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

Thursday, December 02, 2004 

More exchanges on NEC 'Right to Know'

Following the posting below from Mr MacWhirter, I have received some further exchanges on this topic. Mr Daniel Moss who works for the Greater London Authority has sent me this response :

Just a brief response to Rob McWhirter's comments on your blog. He is right that party policies don't have to be approved by the NEC. Policies are decided by members or the leader.
However, the NEC does have to approve anything the party actually does, ie. plans, campaigns, actions of any sort. My email to Petrina referred to election campaign strategy, which of course has to be approved by the NEC.

This referred to the unidentified sender of the e-mail on this subject to the Party Chairman that I posted last evening. I replied as follows:

Thanks for that. I noted Petrina referred to you as a party employee - is that correct. If I put your comment on theblog do you wish to be identified , expand your remarks and perhaps give a job description?

In reply came this reply with these exchanges, which although long are quoted in full as only that way does the full flavour of the way the party is being run come fully across. I have not repeated the exchanges posted here last night.


Thanks for your email. I'm employed by the Greater London Authority, not UKIP. I don't mind being identified, perhaps you could quote from our extensive correspondence! I've pasted it all below.
To PH from DM.....................(end of last evening's posted exchanges) Can you clear up a very straightforward question - how can the NEC be responsible for approving party undertakings if they don't know what they are?
Regards Daniel

To Daniel Moss
Clearly your information yet again is incorrect. Support for the motion backing Roger Knapman was said to have been withdrawn for an entirely different reason.

What happens in the NEC is for the NEC to sort out . Those who complained at the restriction on information were in a minority.It was made perfectly clear to everyone there that any member
of the NEC could contact David Lott about their own area and be given info.

Now that you have received my undertaking that there are no secret deals do you accept it ? Will you withdraw the allegations ?
Petrina Holdsworth

Many thanks for your reply. Of course if you assure me there have been no secret deals, I accept that. Very glad to hear it!

I'm afraid I still have some serious concerns, though. When we voted in the last NEC elections, we were told that we were voting for the party's highest managing body, and that all party undertakings had to be approved first by the NEC. Now you say that information is being witheld
from the NEC by the leadership.

Can you clear up a very straightforward question - how can the NEC be responsible for approving party undertakings if they don't know what they are?
Regards Daniel
Dear Mr Moss,
I am delighted that you accept that there are no secret deals, perhaps in future you will learn not to scare monger in this fashion.
As to your last question , as I said in a previous email ,those who objected to the information being kept under wraps were in a minority in the NEC. If it were ever the majority who so objected then David Lott`s Campaign team would have to discuss the matter with the NEC .For the moment the majority appear content to leave it to David Lott.
An outline of possible tactics has already been given to the NEC by Michael Harvey. We are probably about 5 months away from the General Election maybe less.A lot can happen in that space of time ,plans have to be kept flexible ,and kept quiet.
We are only at the planning stage ,there are no undertakings for the NEC to approve as yet.
yours sincerely,
Petrina Holdsworth
Thanks for your reply, which unfortunately fails to answer my question.
Obviously the NEC has to approve of the Campaign Team's plans before they can be put into action. So again my question is - How can the NEC approve of the Campaign Team's plans if they don't know what they are?

You claim that the party leadership are entitled to withold information from the NEC because only a minority have objected. As Party Chairman you should know that the leadership must provide any information requested by any member of the NEC. It doesn't matter if it's one member or all fifteen. Why was the information refused?

You said "an outline of possible tactics has already been given to the NEC by Michael Harvey". I work with Michael Harvey at the London Assembly, and he doesn't know what you're referring to. Do you mean John Harvey?
Regards Daniel
Dear Mr Moss,
thank you for your continued concern on behalf of the NEC. I have no doubt that they can look after themselves, if there are any questions re this matter on Monday then I am sure we can deal with that without being lectured by you on what we can and cannot do.
I have a question to ask of you .Have you circulated the fact that you have accepted the position that there have been no secret deals?This is after all what this exchange of emails is primarily
about or are you happy to leave people with the impression from you that urgent action is still callled for to stop these imaginary deals being hatched by us with our phantom Tory friends?
yours sincerely, Petrina Holdsworth
As I said in a previous email, I accept your assurances that there have been no secret deals. All our correspondence has been sent to the people my original email was copied to.

I have very serious concerns about information being unlawfully witheld from the NEC, I thought the Party Chairman would be prepared to answer my questions. As you chair NEC meetings I assumed you could clarify the rules on witholding information. I'm deeply disappointed that you have failed to answer my questions, and by your very insulting tone
throughout. I now realise there's no point continuing this correspondence.
I said in an earlier email I wasn't part of any campaign for a leadership election. I am now.

Note once again the apparent emergence of the shadowy spoiler and Hodge Hill evader John Harvey, albeit under the guise of former General Party Secretary Michael Harvey.

Almost ten years undermining a campaigning cause by editing the Indepenence News and still apparently at the forefront in spite of theoretically holding no official post at all.

posted by Martin |6:34 PM
www Ukip Uncovered
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.
Copyright © 2006 Martin Cole.
contact us
my other blogs
nigel farage
landmark links
fired treasurer
glw incitement
glw & farage
a complaint
a neutered nec
graham booth
derek clark
mark croucher
michael harvey
roger knapman
mike nattrass
buy my book
Copyright © 2003/6 Martin Cole.