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

Friday, December 31, 2004 

The Traitors in UKIP who betray both Our Cause and Their Country!

The following is the posting made on this blog on 1st November this year, the date reached in our New Year's Eve review of UKIP's half year of treachery as posted below. Some of the individuals on the NEC and their photographs have been removed since our original posting as they have retracted their 'Oath of Loyalty' to the 'misguided' Farage and Knapman in the interim. These remain to undermine and thwart the cause they ostensibly espouse:-

Monday, November 01, 2004


The NEC members who TODAY voted unanimously to keep Roger Knapman as leader and appoint the disastrous David Lott (retired for health reasons only three months ago) as General Election Campaign Manager - IN TOTAL BETRAYAL OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THEIR PARTY'S MEMBERS:-
www Ukip Uncovered
Roger Knapman

Roger Knapman MEP
Party Leader
South West Region

Petrina Holdsworth

Petrina Holdsworth

Party Chairman

Mike Nattrass MEP
Deputy Leader
West Midlands Region

Tony Stone

Tony Stone

Party Secretary

David Lott

David Lott

South East Region

Graham Booth

Graham Booth MEP

South West Region

Andrew Moore

Andrew Moore

West Midlands

Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage MEP

South East Region

Elizabeth Burton

Elizabeth Burton

South West Region

Ian Gillman

East Midlands

Trevor COlman

Trevor Colman

South West Region

(EDITED 0915 2nd November Trevor Coleman originally included, removed as reported to be no longer an NEC member having accepted paid party employment. Re-Edited 1900 2nd November. It now appears Trevor Coleman was in attendance at the meeting and did vote in support of Roger Knapman and David Lott as the lead figures in the UKIP General Election Campaign Team - Only ardent Euro-federalists with the dedication of a Jaques Delors could possibly welcome this news. The party Chairman has placed a TOTALLY INADEQUATE EXPLANATION OF YESTERDAY'S NEC MEETING on the party web-site with no mention of Robert Kilroy-Silk or the much desired Leadership Election nor indeed an Emergency General Meeting. The opening to this extraordinary statement is quoted here:

"The National Executive Committee (NEC) met in London on 1st November 2004. It was a very positive meeting at which we unanimously passed a motion of support for Roger Knapman as our leader and installed David Lott as our campaign director for the next General Election. Alan Bown was present and indicated his full support for our General Election campaign".

Cheque book policy making remains the order of the day then - Who voted Alan Bown, how long before he joins the Tories!

If you know any of these individuals, remember their part in the destruction of your cause and our country! Apparently the vote for Knapman and Lott was unanimous. (If any members did not attend or voted against the agreed motion I will remove their names and photographs).

Pictures and information from the UKIP web-site - linked here.

posted by Martin | 9:28 PM

Knapman's New Year's Tale of Woe!

The beleagured leader of UKIP begins to show the pressures that an unworthy intellect may impose on its host. In this case the clearly incompetent former Tory whip Roger Knapman, clinging to a position for which he daily proves himself unworthy, sends out a New Year message to UKIP Party members that quite extraordinarily begins as follows:

----------------------New Year Message----------------------
---------------- From UKIP Leader Roger Knapman MEP--------

Carolyn and I sincerely pray that you will have a very happy and productive 2005. If anyone deserves a good year, it is you, who have withstood disregard, disdain, slander, want of funds and frequently, as it seemed, of friends, and have stood firm...........

Were this pantomime, it might be time for a big aaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! for Roger.

It is not, it is the future of our country and the outcome of a General Election that is in the balance. Roger (prevailed upon perhaps by Carolyn) could have done the honourable and courageous thing and stood aside.

To their eternal shame - they did not in 2004. For the sake of the country they could offer some opening hope for the new-born 2005 by standing down NOW!

posted by Martin | 8:01 PM

How Knapman and Farage turned June's victory to DISASTER!

The Mail on Sunday on 20th June carried a column by Peter Hitchens which prophetically stated the following as quoted and commented upon in this blog:

Hitchens says UKIP is nevertheless doing a good job finishing off the Tories to make room for a new pro-British party, but it won't be the UKIP - the article finishes with:

''The movement will not be the UKIP, for it will need far more depth and breadth and height. But Robert Kilroy-Silk and the UKIP are clearing the way for it.''

Somebody should point the large UKIP sponsors Bown and Sykes to this blog before they throw more money at a party that would consider appointing the likes of Piers Merchant as their Chief Executive whilst planning to attack the existing political parties for their standards of behaviour and total lack of political propriety.

Following the precedent set on 31st December last year I will now detail the means by which Farage and Knapman have sought to sabotage the euro-sceptic movement within Britain, since the Kilroy wrought victory in June.

1. On Monday 21st June 2004, the 'cabal's attack hound' Greg Lance-Watkins was set loose on RKS as may be read from here.

2. At the first post-election NEC meeting the digraced and scandal-prone failed NE Region MEP candidate Piers Merchant was shoe-horned into the role of Acting Chief Executive. Read here.

3. At the same meeting, although no vote is taken John Harvey makes a presentation ruling out a by-election challenge at Leicester South - Hartlepool is suggested as the best option!

4. Before June is out Ashley Mote's legal problems become public. No explanation as to why these were not made known to either Farage, his closest supporter, or the broader party before the election has ever been provided.

5. By the end of June, in spite of massive pressure both locally and on this blog UKIP ducks out of the Hodge Hill by-election. Read here.

6. In spite of a majority of the NEC, the GLA members, the local constituency members and the broader membership pushing for UKIP to run in Hodge Hill, Knapman's Political Committee, with no authority prevails. Read that report from here.

7. Godfrey Bloom makes his 'behind the fridge' remarks.

8. By late July the Hartlepool by-election had been announced and it quickly became clear UKIP's leadership had no strategy prepared other than having the losing Scottish MEP candidate, who had earlier been stood down from the North East region, Peter Troy, apparently throw his hat into the ring. Read our report from here.

9. On 27th July, Knapman makes his first reference to a truce for Tory MPs. Read it from here.

10. On Sunday 8th August the Sunday Telegraph has the first report of a party split, linked here.

11 By August 12th it was clear UKIP would not run on national issues in Hartlepool - our posting "UKIP abandons any pretence of role in National Politics" may be read from here.

12. On 23rd August Roger Knapman was issuing a statement to the local press that Kilroy would stand for Totnes in the General Election. Read it from here.

13 August and the 'Silly Season' closed with reports that UKIP would not return a donation from an improper payment by the Kingston branch of the Democracy Movement. It is linked here and here.

14. In possibly one of the most treacherous acts of the year UKIP announced in mid-September that it would support the Tory led anti-regionalisation campaign in the North East, trying to sabotage the two years of high activity put in by many ex-UKIP activists and others led by Neil Herron in the North East Against Regional Authorities (NEARA) Campaign. Read here

15. Following the dreadful school massacre by actvists fron Chechnya in Russia, Deputy Leader Nattrass makes a speech apparently praising their methodology and suggesting Eurosceptics might have to adopt similar tactics. Read it here.

16. Party again in shambles as the Party Secretary and three conference organisers resign. Comment is here.

17. One piece of hope as Hartlepool result puts Tories fourth with credit due to Kilroy according to the report linked from here.

18. Another disgraced Tory ex-MP - Jonathan Aitkin at UKIP Conference. Link is here.

19. As the Leadership dispute and questions as to who was telling the truth hit the headlines Paul Sykes was reported at the Tory Conference to be now backing them!

20. Knapman and Farage report a highly suspect telephone poll giving support for Knapman.

21. Party Officials publicly admit misleading the press on leadership poll. Report linked from here.

22. By October's end, following much public and bitter disputation, and amid rumours of Robert Kilroy-Silk's imminent expulsion, the best known UKIP MEP resigns the EU Parliamentary whip.

(To be continued)

posted by Martin | 11:43 AM

What a Waste (continued)

One year ago today I published a post titled 'UKIP's 2003 - What a Waste' it listed eighteen events that had disgraced the party during the course of 2003, they make interesting reading at the end of another year where the same bunch continue in charge. Click here to reach the posting.

The long list finished with the following statement:

Rehashing these facts is a thoroughly depressing experience, especially as the perpetrators all remain in their party posts and the membership appears indifferent. Certain Branch Chairmen, since the call by Mark Lester for an EGM, have quite incredibly sought to defend the leadership's actions. Committed Euro-realists must ensure that the electorate next June will not be similarly blind!

UKIP is a stain on the British body politic.

Rober Kilroy-Silk joining the party brought fresh hope and an almost unbelievable June election result. Even this blog, which had earlier dismissed the party in the words quoted above, was among those pushing hard for a UKIP vote in the majority of the EU Parliamentary constituencies.

Since then the usual suspects, now financially secure with their Brussels stipends, have sought to ensure that the one man who can rescue the country from the clutches of the EU (thus the only person now a threat to their luxurious and non-productive EU financed lifestyles) is thwarted in every attempt he makes to lead UKIP into the General Election.

If I have the perseverance I will make a similar list to last years, illustrating once again the sheer incompetence and often downright nastiness of those still at the head of UKIP, with particular emphasis on the second half of this year, when their treachery became most clear. Meantime look back and consider how all the warning signs of 2003 had been ignored. Here is the link once again.

posted by Martin | 8:24 AM

Thursday, December 30, 2004  

Lessons from Branch Chairmen's meeting 20th September 2003

A report of the last meeting of UKIP Branch Chairmen was put on this blog and may be read from here. Other comment on the outcome of the meeting, which essentially resolved to do nothing about the appalling condition of the party and its dreadful governance were also recorded of which this is a samples:

In the statement put out by Mark Lester ... co-Organiser of last Saturdays meeting in London, quotes, "Farage's belief that the Party is paralysed", and that "the Party was ungovernable"! OK, his comments may have been made in pique, but show that there are real problems, none the less!

Yet, in spite of this, the meeting still decided - "sweep it under the carpet, boyos, till the votes are in"as Christina Speight said)

What, if anything can we learn from that fiasco? Here is one sorry result relayed to me this week by a Branch Chairman who has followed the turmoil in the party with mounting dismay.

Following the London meeting last September, these particular branch officials were well aware of the problems that existed and the ineffectiveness of Roger Knapman's leadership and concerns over Fargae's Ashford telesales operation.

For fear of disrupting preparations for the European elections the following June however, they did not convey their concerns to their ordinary members. Just recently these same officials held a Branch EGM where they recommended a vote for a full EGM and an earlyLeadership election - their recommendation was defeated - the broader membership having been kept in ignorance of the longstanding and deepseated problems caused by Farage and Knapman - voted against the motion considering the matter as likely to be disruptive ahead of the General Election.

In such a way does secrecy and misinformation play into the hands of those solely concerned with manipulating the party for their own particular objectives, those whose every action confirms they have no concern about the growing power of the European Union within the country.

It must be the task of all those knowing the facts about UKIP's leadership cabal, to get that information and all the sordid details involved to as many as possible of the ordinary party membership.

posted by Martin | 2:23 PM

Would Mike Nattrass understand this exchange?

The following exchanges on the Contstitution in the European Scrutiny Committee took place on 8th December 2004:

Q113 Mr Cash: I could offer you a number of examples and most of them are pretty authoritarian, but that is a problem which I think this European Constitution and the whole of this political system which is being created represents. I very much agree with the sentiment behind what Mr Bacon said. The question which I am going to ask on this issue goes to the heart of what you said in your leading text book, which is that the ECJ is generally perceived to have pursued a vigorous policy of legal integration over the years and in particular in the earlier decades of the Community's history, and the role and primary concern of the Court is to enhance the effectiveness of Community law and to promote its integration into national legal systems. I would say that is a cuckoo in the nest and it goes back to my earlier question about the disapplication of national laws where they are expressly and unambiguously inconsistent with the Treaties, the rulings of the Court and the laws of the acquis, in other words who rules, is it the voters - to go back to your point about basic legal rules and the need to interact with the legislature - or, as I would prefer, basic constitutional principles which are based upon the democratic decision-making of the voters in a general election irrespective of what the European Community prescribes. In a general election if voters of a particular country decide that they want to have laws which are expressly inconsistent provisions of the Constitution or indeed the existing Treaties, the question is who rules? I say the voters, but you and the establishment of the European system will say that ultimately, as the Constitution prescribes, it has to be the European Court of Justice. I do not see that as a democratic system at all, do you?

Q114 Professor De Búrca: That would not be my view; in a sense my view is beside the point. My view would be that the European Court of Justice within its particular institutional powers and configuration has seen that as its role. It has seen its role being to promote the effectiveness of EC law. In my view a court in Britain has the right to decide for itself whether in the court's own interpretation of its constitutional system and where its position is within that and the way in which the constitution or the EC Treaties have been given effect by British constitutional law to decide within that whether they are under a duty to disapply an Act of Parliament or to give effect to an Act of Parliament which expressly contradicts EU law. In my view, I did not answer the question on primacy earlier, the provision on primacy does not change the existing situation which is that national constitutional courts, without anyone saying they violated EC law, simply pose a challenge to the Court of Justice in saying: "Our loyalty is to our Constitution and in so far as our Constitution mandates we are a part of the European system then we will give effect to EC laws" but if there is a clash and the clash is in an area over which we have jurisdiction within our jurisdictional system, then Kompetenz-Kompetenz does not remain with the European Court of Justice. That question has never been expressly addressed by British courts and in my view it is an open question how they might deal with it.

Q115 Mr Cash: That is the danger, and it is because of what Jack Straw has conceded to me on 9 September, for your record, with respect to the question of the Article 1(5) point, who rules okay, the Constitution or the Constitution of the Member States including the enacting of legislation by our Parliament. Yes, it is possible that Parliament could over-ride that at the moment, but the real question - and you described it in a sense as an open question just now - is that the current convention, which is that the European Court will not disapply legislation by voluntary advocation by an enactment such as the Constitution, could be construed as a signal to the European Court that it itself could disapply because the individual Member State - and it could be the German Constitution for example - has effectively been over-ridden by Article 1(5) and I can see them taking that view, can you not?

Professor De Búrca: I cannot because the provisions for the Constitution are very explicit about the powers of the Court and they do not include the power to set aside a national law. They have very explicit powers about setting aside Union laws and reviewing Union laws. Their only power is either to declare a state in violation of the Treaty under the enforcement procedure brought by the Commission - which does not affect national law - or to send a reference back to a national court. Ultimately, it remains with the national court and the national parliament to decide what you do. The European Court of Justice can do nothing, and I do not think the Constitution will change that at all, if a state decides it wants to expressly countermand, violate or challenge a provision of EU law.

Professor Eeckhout: Could I add to something to that. If you look at things from a very basic perspective, the Constitutional Treaty, like any other Treaty, is a form of international law which under international law is binding on the states which have signed it. What we have achieved in the context of European Union law is simply a better way of ensuring that every Member State does comply with the international obligations to which it has committed itself by virtue of the fact that the European Court of Justice has confirmed this principle and the national courts have accepted that in general is a principle which they will uphold. Again, the Constitution has very much agreed that it does not in any way change that. It is a matter for the unwritten Constitution of the United Kingdom and for the courts interpreting that Constitution to decide precisely what effect and under what circumstances European law does that.


More on these fascinating and critically important exchanges may be read from this link. My thanks to Anne Palmer for directing me to this record.

posted by Martin | 7:49 AM

Wednesday, December 29, 2004  

Paul Barnish Blasts UKIP Leadership.

I have received the following from the gentleman, who I understand was at one time the Chairman of UKIP's Stone Constituency Association, which is self-explanatory.


"I stand by my statment that the Mike Nattrass thing was a publicity stunt, perhaps he now would confirm it was a press and media wind-up?

The report about me joining the English Democrats is untrue.

People know I have supported Robert Kilroy-Silk for the leadership from the very beginning.

The party has to be reformed. I am a reformer and want to see big changes, which are what is required.

The leadership have done nothing since the European elections - only standing still.

Now we are told that the party secretary wont even call an EGM without a court order telling him to do so - in other words he's refusing to accept the party's own rules. So much for democracy!

The whole way in which the party is run is like something out of Walt Disney, if it wasnt so serious you would laugh and I and many more deserve better than the shambles we are getting from the leadership at the moment.

Regards Paul Barnish UKIP Stone."


Yet more evidence of the shambles to which Nigel Farage and his puppet Roger Knapman have delivered the UK Independence Party, surely this New Year must bring a New Start for Euroscepticism's leading political party?

posted by Martin | 2:22 PM

More Lies from UKIP's Press Office?

As reported in the posting below Deputy Party Leader Nattrass has widely circulated to members of UKIP's NEC and others the following statement:-

"It is up to the UKIP membership in the area to decide if I am selected or not. As yet interviews have not been held. It is NOT up to me to say I AM standing but only to say "I would like to". Why the speculation? I shall stand elsewhere if not selected there and maybe there is a local man who is well known to the voters and who can do a better job,I do not know and no one has told me the thinking in Stone. I will not use any strings to influence them.The best person to hit Cash must be selected and I hope it is me."

The following press release was one of two issued by Press Hoaxer Croucher on the 9th December as may be verified from a visit to the party website linked here and here.


For Immediate Release – 12:00hrs 9th December 2004

UKIP Deputy Leader seeks to fight Bill Cash at election The UK Independence Party (UKIP) Deputy Leader and MEP for the West Midlands, Mike Nattrass, has been short listed for the Parliamentary constituency of Stone at the next General Election expected in May.


posted by Martin | 11:16 AM

UKIP Candidate to fight Cash in Stone

The controversial decision to fight the Stone Constituency against Bill Cash continues to reverbrate through the UKIP. The Party's Deputy Leader, Mike Nattrass, who Party Leader Knapman said would be the candidate on Radio Four is now circulating an explanation of the strange course of events that includes this paragraph:

It is up to the UKIP membership in the area to decide if I am selected or not. As yet interviews have not been held. It is NOT up to me to say I AM standing but only to say "I would like to". Why the speculation? I shall stand elsewhere if not selected there and maybe there is a local man who is well known to the voters and who can do a better job,I do not know and no one has told me the thinking in Stone. I will not use any strings to influence them.The best person to hit Cash must be selected and I hope it is me.

It seems the Stone Constituency Association has apparently ceased to exist, vapourised perhaps?

This statement does not fit at all with the original statement put out by the Chairman of the Stone Constituency, who yesterday apparently denied reports that he was planning to join the English Democrats. The original post we published on this issue was temporarily withdrawn at his request pending clarification from him which has not been received. I therefore republish the post below - I will amend or publish UKIP's own version of events should such changes be requested or an alternative explanation for these odd events be received.


UKIP Deputy Leader Nattrass' Bill Cash Challenge a typically cheap stunt

Many members of UKIP were surprised to learn, via the World at One today, that Mike Nattrass had been selected to fight the Parliamentary constituency of Stone, Staffordshire, currently held by allegedly eurosceptic Conservative MP Bill Cash.

UKIP, in a press release, referred to him as a 'strong candidate'. Well, after all, he is the Deputy Leader, personally chosen by Leader Roger Knapman.

Mr Bill Cash scored a hit on World at One when referring to Nattrass's idiotic 'Chechnya' remarks, which are hardly likely to induce many electors in Stone to vote UKIP. More likely the complete reverse. One comment by Knapman in this broadcast was a reference to UKIP's policy
of standing in all seats, even against so-called 'eurosceptics', but adding that 'the final decision will be made by local UKIP Constituency Associations'.

The news about Nattrass standing against Cash came as a complete surprise to the Stone UKIP Constituency Association, however. Nattrass is not the UKIP candidate for Stone. It was, to put it charitably, a UKIP stunt. Nattrass is not on even on the short-list for Stone. Indeed, the UKIP Stone C.A. is meeting next week and has three candidates on the shortlist, not one of which is Mike Nattrass.

The entire Stone Branch is furious, and is now more determined than previously to ensure that Robert Klfroy-Silk becomes Party Leader and sorts out UKIP ASAP.

The press notice below has been circulated by the Stone UKIP Branch late this afternoon, after the news about Nattrass broke:

"Please circulate.This is to notify everyone that Mike Nattrass is not on any UKIP short-list for the constituency of Stone. The press release issued by Mike Nattrass is a publicity stunt. Stone C.A. will be holding a selection meeting shortly and we have three good canddiates on the short list. They do not include Mike Nattrass. I repeat again; our candidate will not be Mr. Nattrass.The type of tactics the current leadership are using simply beggers belief. Kind
Regards Paul Barnish Chairman UKIP Stone Branch "


posted by Martin | 9:28 AM

Tuesday, December 28, 2004  

A View from Epolitix

The following is copied from the Review of the Year by, linked here - ENOUGH SAID!

UKIP were the success story in July, stealing votes and the show in local and European election contests.

It seemed like bad news all round, Labour lost over 400 seats in the local elections. The Tories scored 38 per cent in the council poll, a figure which if echoed in the general election would not return them to power. The Lib Dems were a happy second in the locals but had their spirits dampened by finishing fourth in the Euro elections.


But one party emerged as winners, the protest party, UKIP. Publicised by recently sacked chat show host and former Labour MP Robert Kilroy-Silk. UKIP’s message evidently resonated amongst parts of the electorate, the UK should pull out of Europe

Asked what he was going to do when he arrived in Brussels, Kilroy replied that he would "wreck it". The electorate was refreshed by his strange brand of clarity, and returned 12 UKIP MEPs.

posted by Martin | 9:26 AM

Monday, December 27, 2004  

UKIP again follows its EU role model

In yet one more clear sign that that the UKIP, under the leadership of Knapman and Farage, gets everyday a little more like what it exists to fight - I note that while there has been little activity today from the non-democratic and totalitarian stagnation-state of the EU, with its daily tale of ever more interference and regulation, the Midday Express failing to appear (in spite of many of the states that fund this abhorrence working normally today) - UKIP too will remain firmly closed, its Head Office remaining shut well into the early days of January.

Who would imagine a party seriously intent on fighting the EU, with a General Election widely expected to be a mere few months away, would shut its doors for business and rest its admittedly normal pathetic efforts from the struggle for our independence for a whole two weeks?!

Even the Tories managed some press coverage for their attack on Alan Milburn as published in the Daily Mail, linked here.

posted by Martin | 5:21 PM

UKIP MEPs Missing Again

The following appears in the blog of the Labour MEP Richard Corbett for 14th December:-

"In the evening I go to the mince pie and drink offered by UKREP - the UK Embassy to the EU - to which all British MEPs and officials are invited. This is one of the few cross-party social occasions, though only one UKIP MEP turns up, and even then briefly."

Surely this kind of social event, with the government paid euro-fanatics who must clearly work for such an organisation as UKREP, should be high on the list of priorities for every UKIP MEP to attend - a perfect opportunity to try and counter some of the deep anti-democratic brain-washing to which employees of such an organisation must be daily subjected!

This time another clear and obvious failure of Nigel Farage, UKIP's leader in the European Parliament, who for once cannot palm off the blame on his hapless puppet Roger Knapman, the latter being rarely found in Europe - not even for the one significant vote of the whole five year session- approval or veto of the EU Commission!!

posted by Martin | 9:02 AM

Sunday, December 26, 2004  

Robert Kilroy-Silk seems to win the 'Quote of the Year' in Telegraph Online

The only contender deemed worthy of a photograph is UKIP's putative leader, and the chosen quote:-

'I must keep up the suntan. It's a national institution after all.'

For other contenders click here.

posted by Martin | 1:24 PM

Originally uploaded by Martin Cole.

Haunts the

UK Independence Party

----- With Apologies to Charles Dickens! -----


posted by Martin | 11:09 AM

E-Mail Exchanges on Hoax Donor

The following exchange between aUKIP NEC member and the party's press spokesman that took place before Christmas, has come my way and will be of interest to those marvelling at the idiocies to which the present leadership is delivering the party's supposed anti-EU cause:-

To: NEC, MEPs, AMs, Mark Croucher

Re: Anonymous donor

Apparently Mark Croucher has circulated an email on a non-Party chat site stating that his previous email to the NEC regarding a six-figure donation is a hoax.

The reaction from those I have discussed this with is that it may well not be a hoax but Mark is now putting out a cover story outside the Party.

If the original email was a hoax we are now in the position of not knowing whether a communication from the Party Press Officer is a hoax or not. Perhaps in future he should introduce his communications with "not a hoax".

What can one say about this?

Mark Croucher also seems ignorant about the conventions of confidentiality. A sender cannot bind a recipient to confidentiality by putting 'confidential' on the communication without the recipient's consent in advance. No-one has the slightest obligation to keep an email from Mark
confidential because he has put 'confidential' 'top secret' or whatever on top of it unless, among other things, they have agreed to keep it confidential in advance. [Perhaps Mark would consider the Blunkett case and how Blunkett could stifle any discussion about his activities by putting 'confidential' on his communications.]

Furthermore, in this case, recipients owing a duty of care to their members would not only not be obliged to keep something confidential but would have a positive duty to communicate what appears to be an undermining of the Party's core objective to its members.

One wonders if Mark is unemployed and thought this up himself or whether he was acting under instructions.

The UKIP Press Officer replied to this message as is quoted in full below. Amazingly enough he chose to deliver his feeble response above this quotation from William Pitt:-

"England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example" - William Pitt, 1805

Does the ridiculous UKIP Press Officer, (who here admits to deliberately deceiving the press, upon whose trust his own and the party's image surely depends), really consider himself worthy to quote such true patriots as Pitt?

Here is the response to the message above and supposed justification for the underhand actions we now know were authorised by the Party Chairman, Petrina Holdsworth, Party Leader, Roger Knapman and Party Destroyer, Nigel Farage:

Subject: RE: Anonymous Donor
What one can say about it is that if certain members of the NEC ceased acting like fools and leaking everything within hours, such a course of action would not be necessary. At least in future they won't be so quick to leak, knowing they may be making idiots of themselves. Again.

Best etc,
Mark Croucher
UKIP National Press Officer

posted by Martin | 9:11 AM

Emergency General Meeting Update

The following update was issued to the participating Branch Chairmen on Christmas Eve:

Christmas Eve 2004

To: UKIP Branch Chairmen supporting a leadership election

Just to bring you up to date with events, our two-pronged attack is proceeding apace. On the legal front, the Party Secretary is still refusing to accept the legitimacy of the original petition and is now in the ludicrous position of saying that he will not hold a national EGM even if petitioned under the new constitutional requirements without a court order. This shows how desperate the leadership is to avoid a leadership contest. It now looks inevitable that the matter will come before the High Court in early January.

On the EGM front, David Lott has recently claimed that only two branches have fulfilled the proper constitutional requirements. This is ludicrous. Forty-three branches have now either held EGMs or have them planned for January, by which time we will be able to satisfy even the
requirements of the very difficult new rules on holding an EGM, rules which we and our lawyers do not accept are valid anyway.

It is vital that we achieve the position where all the numbers are in, and all the cards are in the hands of those who want to reform the party. These numbers will give us the upper hand in negotiations in January. When you have had your EGM, could you please let us know the
result, and let us know of any attempts to obstruct the EGM. Our lawyers are surprised at the degree of obstruction and desparation to cling on being demonstrated, but say that the numbers will force them to give way.

Unfortunately one branch chairman has resigned under pressure and disciplinary action has been launched or threatened against several others, but we must all remain resolute if we are to achieve our objective of a leadership election. Only one branch that we are aware of has changed its mind - and this after extreme pressure. Let us know if dirty tricks are being applied to your branch - we can probably help as we already have in some instances! Some of the discipline actions have already been fought off, and others are being defended by lawyers.

The good news is that several more branches are now adding their names to the list of those holding EGMs in the New Year. If you are aware of neighbouring branches who have not yet organised their EGMs, please let us know.

Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas and an electorally successful New Year!

Michael Harvey

posted by Martin | 8:54 AM

Saturday, December 25, 2004  


------------- MERRY CHRISTMAS -------------

------------------- MARTIN ------------------

posted by Martin | 10:39 AM

A UKIP Christmas Card

Here is a card we first tried to publish here yesterday. I hope it can now be seen!

SSSSHHHHH!!!!!! In Deepest Devon little ever stirs! Was the UKIP MEP and Party Leader who failed to vote against the New EU Commission just oversleeping?

posted by Martin | 10:21 AM

Friday, December 24, 2004  

Who Dominates British Politics?

Questions 1, 2 and 11,
one quarter of the questions posed in the Guardian's Backbencher Christmas Quiz, include Robert Kilroy-Silk. Surely even Farage can read that Xmas Message?

Try it yourselves from this link.

posted by Martin | 4:55 PM

Leadership orders party discipline panel to "try again"

It wouldn't be UKIP if the rowing paused even on Christmas Eve. This report just in on the latest twists from the Disciplinary Panel's seasonal activities:

"You got it wrong when you dropped discipline charges," is the charge against those who found that Hockney and Moss had no case to answer.

Like the Irish EU Referendum, where the EU ordered the Irish Government to keep going back until they got the right answer, the UKIP Leadership have gone back to the party's discipline committee to tell them that they got the wrong answer first time, so can they "try again".

So incensed are the leadership with the dropping of all discipline charges against Damian Hockney and Daniel Moss that they have ordered the Discipline Panel to "look again" in light of "something they may have overlooked".

There is of course nothing that has been "overlooked", but it will be useful to see if the panel buckle under this "Christmas Message of Goodwill" from the Leadership to them. Are they going to add to the two legal cases which have now been started against their attacks on the party and its members?

With the Leadership playing the role of EU, and the panel in the role of hapless Irish Government, we do not give much for their chances. ...but maybe of course, this is just another Leadership hoax?

posted by Martin | 4:06 PM

An invalid NEC - An ineligible Returning Officer for the NEC elections?

The following posting has been placed on an internet discussion forum, in response to the claim by George Stride that he is once again a full member of the UKIP NEC:-

"This is not right" it begins. (To read what was claimed, read our posting of yesterday linked here or scroll down the page to the next post bar one)

"George Stride was elected to the NEC in 2003 for one year, which he served from 03 to 04. His term was extendable to 06 only if there was a vacancy. He came off the NEC this year as he himself acknowledges: "I was omitted from the membership of the NEC because I did not stand for re-election this year". Following this year's election there was no vacancy because the NEC had its full complement of fifteen members as published in the July newsletter: Batten, Booth, Burton, Colman, Farage, Gillman, Holdsworth, Lott, Mackinlay, Moore, Nattrass, de Roeck, Scholefield, Sinclaire, Stone. If George has now returned to the NEC to replace Nikki Sinclaire, it is as a co-opted member who must stand for election in 2005.

When vacancies occur it is customary for the NEC to invite the next failed candidate from the last NEC elections, but they don't have to. They can invite any party member they want, but to stop such unelected members blocking seats for up to three years the constitution requires them to stand for election at the next NEC election. It appears the NEC is ignoring this requirement in the case of George Stride. Could this be to restrict the number of seats up for election that might fall to RKS supporters? They're doing the same thing with Ian Gillman - he was co-opted this year to replace Denis Brookes and should therefore stand for election in 05, making seven seats available instead of the five that have been announced.

If the NEC is not properly composed and elected according to UKIP's constitution it will have no authority to manage the party or to spend its funds, and any decisions it takes will be open to legal challenge. It will be an invalid NEC."

posted by Martin | 2:34 PM

Thursday, December 23, 2004  

'Any Questions' Transcript

The full programme transcript of Robert Kilroy-Silk's Manchester broadcast is available from this link.

I provide some quotes that I find presently significant:-

I have a great deal of respect for Vincent Cable, whenever I've heard him speak I've always felt he's one of those politicians, unlike those from the old party, to actually tell the truth, told it straight, didn't get involved in spin or lies. So I'm disappointed that tonight he should actually say - join the chorus of the old party, that canard, when they've lost the argument of saying if you withdraw from Europe, if you actually have the temerity to want to govern yourselves and your own parliament in Westminster then there will be jobs at risk. It's a lie. It is just not true. Why should there be? We don't want to change our relationship with Europe, we just want to govern ourselves in our own parliament, in our own - by our own people. We want to continue to be
good friends, we want to continue to be good neighbours, we want to continue to buy their Mercedez, their BMWs, their wine and don't you think they want to sell them to us? Of course they do. And we want to sell them our chemicals and our financial services. There is not probably a single job that would be at risk in this country and it is despicable of any politician to pretend what there is, to get themselves involved in the politics of fear. It means, ladies and gentlemen, when they start doing that they have lost the argument. [CLAPPING]
At the risk of directing your attention the question, do you - do you seek - just as a matter of fact - do you seek to lead the party which you so very recently described as barmy, namely UKIP, is that your present intention?
There is a demand at the moment which is being considered for a constitutional calling of a meeting that will determine whether or not elections should take place. I hope that that meeting will occur before Christmas and I hope that I will be elected leader of the party by Christmas because I think that is sufficient time for us to put in process what is necessary - the building of a manifesto, the establishment of spokespersons, the developing of the strategy for the General Election in time for us to fight and have a significant impact upon the General Election.
And will…
So the answer to your question, and I'm not trying to avoid a question, that is not what
I'm about, is yes.

posted by Martin | 5:03 PM

Party Shambles Demonstrated Anew as NEC Changes Again!

What a way to run a party! This explanation regarding George Stride's membership of the NEC might not possibly have something to do with the fact that the Farage Faction looked in danger of becoming outvoted, could it? Here is his own explanation of what supposedly occurred:

'As a result of a mistake - accidental or deliberate - by a previous party secretary, I was omitted from the membership of the NEC because I did not stand for re-election this year. After investigation by the appropriate authorities, it has now been established that - under the rules - I am a member of the NEC and remain so until 2006'.

posted by Martin | 1:44 PM

Lott Lies Again.

The following statement was made by the UKIP Campaign Manager, David Lott in a recent e-mail to Branch Chairmen:

Whilst on that subject some of you may have read the article in the Guardian the other day reporting that Robert Kilroy-Silk had approached the English Democrat Party with a view to becoming their leader. There has been no retraction of this article by the Guardian.

The article, of course, said no such thing. What the paper reported and the full denial sent by the English Democrats appeared on the blog on Wednesday 15th December, linked here, and was as follows:

The question is suggested by news that Robert Kilroy-Silk, who makes Mr Tony Blair look doctrinaire, is in negotiations to join the English Democratic party.

The English Democrat spokesman, who had provided the original quotes as good as admitted this had been a publicity stunt in his reply when he also clearly stated:-

I can confirm that the English Democrats would be interested in talking to Robert Kilroy-Silk, however my understanding is that he is currently trying to force a democratic election within UKIP for the leadership position. UKIP appear to be creating false Branches within their organisation to make the process of achieving a 20% request from their membership to call an EGM a ‘moving target’ – do you think this is a ‘fair’ way to run a democratic party? – or maybe you just don’t care?

Robert Kilroy-Silk certainly has not made any ‘demands’ that he would immediately be made leader of our party, if he was interested, indeed if such an event occurred then we would hold a leadership election for our 1,000 strong membership to decide....

It is inconcievable that Robert Kilroy-Silk himself could issue denials or rebuttals for every little piece of tittle tattle that appears in the press many times a day (I know I have a google alert with his name and the press attention is extraordinary). Is David Lott heading for yet another expensive out of court settlement resulting from his inability to stay within the known facts in his intraparty communications?

posted by Martin | 8:56 AM

UKIP Regionalisation Petition to Prescott - Another Fundraising Scam?

I have been sent a copy of the latest UKIP organised public petition. While giving the party's head office address in Birmingham at the top, the address to which signatures and personal details is to be sent is the shadowy operation which runs telesales in Ashford, the subject of many postings on this blog.

Those bothering to read the small print are at least warned of the consequences as follows:-

If you give us your telephone number UKIP may call you to offer further information about our Party.
Your contact details will not be disclosed to any other party or used for any other purpose.
Return Completed Sheets to: UKIP, 63 Beaver Road, Ashford, Kent, TN23 7SE

posted by Martin | 8:35 AM

UKIP damaged by Leadership Battle - FT

The Financial Times, linked here, reports on the campaign expenditure figures issued by the Electoral Commission and linked from a posting below this yesterday. It notes:

"But the party admitted yesterday its financial backing had been damaged by the continuing feud between its leadership and Robert Kilroy-Silk, the former chat show host."

The paper highlights the huge discrepancy in advertising between UKIP and the three other large spending parties:

The fringe party relied heavily on advertising, spending £1.6m - more than Labour's £320,000, the Conservative's £572,000 and the Lib Dems' £129,000.

Yet more evidence, as if any were needed, that even with a high-profile and popular leader such as Robert Kilroy-Silk, a substantial war-chest is required for electoral success, the rest of the article makes quite clear that this will be impossible to achieve under the ghost leadership of Roger Knapman and the misguided, mean and mendacious manipulations of Nigel Farage. A final quote makes this quite clear:-

"Donations are just star-ting to pick up - they dried up after Kilroy-Silk made his leadership bid," a UKIP official said.

We must all wonder by just how much they really are picking up? Will hoaxes played on the press really help?

posted by Martin | 8:16 AM

Wednesday, December 22, 2004  

UKIP Chairman admits Party Leader Knapman, Farage and she herself were part of 'Press Hoax'!

The following extraordinary admission was posted on one of several UKIP related internet debating fora earlier today.

The open admission is that the Party Chairman, Party Leader, Nigel Farage and the 'majority' of the party NEC (which we presume must include the Deputy Leader, Mike Nattrass and Party Secretary, Tony Stone - thus involving all senior party functionaries) were all involved in the attempt to mislead the press. How now can any in the top ranks of UKIP then answer this published query from the Guardian? - "Would a serious political party really offer to change its manifesto in exchange for a big donation? Surely not! Still, at least the media have been warned that not everything sent from Ukip's press office can be relied upon to be true."

Here is what the Party Chairman said today:-

'Of course it was done with the knowledge and agreement of Roger Nigel and myself . The majority of the NEC were also informed by Mark Croucher that such an email was likely to be sent for the purpose of finding a leak and they were in agreement.

It is of course regretable that this course of action had to be undertaken and considerable thought was given to whether it should be done. Perhaps if you are so outraged about this whole matter you would like to advise how you would go about investigating such matters.'

Petrina Holdsworth

A one time member of UKIP's NEC, Chris Cooke, present independent councillor and of course ex-party member who resigned in disgust over similar antics provoked by Nigel Farage in the past had this suggestion to the latter query:-

Ms Holdsworth asks how you would prefer to investigate "such matters" (leaks from the NEC).

I have a suggestion. How about Open Government in UKIP? I know it's a radical thought but why shouldn't UKIP members know exactly what's gong on?

There's far too much secrecy in every layer of Government - and UKIP leads the pack! I baulk against secrecy all the time in our Council. And when I was younger, more naive and on the UKIP NEC I still queried and objected to it.

And if there were no secrecy - then there would be nothing for Ms Holdsworth to investigate - would there?? Even supposing a little secrecy was still needed - as long as it were agreed by all - and was not an NEC standing rule - then it would be much more likely that there would be no leaks.

Too much like commonsense? Too much like public accountability? There is a type of person who hates freeflow of information - and that type thrives in UKIP.


posted by Martin | 4:32 PM

There are leaks, and then there are leaks!

A reader has put together a series of incidents which, together spell out exactly what UKIP's demented cabal are doing. Apart, of course, from killing the party's reputation for truthfulness towards the press. When considered against the assets expended to advance the eurosceptic cause (see reports in the posting immediately beneath this) it is truly a tragedy that the party leadership is being allowed to drive the party into the ground as it is today doing, and that the calibre of the MEPs elected by UKIP for the price of more than two and a quarter million pounds is so lamentably low.


Much of the following has already appeared in UKIPUncovered, but, when all put together, makes very unsettling reading...

Mark Croucher has claimed that the Party Manifesto was leaked to the Press. This is the same press officer who briefed the press, on covert instructions from his paymaster Nigel Farage, about motions passed at the November NEC meeting two hours before the meeting was over.

On Wednesday 15th December the Guardian published a story briefed to them directly by Mark Croucher claiming that he had sent a hoax email as an "internal sting operation aimed at discovering who had leaked the party's draft manifesto to the press". (I have appended the Guardian article below).

As UKIPUncovered readers may have guessed it turns out that the draft manifesto was actually leaked by .... the Party.

Journalists discovered the existence of the UKIP document when the UKIP draft manifesto was placed on the UKIP Party website in error. It appeared for a short time before it was embarrassingly taken down after much criticism and uproar.

The Guardian was rather scathing of Mark Croucher's report stating: "And just what was this fictitious but credible email? It reported that the party's leadership were minded to accept an offer from a "senior non-political figure" to donate a six-figure sum to the party on condition it hold a referendum on EU withdrawal. Frankly, the Backbencher is bemused. Would a serious political party really offer to change its manifesto in exchange for a big donation? Surely not! Still, at least the media have been warned that not everything sent from Ukip's press office can be relied upon to be true."

An own goal if ever there was one. It is clear who may have damaged the Party reputation. It is understandable now why the disciplinary case claimed by Mark Croucher against Damain Hockney was dropped by the Party. Strange though as in the past the truth has never got in the way of this leadership's disciplinary purges.

When you think about it, the whole exercise was rather pointless considering that incoming email from an individual like Mark Croucher is not confidential, especially so as he is not on the NEC himself and has the reputation for being the source of a great deal of spam email. Confidentiality on the NEC only arises from matters raised at an NEC meeting that is specifically agreed by the NEC to be confidential.

The Chairman, Petrina Holdsworth, as reported previously on UKIPUncovered on the 16th December, is the source of leaked confidential documents to Greg Lance-Watkins. We reported, "In a sensational development, the new Party Chairman Petrina Holdsworth has been discovered to have been passing information about internal discipline matters to Greg Lance-Watkins, a non-member who is paid by senior party members to spread filth about NEC members who are out of favour with the party leadership."

We have no news of a case brought by Mark Croucher or his paymaster against the Chairman.

If our country and our national heritage wasn't at stake this would be a hilarious matter. In fact a play could be written on the leadership antics. It could be called “Nigel & Co” and would fill a West End theatre for years to come. It might even make broadway.

But we are fighting for our lives and as long as Nigel Farage controls the “strings” Britain will go down the plug-hole.


posted by Martin | 1:12 PM

UKIP Second Largest Euro-election spenders at £2,361,754

Ukip outspent both Labour and the Liberal Democrats according to figures released today for the European Parliamentary elections last June. The full report may in The Scotsman be read from here.

The Electoral Commission site also has the details and the full report on the elections is linked here while the shorter Executive Summary is available from here.

posted by Martin | 1:00 PM

Guardian report on 'Croucher's Sting' of 18th December.

We continue to be unable to access the link to the Guardian Backbencher article on the report on the Mark Croucher 'sting operation' that was in the paper last Friday. I therefore have quoted the item here in full as provided by a reader, it needs to be read to fully understand some of the events that have followed:-

The Backbencher is happy to report that the search for the traitorous Ukip members who backed Kilroy's leadership bid is over, thanks to what its press officer calls an "internal sting operation" aimed at discovering who had leaked the party's draft manifesto to the press.

Mark Croucher was the mastermind behind the undercover operation. "In consultation with nine of UKIP's NEC members, it was decided that a 'sting' operation be implemented by circulating a wholly fictitious but believable email to a limited number of NEC members, with each email
differing from all the rest by selective use of punctuation and spelling errors," he explains. "As soon as the email was forwarded, it was clear who was responsible, and disciplinary action will be instituted against the culprit.

"That the NEC members concerned, [Damian] Hockney and [Daniel] Moss were taken in so completely simply demonstrates their own lack of political judgement in their rush to damage the party which they supposedly support. Had they any integrity, they would resign immediately and save themselves further embarrassment."

And just what was this fictitious but credible email? It reported that the party's leadership were minded to accept an offer from a "senior non-political figure" to donate a six-figure sum to the party on condition it hold a referendum on EU withdrawal. Frankly, the Backbencher is bemused. Would a serious political party really offer to change its manifesto in exchange for a big donation? Surely not! Still, at least the media have been warned that not everything sent from Ukip's press office can be relied upon to be true.

posted by Martin | 11:47 AM

UKIP London Assembly Leader described in Standard as "Voice of Reason"

An unexpected piece of publicity came in the 'Evening Standard Diary' column yesterday. A piece went onto the UKIP London Assembly blog, linked here earlier, but here is the story as it appeared in the Standard.

It shows how the PC brigade try to jump in on everything...but also importantly how the UKIP team got the better of them in what the paper described as the UKIP Leader's intervention as the "Voice of Reason"!!

Go and tell that to those people who are anything but that and now running the party.

"Stand Off on Ceremony

War has broken out in City Hall after plans were announced for a Holocaust Memorial ceremony in January. Members of the London Assembly, the 25-strong body charged with scrutinising the Mayor's policies, whipped themselves into a tizzy after UKIP researcher Dr Helen Szamuely dared to reply to the circular email by asking:

'May I suggest that the Chair and Deputy Chair of the London Assembly also arrange for a public ceremony at some later date for a memorial to all the victims of Communist systems?'

An extraordinarily vituperative exchange ensued with fellow Assembly Members. "I consider your reply totally inappropriate and I will raise the matter of your email with the chief executive," raged Brian Coleman, leader of the Assembly's Tories. Len Duvall, leader of the Labour members, accused Szamuely of being a holocaust denier. Bizarrely, it was left to UKIP Assembly leader Damian Hockney to provide a voice of reason. "If we cannot have a sensible debate can I suggest that we all stop now?"

POSTSCRIPT Relatives of Helen Szamuely were murdered in the Holocaust, so the idea that she could be described as a Holocaust denier was itself unthinkable. Damian tactfully made this point to all, and hopefully this will make those who leapt into action with such knee jerk attacks, think twice about doing so in the future.

posted by Martin | 11:32 AM

Tuesday, December 21, 2004  

UKIP Confirm - Discipline cases collapse

We have received this latest report on further shenanigans from the UKIP leadership cabal:


The UKIP leadership ('rotten to the core' see posting below) was in fresh crisis last night after its highly publicised attempt to discipline members calling an EGM collapsed amid recriminations and the intervention of lawyers.

The party has confirmed that, contrary to what it told the Guardian on the record only a few days ago, no discipline cases are being taken out against Damian Hockney and Daniel Moss.

The party leadership was facing fresh calls to resign last night, following revelations that many of those on the NEC claimed to have been told about the hoax e-mail, saying that they were not party to it. The hoax e-mail was designed as an attack on those assumed to be behind the EGM call. Laywers have now been instructed on the EGM call itself, and on the day of the hoax, the organisers informed the leadership that it had the numbers to call an EGM even using the new rules.

The plan therefore was to knock out a number of those calling for an EGM, to take over their branches (hence the secret setting up of a ghost branch in Damian Hockney's constituency by the Party Leadership 10 days ago) and to reduce the numbers in the call to below the level required.

In a press release to the Guardian, contravening all the party rules about discipline confidentiality, Press Officer Mark Croucher (acting on behalf of employer Nigel Farage) had stated that nine NEC members were involved in the deception, including the Party Chairman.

However, NEC members are distancing themselves from the leadership and many have publicly stated that the knew nothing of the fraud. So far, the only ones who confess to their guilt in the fraud are Nigel Farage, Roger Knapman and Mike Nattrass. Even Party Chairman Petrina Holdsworth, implicated in the deception by the Press Officer and presumed guilty, has not admitted it in spite of intense pressure to confirm or deny, and it is clear that the matter has now seriously ruptured the party's relationship with the press as well.


Can any UKIP members really wish to continue to support Roger Knapman and Nigel Farage leading their party into an early General Election? Particularly with the worsening Public Sector Borrowing Requirement figures released yesterday, Howard's rebels following his disastrous stance on ID Cards and the clearly stagnant to falling property market, all pointing to the chance of a truly eartshaking victory for party to be led by one of the calibre and charisma of Robert Kilroy-Silk.

The country will be unlikely to lightly forgive these two scheming and insignificant individuals if they continue to unconstitutionally connive to cling to the positions they perennially prove themselves to be so unfit to fill!.

posted by Martin | 3:04 PM

UKIP 'Rotten to the Core' - says resigned Councillor

The Derby Evening Telegraph carries a report on Councillor Frank Leeming's views on UKIP in this evening's edition which may be read in full from this link. The following are some brief extracts from the long and detailed report:-

In a scathing broadside, he described the party as "rotten to the core".

And he claimed that the party has been "inundated" with resignations from other members.

He also alleged that following the October meeting of the Derby branch, the minutes had been "doctored" by the branch chairman and secretary, David Black and Josephine Rooney.

He claimed it was agreed at the meeting that an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) should be called in support of a national leadership challenge by East Midlands MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk.

He said Mr Black and Miss Rooney voted in favour of calling for a leadership contest at the EGM, but he alleges this was not reported to head office and did not appear in the minutes of the October meeting, which were presented at the next monthly meeting.

Mr Black firmly denies the accusations. An EGM was held last Wednesday, but it was unable to resolve the matter.

Yesterday, Mr Leeming decided to sever ties with the party altogether, accusing party representatives of "passing out misinformation".

Later in the article the leadership dispute within UKIP is described as follows:-

Leadership issue is at heart of wrangle

The rumpus at the Derby branch of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is intrinsically linked to the power struggle for overall leadership of the party at national level.

Earlier this month, it was reported that UKIP, which was formed in 1993 to oppose Britain's membership of the European Union, could face a court challenge after its high command rejected demands for a vote on whether or not to hold a leadership contest.

Fifty-one branch chairmen who support wannabe leader Robert Kilroy-Silk, who was elected as an MEP for the East Midlands earlier this year, have called for an emergency general meeting - enough to force the move under party rules.

Mr Kilroy-Silk created a splash for the party on his triumphant return to politics but has since refused to work with the party's group of MEPs.

Calling an emergency meeting requires the support of at least 47 of the 233 branches but the leadership says that the motion is invalid as the chairmen need to hold local meetings to support the demands.

An emergency general meeting would vote on whether or not to hold a postal ballot to choose a leader.

Current leader Roger Knapman has said that a recent telephone poll organised by the party showed that he had the backing of most party members and that there was little appetite for a contest.

Those chairman who want to see a leadership vote believe that Mr Kilroy-Silk is the best person to lead the party into the next General Election, thanks, in part, to his much higher media profile.

Edward Spalton, of Etwall, was chairman of the Derby and South Derbyshire branch of UKIP from 1994 to 2000.

"My reason for leaving was that it seemed that the national leadership of UKIP was in the hands of a group of people, described as the 'cabal' by one former party secretary," he said.

"Whoever was elected to office, this unaccountable group always appeared to run things.

"At present, there appears to be something afoot in the branch structure. A constitutional amendment was brought in, requiring that 20 per cent of branches must support any call for an extraordinary general meeting.

"Previously, it had been 10 per cent. Evidence suggests to me that the 'cabal' is busy setting up 'ghost' branches to ensure that, however many branches vote for such a meeting, there will never be enough to equal 20 per cent."

posted by Martin | 2:51 PM

Tories sack Falmouth Constituency Association for Promoting UKIP

As the UK Independence Party disintegrates with its leadership increasingly exposed for being the non-democratic and shambolic bunch of fixers this blog has repeatedly proven, some Conservatives seem to be confused into thinking the UKIP might offer a lifeboat from their own battered and widely despised party. This report in the Guardian linked here speaks volumes on the present condition of British politics.

posted by Martin | 8:11 AM

Red faces at the Guardian - no action on Hockney and Moss

WE understand readers of Friday's Guardian may have seen the smug comments of UKIP Press Officer, Mark Croucher who spends his time as an employee of the European Parliament sending scam e-mails on behalf of his UKIP masters.

The Guardian reportedly (link not found) quoted him as saying that "NEC members" (sic) Damian Hockney and Daniel Moss will be disciplined. A call to UKIP today, passed to the Guardian, revealed that there are no discipline cases being taken against the pair...and of course that they have not suddenly been put on the NEC either. Will the Guardian believe the truth as it comes from the reformers in the party? Or is it more convenient for them to believe, and print verbatim, the false words of self-confessed hoaxer Mark Croucher, representing the Old Guard. It is if they want to damage the cause of Euroscepticism.

posted by Martin | 8:03 AM

UKIP Challenges Howard on ID cards

The UK Independence Party at the London Assembly today challenges Michael Howard to produce the evidence from police and security chiefs whom he alleges have told him that ID cards "can and will" help their efforts to protect people against terrorist acts.

This contradicts the evidence of the Metropolitan Police submitted to the London Assembly on 8th December. When asked by UKIP London Assembly Leader Damian Hockney: "Is there any evidence that compulsory identity cards would help protect London from a terrorist attack?", the Metropolitan Police Service representative produced no such evidence.

Damian Hockney said: "Extensive research by UKIP staff has not uncovered any evidence from anywhere in the world that supports Mr Howard's contention. If Mr Howard has any evidence from police and security chiefs, now must be the time to reveal it, otherwise his assertion is worthless.

"UKIP is opposed to the introduction of compulsory ID cards as a matter of principle. If Mr Howard cannot produce his evidence he must retract and apologise for misleading the public."

posted by Martin | 7:52 AM

Monday, December 20, 2004  

Ex-BNP UKIP Candidate stands down.

Nicholas Betts-Green exposed by the East Anglian District Times as a former BNP member, has stood down as a parliamentary candidate for UKIP in the forthcoming General Election, as reported in the same newspaper linked from here.

posted by Martin | 2:06 PM

Dr Richard North held in police cell.

As revealed on his own blog, linked here, Dr Richard North was detained by the police last Saturday evening at five to midnight over non-payment of council tax. The Yorkshire Post now carries the news which is linked here.

Dr North was a long-time adviser to UKIP MEPs in Brussels and was co-author of the book 'The Great Deception' alongside Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker.

posted by Martin | 10:36 AM

Kilroy Supporters set to swamp UKIP with NEC Nominations

Elections to UKIP's discredited National Executive Committee normally take place each February and nominations close in January. While moves to remove the existing NEC by means of an Emergency General Meeting made progress to the Courts for resolution last week, up and down the country party supporters of Robert Kilroy-Silk are reported to be preparing a mass challenge to the corrupt ruling cabal.

Control over the NEC due to its rolling rotation and maximum three year terms of office will clearly not be achieved rapidly, but candidate details must be circulated to the party membership and hundreds of nominations for Kilroy supporters all exposing the rot at the top of the party will be an excellent means of taking the facts to the less active or involved everyday member.

Get your nominations in ASAP!

posted by Martin | 8:34 AM

Sunday, December 19, 2004  

Leadership plan for expulsion without trial is wrecked by legal challenge

The following very disturbing, but now unsurprising report arrived during my brief break. Further news on this subject is expected:


Leadership plans to expel several NEC members from the party without trial have begun to founder as a result of legal action following the discovery that Press Officer Mark Croucher leaked the plans to the press 24 hours before discipline cases had even been submitted.

The leadership had planned to get the members thrown out of the party by a ring-round of Discipline Panel members, on the say-so of the Party Leader. No proper discipline case has actually been submitted to the panel, only hearsay and rumour and a series of allegations based on a hoax e-mail sent out by Mark Croucher. And those under threat of expulsion have been specifically told it would be "unfair" for them to be allowed to present their case to the panel!

It is also understood that party and MEP employees are on the panel, thus making a mockery of its status as an independent panel. However, it now appears that the tide is turnnig against the leadership. Two of the members under threat took urgent legal advice and have placed the party on notice that they cannot simply remove members on the say so of Nigel Farage who is claiming that it is "urgent that we throw them out".

Lawyers acting for the two have put the party on notice that any attempt to throw them out will be met by instant action in the High Court, if necessary before Christmas.

"It is unthinkable that you can claim that our clients must be suspended from membership on the basis of hearsay," said the lawyer's letter. "You have asked the Discipline Panel, on the basis of no proof whatsoever of any wrongdoing, to suspend members of the party by telephone call.
The summary of allegations with no documentary evidence attached, and the suggestion which has been placed in the minds of the Panel about our clients' guilt, is not a Discipline Complaint as specified by the Discipline Rules."

The letter went on to ask why the senior officials considered it "urgent" that the members be thrown out without trial, and asked for proof as to why it would be "unfair" to allow the members under threat to defend themselves. "

This we actually find the most extraordinary suggestion of all, that you can claim it would be 'unfair' to allow people to defend themselves," the lawyers concluded. The Party Leader and some MEPs have also intimidated members of the Discipline Panel by calling them and claiming that those they want removed are "Tory moles".

Intimidation in this manner is against the Party Discipline rules, but order has now completely broken down within the leadership and NEC. The NEC is now broken and divided, with confusion about what the truth is and the leadership using any excuse to deny them information.

The Party Leader is practically invisible.

Against this background, the organisers of the EGM have just announced that they have enough branches signed up through their own EGMs to force a national Vote of No Confidence in the Party Leader. It is thought that it is this situation that has led to the last ditch attempt to discipline those involved in co-ordinating the EGM.

We understand that an announcement of court action on this is imminent as well.


Well, well, well! UKIP as usual it seems!

posted by Martin | 3:35 PM


Letter, Derby Evening Telegraph - Edward Spalton

09:30 - 18 December 2004

Dear Editor, Since resigning from the UK Independence Party (UKIP) after the annual general meeting of 2000, I have refrained from commenting publicly on the affairs of the party. There were two reasons for this - firstly that I supported the published aims of the party and secondly that I knew the local candidates and activists to be very decent people and I certainly did not want to spoil their chances.

My reason for leaving, after seven years of concentrated effort, was that it seemed the national leadership of UKIP was in the hands of a group of people, described as the "Cabal" by one former party secretary. Whoever was elected to office, this unaccountable group to me always appeared to run things.

In 1999, having been put out of office by the party's annual general meeting, it appeared to me that the Cabal simply refused to accept that fact and carried on as if nothing had happened. In spite of a postal vote of confidence which was 85 per cent in favour of the then leader Michael Holmes, they managed to call an extraordinary general meeting which resolved on new elections for the leadership and the National Executive Committee in 2000.

At this meeting, we saw people of a type never seen before or since at UKIP meetings. They appeared to have been provided with a list of speakers to cheer or to boo. I stayed at my post for the next six months, hoping that "things could only get better". They did not. I decided to carry on the fight outside the party.

As your article (Evening Telegraph, December 15) suggests, there appears to be something afoot in the branch structure. A constitutional amendment was brought in, requiring that 20 per cent of branches must support any call for an extraordinary general meeting. Previously it had been 10 per cent. Evidence to hand suggests to me that the Cabal is busy setting up "ghost" branches to ensure that however many branches vote for an extraordinary general meeting, there will never be enough to equal 20 per cent.

If this EGM is called, there will be a chance for a vote of no confidence in the present leadership. I wish Mr Kilroy-Silk well in his efforts to get some decency, accountability and strategic thinking into the affairs of UKIP. As leader, he will not have the constitutional power to achieve this as a one-man band but he will be able to shine light into areas which, up to now have been, shall we say, "lacking in transparency". There is a large constituency of opinion in favour of restoring sovereignty and real democratic government to Britain. It deserves a decent party to represent it. With Mr Kilroy-Silk, there is a chance of getting it.

Edward Spalton, former Derby & South Derbys UKIP Chair, 1994-2000.

posted by Martin | 1:40 PM
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.