable Independence News which must be responsible for deterring many potential new, more diverse, party members).

Stephen Eyre the Conservative Hodge Hill Candidate with suspiciously Farage friendly supposed Tory eurosceptic credentials, as may be read from wikipedia linked here and his South Molton Declaration to Dr Sean Gabb still available online and quoted here:-

E-mail Dated Thursday the 7th October 1999,
Stephen Eyre
to Sean Gabb

I am on the Conservative Party List of Approved Westminster
Candidates. I Am happy to provide information for your service.

I believe that I fall into your sceptic category.

I am a member of Freedom Association, Conservative Way Forward, and
Selsdon Group. Have been consistent opponent of single currency and of
further integration. Am firm supporter of re-negotiation.

Happy to provide further information on my views or confirmation of
the above comments.

Stephen Eyre

More on this will follow shortly, meanwhile any close to John Harvey might please request some comments?

posted by Martin |2:35 PM

EGMs, Conferences, Extraordinary Conferences - If a man's got to go ----

I have received two similar communications on the possible legal quibble over whether Roger Knapman should stand down . The point not to be lost in all this is, of course, that if the majority of party members do not wish their leader to continue in his post in the run-up to a general election, has he any alternative other than to stand down ( only a man with zero conscience and similar concern for his party's cause could even consider continuing for more than a nanosecond surely?).

What political party would have any chance of victory with a leader the members clearly do not want. Only someone desiring an electoral fiasco could possibly contemplate continuing in such a scenario.

That said I quote the e-mails I received on the topic. Both of these quote in full the UKIP Constitution, January 2001 version, Section 8.3 and Section 6.0 and 7.19 which I will not repeat here. Those wishing to study the contradictory constitutional provisions and legalities, having probably already lost the plot in my view, can therefore seek it for themselves!

Earliest E-mail


I believe they may be trying to differentiate between what is "the Party conference" (in 8.3 below) and an "Extraordinary Conference" (as in 6.10 below). I have copied the two constitutional paragraphs complete. Effectively what they are saying then is that the party leader cannot be deposed by party members EXCEPT at an Annual Conference (BTW - where's the procedure for initiating that debate then???) OR IF the NEC first pass a vote of no confidence in the leader - and then allow party members their say at an "Emergency General Meeting" (which is NOT a "conference"). In a nutshell - they're playing with words - aided and abetted by a ridiculously inept constitution.

To which I replied


I had noted that seeming contradiction when quoting this part of the constitution before. Whatever the leagalities and quibbles, what kind of man would consider staying in his post if a vote had been passed indicating he should go, particularly on such a thin pretext.

Certainly shows the true worth of the Party Secretary and Chairman!!


The second communication was from Mr Denis Cooper, from which I have removed the Constitutional Quotes:
Martin On your blog today you quote this passage from a letter sent out to UKIP branches, referring to recent calls for an "EGM":

"Finally we feel bound to mention that our informal legal soundings have suggested that the wording of the Party Constitution might not be unequivocally construed as constituting a mechanism for triggering a leadership election"

That is correct. Presumably that is why the last such "EGM" on January 22nd 2000 attempted to get round it by having as Item 6, and the first formal motion, the following so-called "Technical Motion":

"This Extraordinary Conference takes to itself the powers of an Emergency General Meeting as defined by Paragraph 8.3 of the Party Constitution" disregarding the fact that even Paragraph 8.3 does not give UKIP members the right to act alone to oust their leader and precipitate a leadership election at an "Emergency General Meeting", but only to endorse a previous vote of no confidence passed by the NEC - and that NEC vote was a hotly disputed matter.

The members, acting alone, can only force a leadership election at "the Party Conference". See below. I doubt if the proceedings of that "EGM" would have stood up in a court of law, but more to the point the meeting while necessary and in fact inevitable would have been a complete disgrace for any party, let alone one which presents itself to the public as the defender of sound constitutional principles.

One member was so distressed that he suffered a heart attack during the meeting, and I believe later died, which might have shamed senior members into looking seriously at how the party could conduct its affairs in an orderly and civilised manner.

Not so apparently - five years on, and UKIP is again in a similar mess. At an earlier meeting in the Civil Service Club, on January 13th 2000 - a South East Region Committee Meeting, but opened to all SE branch chairmen by Nigel Farage - my sole contribution was to say that: "We must get a Constitution that works, and then stick to it".

It was blindingly obvious then, as now, that UKIP members cannot rely on the leader and NEC members to take an impartial view on questions like: "Under the UKIP Constitution, must there now be a leadership election?" and so all such questions must be taken away from them, and be decided by an independent judicial arm. Of course it would be a damn sight better if Knapman would play the man and accept the challenge from Kilroy-Silk.

Let the members choose who they would now prefer to follow, and "may the best man win". He is doing UKIP a lot of damage by trying to hide behind procedural technicalities, even if they are valid, and in fact the longer he does that the fewer members will vote for him when the election finally happens.

Maybe individual UKIP members should write to him, and tell him that he should stop being such a wimp, and put his popularity to the test in an election. It could be done quite quickly, and that would settle it. "He either fears his fate too much, Or his deserts are small, That dares not put it to the touch. To gain or lose it all."

posted by Martin |2:24 PM

At the heart of Europe

Daniel Hannan's article from this morning's Sunday Telegraph, accurately describes the disgusting charade of the European Parliament. It is linked from here and these are some of the more barbed extracts:-

A fomer colleague of Barrot's, Jacques Toubon, rushed up and down the aisle, apparently looking for someone to punch (Robert Kilroy-Silk, recognising him as the minister who had tried to ban the English language from French airwaves, told him mischievously that no one would understand him unless he spoke English, which sent him into a choking fit). All this because Farage was doing the job that the rest of us ought to have done.....

There you have it. As far as MEPs are concerned, it is all right to have supported a totalitarian regime, to have been convicted in a corruption case or, indeed, to be an evident dullard with no knowledge of your portfolio. What is not all right is to support the supremacy of national parliaments. Dolts, shysters, reds and retreads are welcome. But someone who believes that nations should set their own taxes? That would be going too far.

(This item was also posted on 'The Strasbourg Cesspit')

posted by Martin |9:17 AM

Saturday, November 27, 2004 

Are UKIP’s Closet Tories being forced to break cover?

The extraordinary letter from Party Secretary Tony Stone and Chairman Petrina Holdsworth, revealed last evening on this blog and further quoted here this morning, is quite clearly dynamite.

A refusal by the incompetent and now widely distrusted Party Leader, Roger Knapman, not to stand down in the face of a vote of no-confidence at an Emergency General Meeting properly convened by the Constituency Branch Chairmen, beggars belief.

On the positive side surely this is the conclusive evidence ordinary party members, who have until now tended to support the UKIP leadership cabal, should now realise that their political objectives must be in the greatest danger of being betrayed.

The threat of an EGM has forced into the open the clear disregard the leadership has both for the party’s constitution and for the views and beliefs of the membership. This coming on top of the news last week that all the remaining UKIP-whipped MEPs have been forced to sign some form of oath of allegiance to Roger Knapman and Nigel Farage, can only deepen the widespread suspicion in which these two are already held.

What is it that might be behind this extraordinary behaviour?

We have brainstormed alternatives and the only likely explanation that seems to meet most of the bizarre string of events that have recently occurred within the party is that the leadership was/is planning a sell out to the Tory Party just ahead of the coming General Election. Possibly being sold to members as a deal for a more eurosceptic stance from that least to be trusted of UK political parties!

Whether or not this would take the form of a simple union of MEPs in the European Parliament, a full merger or would see a repeat of the strange situation that occurred in William Hague’s constituency when the UKIP candidate failed to present his nomination papers can only be conjecture at this stage.

It must be remembered that under the PPERA anybody wishing to stand for public office as a UKIP Party Candidate will need in support of his/her nomination papers an official certificate of authorisation issued by the Party's Nominating Officer. Even if no official pact were to be announced, could obstacles and difficulties be thrown in the way of those contesting ‘sensitive constituencies’ when seeking this necessary form? Failure to present this document would result in the candidate being unable to use the party name.

If anything like such a plan was being considered then party members and Eurorealists in general must be grateful, that thanks to Robert Kilroy-Silk these non-democratic schemers within the party have now been fully exposed.

The desperation of those now in control of UKIP to retain and manipulate power cannot surely be more obvious. The question, however, as always remains - “For what ends?”

posted by Martin |10:49 AM

More on the UKIP letter that apparently declares Party Members' rights and opinions null and irrelevant.

"Finally we feel bound to mention that our informal legal soundings have suggested that the wording of the Party Constitution might not be unequivocally construed as constituting a mechanism for triggering a leadership election"

Note that in the original the word unequivocally is highlighted. UKIP Uncovered has yet to receive a complete version of this letter. If any with a copy can transcribe it and e-mail it to us we will place it on the blog so that all may read exactly what the leadership are now trying to contrive.

In plainspeak this means that Roger Knapman won't go if outvoted - or at least he is saying he won't - through the words of the Party Secretary, Tony Stone and the Party Chairman Petrina Holdsworth who have co-signed the letter.

The letter sounds full of absurdities - "informal legal soundings"? Whatever can that mean?

Those pushing for the EGM state they have actual legal advice. Many of those have been through situations where such shady soundings have also been used!

So will Knapman now step out from behind the scenes and say "unequivocally" that he will listen to the members? That now seems the burning question of the moment!

Robert Kilroy-Silk and UKIP members all around the country must now, this very weekend, in my view, question and hopefully decide whether the UKIP is a party worth staying within, or would a large breakaway now offer the only chance for the desperately needed electoral earthquake at the looming general election!

posted by Martin |8:10 AM

Friday, November 26, 2004 

Leadership say they will not honour result of EGM on leadership election

UKIP Uncovered has just received this latest report on the proposed EGM:


In an extraordinary letter sent to branches, Party Secretary Tony Stone has stated that the Party Leader will not be bound by the forthcoming EGM if the party votes No Confidence in him.

What is even more extraordinary, he admits in his letter that he has not taken legal advice on this, but that he has taken "informal legal soundings". These "soundings" have been used in the past - usually internal party members who have little idea of what they are talking about, who once worked in a solicitor's office, and have always led to legal disasters, even in the past year - including the payment by the then Party Chairman David Lott of damages to Damian Hockney for outrageous libels, and payment to a former party employee.

So the Party Secretary has now made clear that the leadership would ignore a properly convened EGM, ignore the result and Carry On Regardless. Indeed, what he is trying to do with this letter is to delay the agony and try to stop the party removing Knapman at all costs, throwing up barriers to the process and then using the argument that "we can't do it in the middle of an election".

If Knapman agreed to go now, the election could be over just after Christmas. But he'll cling on like someone clung to a train going along the tracks at 80 mph…at the behest of the puppet master Nigel Farage.

Lawyers planning an EGM for the 50 Branch Chairmen will no doubt make great play of this letter..



posted by Martin |6:44 PM

Another Branch goes for an EGM

This has just been received:

Dear Mr Cole,

The Barnet & Camden branch held their AGM last night and at the meeting the subject of the leadership bid came up and our chairman Richard Roper held a vote. The motion to hold a branch EGM as soon as possible, preferably before Christmas was carried.

Andrew Taylor.
Barnet & Camden Branch

posted by Martin |11:29 AM

More support for Robert Kilroy-Silk.

The following e-mail has been received from a member of the UKIP SE Derbyshire Branch:-

The South East Derbyshire Branch met last Wednesday, We voted on a motion to call an EGM with a vote of No confidence for the Leader Roger Knapman!

The vote went as follows:

12 in favor of an EGM and Robert Kilroy-Silk

1 Against (He is paid by the party!)

1 Abstention (His Wife)

Our team of over 20 leaflet and campaigners all support Robert Kilroy-Silk

The people of Derbyshire want Robert!

We will do our best to get him elected leader


posted by Martin |9:26 AM

Telegraph YouGov Poll has UKIP at 5 per cent.

The comment and poll may be read from this link.

posted by Martin |8:57 AM

Thursday, November 25, 2004 

Press statement from Farage on Timing of Barrot revelation!

This blog's recent posts querying why Nigel Farage MEP had not revealed the facts about French EU Commissioner Jacques Barrot's past in time for the full EU Parliament to consider the matter seem to have struck home.

A statement issued by UKIP and linked from here, seeks to imply that the information was laid before parliament two weeks ago, giving more than a week for due consideration, rather than the mere minutes widely reported elsewhere! Another case of UKIP disinformation or just another misguided 'cunning plan'? I quote

For Immediate Release – 17:30hrs 25th November 2004

‘Stitch-up’ prevents MEPs questions over convicted Commissioner MEPs have been prevented from questioning Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot over his conviction for embezzlement after the heads of the Socialist and Conservative Groups in the European Parliament quashed a request in the Council of Presidents meeting earlier today.

UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, who revealed details of M. Barrot’s convictions to the Parliament 2 weeks ago,.......

posted by Martin |7:51 PM

The Times on the growing pressure to remove Roger Knapman from the UKIP Leadership

'Leadership contest on cards, says Kilroy-Silk camp' Such is the headline of an article in today's influential newspaper. It is linked from here, and reports:


The campaign to make Robert Kilroy-Silk leader of the UK Independence Party gathered pace last night with the claim that an official leadership contest could be announced within weeks.

Mr Kilroy-Silk has spent the time since he resigned from the party's group in the European Parliament touring about ten local branches. To begin the process of ousting Roger Knapman as party leader, branches can call a local meeting at which they pass a vote calling for a leadership contest.

Tony Bennett, an aide to Mr Kilroy-Silk, said that 12 UKIP branch chairmen has passed such a motion and that dozens more were in the process of doing so. Their target is 47: the number required by the party's constitution before an emergency general meeting can be held.

The talks by Robert Kilroy Silk have crystallised in people's minds that they have to have an effective leadership Mr Bennett said. However Tony Stone the UKIP party secretary said that he had not received a single valid letter on the subject from the branch chairman.

The rules, which were changed recently to ensure stability in a party prone to infighting, state that the letter has to be accompanied by a cheque for £100 to pay for the cost of holding an emergency national meeting to decide the leader. However, Mr Damian Hockney, leader of the UKIP group in the London Assembly, said that this was because they were planning to have the letters verified first by a lawyer. Michael Harvey, a former party secretary and now chairman of the Woking Branch, said he believed that he could get the support of 50 branch chairman by the end of the week.

Nigel Farage a leading UKIP MEP, said that the move would inflict huge damage on UKIP's general election chances: It's the last thing we need. Even if they succeeded in getting a general EGM, members would vote overwhelmingly against Mr Kilroy Silk, who has behaved appallingly.

Mr Knapman said last night that he still retained a strong majority of support. "It's just a regular group from London trying to cause problems for the party.


Read this blog to realise the absurdity of this latest Knapman claim. Up and down the country UKIP members are becoming increasingly concerned and disgusted as the facts behind his leadership, the antics of his puppet-master Nigel Farage, and the dealings of his cronies are steadily being revealed to an ever wider and better informed party membership!

Knapman must go and go quickly!

posted by Martin |7:36 PM

Political Expediency? Who we really are?

Please take the time to read and ponder this well considered, clearly deeply felt and for me worryingly important analysis of what we in the eurorealist movement, and particularly those believing in the importance of the UKIP, are trying to achieve. It was written by Sandra Robinson and republished as received :

I feel this is relevant to the ongoing debate about UKIP and wider issues on Blog.

As a UKIP member, former Branch Chairman and Regional Organiser, I became and remain shocked at the re-curing too late or non existent strategies or political actions of the UKIP, that Robert Kilroy Silk also discovered along with many others over a considerable time. I remember, as 'a voter' asking several of our then Prospective MEP Candidates what the strategy was once they became MEP's. Or, as in one case, what were UKIP going to do with a big vote. The answers I received were" I don't Know", "I will start thinking about that on the 11th of June", I don't know what the strategy is", " A vote for UKIP will influence the Tories and that will affect their policy", and a repeat of my question back to me with no answer. Clearly there has to be some sort of strategy at work to achieve even late, out of time, or non existent political practice. The trouble is it has never been shared with, or made clear to the members and party as a whole, whatever it is. It may be the most unifying strategy and argument one could ever think of; yet instead, an exclusive, harmful divisive culture has been perpetrated, achieving the very opposite. It has seduced many to its methods, arguing it is for the good of the party, yet I see more of what we already have in politics and which I believe is now endemic in Labour, a culture of deceit. Labour and the Conservatives both believe the EU is good for them and us and have willingly and actively deceived the British people from the very beginning when Edward Heath signed our original entry. It has always been a case of their believing it will be good for us, the people of the UK, and therefore justifiable in giving us this bad tasting and flawed medicine in constant drip, drip, drips, heavily disguised in syrupy spin and denial. But why would the UKIP operate like this when its members and the British people want honesty, not only in what we say and purport, but in all our actions and dealings, including with each other. If we can behave like this, 'out of office' and with our own colleagues and members, what chance of decency when in office.?

Of course, as one individual member and past paid official, it is a drop in the ocean, arguably only of interest to me and my family, who gave me every support. However, it is important in that it is an example of others, and whilst various claims can be made about the ownership and size of leadership support of the UKIP, it is its nature that is of most importance. Nature and behaviour, especially by choice, is the essence of who we are and what we represent. When it is a party and philosophy, how we behave is crucial. We are expected to lead by example, fall on our sword if wrong or we cannot support or sustain something. Not betray our core principles, philosophy and each other by something I have heard described as, 'political expediency'. I do not know how all of this is going to turn out, so I obviously still have some reserve of hope, but my experience so far of the premier anti-EU party, it's ability to work honestly with its own members and unite the wider movement, has been one of disillusionment. However much some may continue to pour scorn or put a different complexion on my, and others experience, it does not eradicate it or it's cause. Perhaps all there was, was a pressure group to influence the Conservatives and if this was the case we were all grown up enough to receive and understand that. This would at least have enabled anyone who thought and hoped for more to address the issue from a different angle. What it seems we have is not a united party, but almost different parties within a party, held together in denial. I think it is better to be in a minority of one, but believing something sincerely, than with twenty thousand other people in a glued kaleidoscope. The trouble is I'm not sure that all the components of this Kaleidoscope know what the pattern they are making is. I am certain, however, that the further we get from being absolutely honest with each other, even if we disagree about very important things, is the further we get away from the electorate and have to rely on this thing called 'political expediency'. The electorate have lost faith with Tony Blair and do not have much faith either in Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy. There are further numerous examples in the EU and beyond that have in common, the disillusionment of the people. This is the one thing any serious party must have, the belief of the people and it has to have earned and practised it within as well as without.

posted by Martin |5:58 PM

Yesterday's Evening Standard report on UKIP

I am told that the report I linked yesterday was not in some (perhaps all) print editions of the above newspaper. I therefore reproduce the whole report rather than just the brief quote I gave when linking the item yesterday.


UKIP faces leadership turmoil

By Isabel Oakeshott Political Correspondent,
Evening Standard 24 November 2004

The UK Independence Party was in turmoil today amid new moves to force a leadership election.

Party leader Roger Knapman is facing a vote of no confidence after losing the support of key activists.

A total of 50 local branch chairman were said to be preparing to demand an emergency meeting to decide his future.

The move could trigger a formal leadership contest, paving the way for former TV host Robert Kilroy-Silk to make a new bid to seize the top job. But the prospect of a leadership battle months before a general election will dismay many UKIP activists who fear an ugly contest could alienate thousands of voters.

The plot follows months of bitter in-fighting in the fledgling Rightwing party. Mr Kilroy-Silk has made no secret of his ambition to lead the party since its breakthrough at the June European, local and London Assembly elections.

Supporters claim Mr Kilroy-Silk has the backing of 50 branch chairman, twice the number needed to force a confidence motion under UKIP's rules. But Mr Knapman organised a survey of most branch chairmen last month which appeared to show he commanded the backing of more than 109 of them.

A party insider said: "I would be very surprised indeed if this did not result in a leadership election."

London Assembly member Damien Hockney, chairman of UKIP's Kensington and Chelsea branch, said today: "I believe a leadership contest is now inevitable. I will work with anyone who is elected, but I will be voting for Mr Kilroy-Silk."

posted by Martin |3:43 PM

Knapman's UKIP - a mere 'Tool' of the Tories

One of the most crucial units of UKIP is its policy committee. As I understand matters members are appointed by the Party Leader and following the June election it became a very select and very small tight inner circle.

Recently a past very active member of the Conservative Party was appointed as a researcher for the Independence and Democracy Group in the European Parliament working very closely with Nigel Farage. His name is Adrian Muldrew.

At the last meeting of UKIP's Policy Committee (last Monday I believe) he was reported to have been in attendance although it is not known whether as a guest or full member. Adrian Muldrew was a very prominent adviser to Iain Duncan Smth, who strangely was reported as having twice called at the White House in Washington during the period leading up to the appointment of both Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State and the installation of her deputy as the new immensely powerful National Security Adviser, which visits reportedly included informal converstaions with the re-elected President Bush himself! This was reported by Matthew d'Ancona in last week's Sunday Telegraph, linked here, as I then pointed out in a post titled 'Something of the Night' on my blog Teetering Tories, click here.

The House of Commons, Standards Committee, elicited much of the background on Mr Muldrew which may be read from this link. Any reading that must query why such an active Tory has now been taken on by the party, and how it is that he has so immediately been catapaulted within its most important and critical policy making group. Those not wishing to wade through the entire interrogation might be nevertheless interested in the following quotes:-


Q1701 Sir Philip Mawer: I want to understand where you sat, your perception of the problems, but I must focus you on your contact with Mrs Duncan Smith.

Mr Muldrew: Sure. My position did settle really from the end of January until I left the Leader's office at the beginning of that September. As I say at some stage I knuckled down into my role in correspondence. How we all finally gained titles was simply that the people putting together the Party intranet insisted we all had titles in the telephone directory and I remember Rebecca going round asking us all what we thought we should call ourselves. I said, "I do not know", she said, "Correspondence Secretary" and I said, "you cannot call me Correspondence Secretary when there is already a Correspondence Unit" then she said, "Political Secretary" and I said, "I think that is egging the pudding slightly, Rebecca" and she said, "Well, Correspondence and Political Secretary" and I said, "OK, fair enough", she said, "We just need something to go on the intranet".


This posting of course raises far more questions than it answers, if any feel they can explain what it all means and wish to share their ideas with other blog readers please e-mail your ideas to advising whether or not they can be posted to the blog.

posted by Martin |11:58 AM

In defence of this blog

Anthony Butcher, the moderator of a public Internet Forum has posted the following comment:-

It is run by Martin Cole, who fell out with the leadership having previously been a UKIP member. He was due to stand for UKIP as an MEP I believe.

The site is completely against Mr Knapman and Mr Farage. The problem is that he is so critical that the genuine criticisms become mixed in with the invented/exaggerated ones, in my opinion. He obviously has a lot of energy and drive and is very focused on bringing down the current party leadership.

Mr Butcher is a member of another private forum to which I also belong and could have asked for more information had he wished. He should though be fully aware of the real facts and that such are fully available to him and his forum participants through the links and archives of this blog.

What he might have missed, however, was my posting of 19th September 2003, linked here, containing the full offer I made to Tony Stone on 4th May 2003 to withdraw the blog (very soon after its commencement) in exchange for essential reforms of the party, which is now repeated below. Significant in its rejection, in my opinion, was the demand that the two full term serving MEPs should be placed no higher than second on the Regional MEP Candidate lists; a demand that can now be seen as having proved no sacrifice whatsoever. Consider, however, how much better placed the party would now be had that and all my other proposals been negotiated and more or less implemented as proposed:-

.... the names of certain parties not now directly involved have been removed, otherwise it is 'as sent' :-

Dear Tony,

I am writing further to last Friday evening's telephone conversation. I am copying this e-mail to Nigel Farage and David Lott whom you mentioned as having an interest in this matter. I am also copying Judith Longman and Michael Rollings who are closely involved in the matters covered below.

All recipients should feel free to give this e-mail whatever circulation they wish as far as I'm concerned. In the event of no reply I shall arrange to have it posted on the Blog after a few days.

I have given much careful thought to what you said regarding the good of the party. At the present moment the Blog UKIP uncovered is only known to UKIP Party Members and it would seem unlikely that its contents would become available to a wider audience outside the party, let alone to the media, unless a particular party member deliberately chose to disclose the web

You may recall that I stated that the objective of the Blog was to aid in the withdrawal of Britain from the EU by forcing a thorough clean-up of the rot that has been allowed to develop at the centre of the party, followed by a root and branch reform of the party procedures that have enabled this situation to develop.

I have therefore prepared a Heads of Agreement covering the main areas that I believe need urgent attention and laid out my ideas as to how they might be tackled. With the following put into effect the concerns raised within the Blog will have been largely corrected and it could therefore be removed.




The undersigned UKIP Party Officials and Members hereby agree as follows:-

1. That the Yorkshire & Humberside and North East Regional Committees be re-instated with immediate effect.

2. ****, **** and **** be removed from the MEP approved candidate list.

3. That the postal ballot be cancelled where the Regional Committees are unhappy with either the procedures used or the Candidates they will be expected to support. The European Election Committee be disbanded and its procedures to have no further force.

4. That the Yorkshire and North East Regional Committees be allowed to draw up a short-list of candidates, as have all the other regions, who will be ranked and selected in accordance with whatever democratic procedures these committees so decide. The North East and Yorkshire Regional Committees' decision regarding the short-lists shall be final.

5. That the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Committees be fully reimbursed for the costs incurred in fighting their suspension.

6. That the two UKIP MEPs who sat throughout the last Parliament agree to be positioned no higher than second place in the regional party lists for the forthcoming June 2004 European Parliamentary elections (see Conference Proposal [e] below).

7. Because of wide-spread dissatisfaction with the Regional Organisers in certain regions and in order to return the Party finances to a reasonable level to be able to adequately fight the forthcoming European elections, following the recent costly and pointless campaign in Wales and recognising the reduced anticipated annual income due to the 3 year membership programme, the Regional Organisers and **** be asked to tender their resignations
with immediate effect. Those regions feeling able to meet the costs of re-employing their Regional Organisers should of course be free to do so. Regional Organisers refusing to tender their resignations should have their appointments terminated as soon as legally possible unless their regional committee otherwise decides to continue their employment at their own expense.

8. That all reporting of persons to the Disciplinary Committee and disciplinary hearings cease while inquiries under this agreement are underway.

9. That an investigatory panel be established to consist of one member nominated by the National Executive Committee, excluding any paid official or other member involved in the recent disputes namely: Farage, Lott, Nattrass, Harvey, and Clark, and one member each (not necessarily a member of the National Executive) nominated by the Chairwoman/Chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside and the North East Regions.

The investigating panel may determine removal of Party Officials from their functions and expulsion from Party membership as they deem appropriate, and may reach such decisions by majority vote. (Members of the panel to have their expenses met from Party Funds and to appoint investigators or use whatever other means they deem necessary to establish the facts. Costs of the enquiry will be met from Party Funds).

The panel to fully investigate all matters related to and arising from recent events resulting in the suspension of the two Regional Committees and disqualification of a North East MEP candidate, including but not limited to the following:-

i. to examine all the circumstances surrounding the membership irregularities in the North East and the establishment and financing and use of funds for the Hartlepool Office. That David Lott, Michael Harvey, Derek Clark, Peter Troy, ***** and **** be suspended pending the outcome of this inquiry.

ii. to consider the actions of Nigel Farage in previous matters drawing press attention as well as in recent events including the suspension of the two regional committees and to determine whether he should continue as an approved candidate for the forthcoming European Parliamentary elections.

To establish the extent of the risks to the UKIP MEP campaign as a result of the theft of Nigel Farage's computers from his Sussex offices in May 2002.

iii. to require Nigel Farage to produce the letter he showed to Jeffrey Titford, which the latter described as Mosaic Film's authorisation for the sale of copied Video Tapes. In the absence of such letter being produced, this factor to be carefully considered in deciding any recommendation pursuant to subsection ii above.

iv. to establish the reasons for the refusal by the Party Leader Roger Knapman to initiate a full enquiry on 12th March 2003, when first warned of the likely extent of the crisis now engulfing the party.

v. to fully explore the extent of Roger Knapman's links to and membership of the now disaffiliated Conservative Monday Club and any other extreme right-wing or racist organisations. (Particularly in connection with his attendance and speech at the Connaught Hotel, Bournemouth 9th October, 2002).

Roger Knapman to offer a letter of resignation as Leader pending the outcome of these inquiries. Any new or re-appointed Party Leader to first agree to withdraw as MEP candidate. Following these inquiries the panel will decide whether Mr Knapman should be invited to continue as Leader or approved MEP candidate or neither.

vi. to investigate the actions of M. Harvey, D. Clark and M. Nattrass in recent events and particularly during the Middlesborough Hustings on 17th March 2003 and decide which of these three, if any, should continue in their present party positions.

vii. to investigate the recent actions and communications and therefore the suitability of David Lott continuing as Party Chairman.

viii. to put aside the result of any appeal that might have upheld the disqualification of MEP Candidate Martin Cole and re-assess the disqualification.

Following the above enquiry, a Working Group be established to consider amendments to the Party Constitution deemed necessary as a result of the panel's findings. Recommendations as to constitutional changes should be submitted for consideration and vote at the next party conference.

The following motions are additionally to go forward as Motions for the next annual conference.

1. The Party Secretary implements the measures necessary to amend the constitution
to include the following paragraphs:

a. The Party shall seek to establish a Regional Committee in every UK EU Region.

b. Such Regional Committees will affiliate to the national Party by resolution at their first corporate meeting.

c. The Regional Committee has the responsibility for administering its own financial and other affairs, including the election of Regional Organisers and the selection of candidates for the EU elections. These functions will be conducted in accordance with the procedures set down in the Party's Rule Book.

d. The Regional Committee shall have the power of veto over the appointment of Regional Organisers and regarding proposed rule changes by the NEC, or any subcommittee of the NEC, affecting the running of Regions, associations and branches, subject to the power of the Annual General Meeting or a Special General Meeting to approve rule changes.

e. The Party Constitution be amended to restrict sitting MEPs to no higher position than SECOND on the regional party list in the immediately following European Parliamentary election. Neither the Party Leader, Chairman, Party Secretary, General Party Secretary nor any paid party employees such as Regional Organisers shall be permitted to stand as MEP Candidates.

Following the agreement on these points Martin Cole undertakes to arrange the removal of the Blog UKIP Uncovered from the web.

The following undersigned Party Officials agree to make every effort to have any motions or proposals necessary to implement these procedures accepted within the National Executive by voting in their favour and to furthermore offer every assistance and documentation that the inquiry panel established herein may require.

Agreed to this ......... of ............... 2003

To be signed by:- Martin Cole, Roger Knapman, Nigel Farage, David Lott,
Mike Nattrass, Derek Clark, and Michael Harvey

I hope Mr Butcher or another of the members of his forum will make this information available to the members of his group.

posted by Martin |9:41 AM

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 

Precis of a speech to UKIP's Medway Branch

This speech has found its way to me, by one route or another. If the author recognises his words and sentiments and wishes to be acknowledged and recognised here - I will gladly add his name as he might wish. Meantime it must remain anonymous, though the sentiments expressed are shared by many - not least this blogger!


Subject: UKIP Medway Branch: speech

Précis of speech to committee

18 November 2004

We achieved a great success on 10 June 2004 with 12 MEPs elected. Like all other members of UKIP, I expected great results to follow, allowing for at least a few days interval while MEPs made their domestic arrangements and the party leadership organised its new flock in Strasbourg.

A few days went by, a few weeks went by and several months went by. Nothing happened. We have had no new policies or manifesto ironed out or communicated to the membership. At the very least we should know who the various spokesmen are. We don’t even know we if have any or what their policies are.

We are forced to conclude from this that the party leadership has been moribund or incompetent. Either this or they are traitors.

When Roger Knapman was elected unopposed to the party leadership he seemed the right man for the job at the time and he probably was. He had a background as a parliamentarian and Maastricht rebel and represented a step-up for the party. However, recent events have shown he is not suited to the current task. The party machinery needs organisation into spokesmen and policy areas. This can and should have happened in the immediate aftermath of 10 June. We need a leader who will organise the party accordingly and us to capitalise on the results of 12 June.

I am 43 years of age and when I watched Kilroy’s performance on Question Time with Michael Ancram (Conservative) and Patricia Hewitt, Home Office Minister, I witnessed a confrontation the like of which I have not seen for decades. Nowadays it is rare to see a political spokesman or minister physically and visibly squirm in their seat but this is what Patricia Hewitt did and I enjoyed watching it. Her lips trembled and she looked very frightened. Her body language gave away her fear of the Government’s Europhile policies being found out and exposed. We need to see this more often, as politicians like Blair and Alistair Campbell are elitist, arrogant riff raff who reject all accountability to the people.

The only way we are going to see this happen is if we have Kilroy as our leader. Can any of you see Roger Knapman having the same effect on Patricia Hewitt and the other Blairite politicians as Kilroy?

As regards the circulars from the NEC and Roger Knapman, these seem to be part of the leadership’s crude tactics to win support. We know the NEC is not unanimous in their support for Knapman as suggested, by virtue of the fact Craig Mackinlay is openly supporting Kilroy.

The ring-around by Nigel Farage achieved a biased result for the present leadership. It is imperative we in the branches now stand up for ourselves.

They say all is fair in love and war. I am afraid the situation is like that in politics. Knapman must go because in crude tactical terms, even if we accept Kilroy is egotistical, he will achieve good electoral results for us in the General Election and referenda on the Euro and Constitution. Only Kilroy can enable the party to move closer towards its goal of getting the UK out of the EU. It is an opportunity we must not let slip.


posted by Martin |8:10 PM

Cabal's contempt for proper procedure and Party democracy further displayed at Derby!

The latest in the Derby City Branch saga (see posts below this) is just now in . It seems the existing leadership will stop at virtually nothing to prevent yet one more branch declaring itself in favour of a leadership election - especially it appears - if such branch has already gone on record in support of Robert Kilroy-Silk.

Alarm bells are ringing at the Derby City Branch, which - following the debacle over the walk-out of its Chairman, David Black - was recently asked to submit the name of its 'deputy nomination officer' to HQ - a procedure required by the Electoral Commission.

The Branch has now had a letter from the regional organiser warning: '...and be prepared for a delay of some weeks before getting a deputy nomination officer's certificate back'.

There is no obvious reason why the Derby Branch can't have its certificate confimed within days, so speculation about the possible reason for this delay is growing.

posted by Martin |7:03 PM

Neil Herron reacts to Knapman's Claim of Leading NE UKIP Role

Earlier I posted an extract from a Roger Knapman speech in Strasbourg last week, where he claimed UKIP led the anti-Regional Assembly Referendum campaign in the North East. The real victor of that brilliantly executed campaign that resulted in a complete rout of the government had this comment regarding Knapman's boasts:-

"Lord Lucan played more of a part than Knapman in the NE. It would be useful for someone to ask UKIP and Knapman in particular for a summary breakdown of their campaign strategy.
I can provide the pen and the stamp to write it on."

As Neil points out on his own blog, linked here, apart from everything else, Roger Knapman cannot even get the margin of victory correct, it was 78 per cent rather than the 73 apparently quoted by the bumbling UKIP leader.

posted by Martin |4:25 PM

Derby update (see post of earlier this afternoon)

I have had the following update:-

"Derby City Branch at the meeting of Nov 17th, passed a call for a branch EGM for Dec 15th to vote on a change of chairman for the branch due to irregularities in the minutes of the Oct meeting.

And at the Nov 17th meeting David Black's verbal resignation and the resignation of the secretary were accepted. "

posted by Martin |4:17 PM

UKIPs emotional Press Officer again attacks this blog!

Normally Mark Croucher keeps his biased and unbalanced attacks on this blog to internet fora to which I do not belong and therefore have no right of reply. Today he has, for no apparent reason at all that I can see as no topic is raised, launched his venom on a public forum which I happened to see. Rather than bother to reply, past attempts have proved him unworthy of sensible debate, I will post his comments here and allow this blog's readers to draw their own conclusion and verdict. The first four words as posted certainly shows a rare striving towards some kind of truth!

"I doesn't really matter who you are. Your object is the same; to cause as much disruption as possible in the run-up to a General Election. You are using the same recipe as Cole; take the tiniest pinch of truth, distort it thoroughly, add a large dose of wild imagination, embitter with the views of several who have been thrown out of UKIP, and then stir wildly for months and months, until the pinch of truth has been obscured by embitterment and imagination. Serve with wild accusations, and garnish with pseudonyms and anonymity. The end result is certain to leave a nasty taste in the mouth."

posted by Martin |3:39 PM

Extraordinary developments at the UKIP Derby City Branch.

An informant from Derby tells us that at their monthly Branch Meeting in October, UKIP members overwhelmingly voted for a leadership election ASAP and also indicated their overwhelming support for Robert Kilroy-Silk in the event of a leadership election.

The Branch Secretary was accordingly instructed to send an urgent letter to Party Secretary Tony Stone. There was therefore consternation when, at this month's Branch meeting, Chairman David Black and the Branch Secretary admitted that despite this clear instruction of the Branch at their October meeting, no letter had yet been sent.

The result in the ensuing tumult was the formal resignation of the Branch Secretary, while Mr Black walked out of the meeting saying: "I resign from this Party. I've had enough" and then walked out of the building.

Councillor Frank Leeming, one of UKIP's few Councillors - he was elected on to Derby City Council - was swiflty voted in as Acting Chairman. But now we hear that Regional Organiser Geoffrey Kingscott and Derek Clark MEP have insisted that Mr Black remains the legal Chairman of the Branch, despite his walking out on them and his refusal to carry our Branch decisions. It is doubtful whether either man has authority to tell the Derby Branch what to do, but it seems that the Party leadership does not, for some reason, wish one of the Party's leading lights in the area to become Branch Chairman.

Cllr. Leeming is, needless to say, pro-Kilroy. Clark and Kingscott's open support for Black may be very unwise. Black provoked ridicule in the European Elections for circulating a leaflet describing those on the continent of Europe as 'barbarians', a matter which came to the attention of the natioanl media, who understandably gobbled up this piece of news to poke fun at UKIP.

We understand that Kilroy, on hearing of this, gave instructions that on no account was he to be photographed anywhere near Black during the campaign.

posted by Martin |3:14 PM

Knapman claims UKIP were lead players in the NE Referendum!

This statement taken from this link, will surely stupefy any with the slightest knowledge of what actually took place in the North East over the past two years!

Mr President, Parliament will be pleased to know that the UK Independence Party were the lead players in the recent 'No' to the North-East Regional Assembly campaign in Britain.

To imagine that only yesterday, on this blog, I was apologising to my readers for perhaps having been over-strident in my criticisms of this man!

posted by Martin |1:46 PM

Barroso Commission Backs Barrot!

The Scotsman carries this first report of the first meeting of the new Commission which no doubt will come to be seen to adequately reflect their subsequent performance and attitude to integrity, namely along exactly the same lines as that of those Commissions that went before. The report may be read from this link, to my mind the pertinent quote is this:-

The new European Commission today backed Jacques Barrot, the French commissioner whose criminal conviction for embezzlement was exposed by the UK Independence Party.

Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso made his support clear after the first formal gathering of a new Commission team in Brussels.

posted by Martin |1:35 PM

Evening Standard - UKIP faces turmoil

See our own report beneath this for fuller details. The Standard report is linked from here, it begins:-

The UK Independence Party was in turmoil today amid new moves to force a leadership election.

Party leader Roger Knapman is facing a vote of no confidence after losing the support of key activists.

posted by Martin |1:20 PM

Example from Loughborough of Branch Motion for an EGM:

Monday 15th November 2004

In accordance with the Constitution of the United Kingdom Independence Party, the officers of the Loughborough Branch are calling an Extraordinary General Meeting on Wednesday 8th December to give consideration to the following motion:

“That the national Party Secretary be requested to call an Extraordinary Conference for the purpose of considering a proposal of no confidence in the National Executive Committee and the Leadership”.

Further details of the reasons for the above will be given at the meeting. Should the motion be passed by the Branch, and 20% of the total Constituencies/Branches also pass it, the Party Secretary is bound to call an Extraordinary Conference.

posted by Martin |1:19 PM

Leadership Election Closer - 50 Branches Sign up for EGM

A leadership election loomed last night after those co-ordinating an EGM claimed that 50 branches had signed up for an EGM with the motion of No Confidence in the Party Leader.

"Our lawyers have given us clear advice on how to proceed," said one of the organisers. "It is clear that the leadership will try to prevaricate and even try to oppose the will of the membership, but the lawyers are prepared to deal with them. We have learned already that Nigel Farage is planning for a leadership election, as he has fired the first shot by getting the MEPs to sign another of these strange documents declaring undying loyalty to him and Roger, and saying that they won't work with any other leader. This is fatuous of course as a document signed under pressure is never a reliable guide to what people will do when freed from that pressure.

"You may remember that they tried this with the NEC, and a few days later four members realised they had been conned and withdrew their support for the leadership. Put people on the spot and they will do odd things."

"We want to see the leadership election occur quickly, and our lawyers will contact the Party Secretary Tony Stone to that effect.

All round the country at party meetings, members have welcomed Robert Kilroy-Silk's frank and open discussion of what the party needs to do to get to Westminster. It is clear that a bandwagon is rolling, but interestingly not all of the branches calling for a leadership election are specifically Kilroy supporters. But they want the party's major electoral asset to get a hearing and to be at the forefront of the party's campaign. And when they get to see him at a big meeting, they tend to be won over by his clear sincerity and conviction.

posted by Martin |11:53 AM

Why did Farage not reveal Barrot's past on Monday 15th November?

It is reported on the site of UKIP speeches linked here, that Nigel Farage chose to speak on the Belgian Vlaam Bloks party at the beginning of the recent Strasbourg Plenary session, ie on Monday15th November.

Only on 18th November did he rise to reveal the past background of the EU Commissioner nominated by France: Mr Jacques Barrot, and then only minutes before the crucial vote on the parliament's approval of the entire new EU commission. Perhaps the most crucial vote of all the MEP's five year elected term (a vote UKIP's Party Leader Roger Knapman chose not to attend, albeit presumably aware of the delayed and therefore much neutered bombshell his group's co-leader was due to deliver).

Later when challenged about the accuracy of his statement Farage asserted the following:-

"I would like to make it perfectly clear that I did not make these comments without having done substantial research."

Now it must be up to each reader to decide what might be considered substantial research when making an allegation of the nature of that put out by this particular UKIP MEP. Possibly he had not got all the facts to hand when he first addressed the Parliament on the Monday of that same week, although many might consider the use of the word 'substantial' would require more effort than that possible over a mere three days.

Certainly some of his fellow UKIP MEPs are reported to have known of the nature of the allegations against Mr Barrot ahead of Farage rising to make his Thursday speech, making UKIP Leader Knapman's non-attendance in Parliament for the crucial speech and vote seem ever more incredible!

Why then were the important facts not made known to the parliament much earlier, giving other MEPs and party groupings as much time as possible to consider the serious implications of the facts and time to decide whether or not to maintain a positive vote for the Barroso Commission?

Incredible as it may seem, since I first raised the question of the poor timing of Farage's revelation, attempts have been made by some to justify his delay by suggesting that having a known corrupt commissioner in place will somehow enhance the euro-sceptic cause.

This is true absurdity. Some may not approve of the NHS but would they condone the employment of incompetent foreign doctors? Even though EU Commissioners and their functions might not be to UKIP's taste, they are funded publicly and expend vast amounts of taxpayers' money - surely all MEPs should be determined to ensure those chosen are as honest, competent and reliable as possible. It is after all one of the few real functions presently assigned to the body of hugely expensed and well paid EU parliamentarians.

Nigel Farage and Roger Knapman come away from this incident looking every inch the cheap, unprincipled and opportunistic characters this blog has been showing them to be for many months past.

Is it not time for Britain's eurorealistic majority to wake up to their true natures and demand a change?

posted by Martin |10:48 AM
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.