Lawrence Webb's report on UKIP's London election campaign farce

There was an altercation between Nigel Farage and Steven Woolfe where Nigel insisted that he wanted Steven to be top of the list in London. Nigel was heard to say that he controlled the NEC and if he didnt do what Nigel wanted he would not be able to stand as an MEP elsewhere.

Lawrence Webb on UKIP's London election farce

Nigel Farage couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery!

The text of Lawrence Webb's report to Farage's NEC is published below. Still believe that UKIP, under Farage, is fit for office? Then read on!

Confidential

Page 1 of 19
London Mayoral and Assembly Elections 2012
Detailed Election Report NEC May 2012

By Lawrence Webb

Content


1. The Results
2. Key Dates and Timings
3. The Campaign
4. Fresh Choice for London
5. Messages/ PEB
6. Appointed Candidates
7. Wasted Resources
8. Conclusion: Too Little Too Late
9. Appendix 1
10. Appendix 2
11. Appendix 3
12. Appendix 4
13. Appendix 5
Confidential

Page 2 of 19

1) The Results

Mayor 1.96% +1.06%
List 4.5% +2.6% (deposit saved)
Constituency 4 deposits saved (+2)
Mayor London-wide (List)

It is important to note that although this shows the total number of second preference votes only 82,880 were valid for BJ and 102,355 were valid for KL this is because some people were either giving 1st and 2nd to the same candidate or putting BJ first and KL second (and vice versa).

2) Key dates and timings

Summer 2010

Even before I had been selected as the UKIP Mayoral Candidate I had spent some time courting specific interest groups, taxis and various groups affected by the low emission zones. This has resulted in an article in the Daily Express and a monthly column in The Badge newspaper (a Taxi publication). In addition to these I also had mentions in a number of trade press including the Ice cream alliance and those covering the recovery industry.

September 2010

First attempt to get on the NEC to discuss the London elections.

February 2011

Submitted strategy to NEC (no action taken). It was stressed however that the Party would have overall control rather than London region to avoid similar problems that had occurred in Wales.

Spring 2011

I attempted to start the candidate selection process - this was delayed to concentrate on the Mayor
selection.

June 2011

Steve Crowther attended the LRC meeting to oversee and direct preparations for the campaign. The selection of candidates was discussed. As can be seen from this extract of the LRC minutes for Thursday 16th June 2011 (point 4.4) the manifesto was always going to be a collusion of ideas from all the Mayoral candidates and not as SC suggested in his report to the NEC, which implied that the Manifesto was the sole responsibility of the incoming Mayoral candidate.

"Messaging. It proved extremely difficult to create the London manifesto, which should have been effectively in place with the incoming Mayoral candidate"

Page 3 of 19

July 2011

Steve Crowther once again attended the LRC and presented his Proposed Plan for the London Elections 2012. My suggestion of selecting the Assembly candidates first to give them time to embed themselves was overridden in favour of selecting the Mayoral candidate first using a public vote; about which there was much scepticism amongst the LRC. The reluctance of the LRC was overcome when it was explained that the proposed plan would enable UKIP to harvest the details of all those who participate in the process. SC appointed Lisa Duffy to oversee the campaign.

The main areas of policy were discussed; Transport and Crime being the two areas for which the Mayor has control.

Confidential

Page 4 of 19

August 2011

Mayoral candidate selected. In the end this was decided on the member's ballot alone because the online vote was subject to a massive fraud and in the end failed to harvest any details.

October 2011

There was an altercation between Nigel Farage and Steven Woolfe where Nigel insisted that he wanted Steven to be top of the list in London. Nigel was heard to say that he controlled the NEC and if he didnt do what Nigel wanted he would not be able to stand as an MEP elsewhere.

November 2011

The first ballot to select the Assembly candidates. Steve Crowther, Lisa Duffy and Peter Reeve attend LRC meeting. The process for selecting the list candidates is presented by SC. LRC are very concerned about the NEC altering the running order after the members have voted. SC said this was to ensure the list was a balance which raised further concerns he stressed however that changes would only be made in extreme circumstances.

December 2011

The second ballot to select the Assembly candidates

January 2012

At the end of the month the NEC decided the order of the candidates on the list.

February 2012

The super-constituency candidates were appointed.

March 2012

Lisa Duffy was removed from the campaign (at the beginning of March).

Duncan Barkes leaves for pastures new (at end of March).

Confidential

Page 5 of 19

Despite my best efforts to start planning for these elections to allow time for the candidates to embed themselves into their constituencies and become aware of the local issues, the candidates were not finally in place until three months before polling day.

NB: These Elections are at fixed intervals the next one is Thursday 5th May 2016.

3) The Campaign

The early start of the campaign went well with Lisa, Duncan, Damian and I working on the messaging and a media strategy. This had some degree of success with several hits in the media the best being on 8th March when I was quoted in the Express, Star, Mirror and Metro (in their printed versions) and in the Mail, Telegraph and London Loves Business online.

However there was no effective campaign from the point that Lisa was removed and there was no effective media campaign from the point at which Duncan moved on. What is worse, is from the point that Lisa was removed Janice Small failed to keep the agent (Peter Staveley) informed of expenditure: at the very least this is wilfully negligent if not criminally negligent.

Even now Janice has failed to supply a proper record of what was spent and how it is to be allocated.

Similarly, events were missed from the campaign schedule despite advised well in advance.

Despite Havering being the best area for UKIP in London it was not included in Nigel's campaign schedule even though he did come for Question Time, which was broadcast from Havering the week before polling.

Confidential

Page 6 of 19

This is one of two or more emails giving details of events in Havering

4) Fresh Choice for London

As Part of the messaging it had been decided to stress that UKIP was a fresh alternative because Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems were putting up the same candidates as in 2008.

When the newspaper was produced it was done so believing that this would be the principle campaign literature, and that; "UKIP A Fresh Choice" should be registered as a Party description.

However after Lisa was replaced I was removed from any of the decision making process.

There is a huge and fundamental difference between London the capital of the UK and London Region which is not understood by those outside of London.

Although I live in London region I in no way consider myself to be a "Londoner" and nor do most of the people who live in the outer boroughs where most of our support comes from. In the end the decision to register and use Fresh Choice For London was made by those who do not know or understand London/London Region, in the mistaken belief that it would appear on the ballot paper along with the Party name.

As can been seen by the email threads in Appendix 1 and 2 there was total lack of command and control nobody seemed to know who was doing what everyone wanted to take the glory but nobody wanted to take responsibility

5) Messaging/ PEB

From the outset Steve Crowther was put in charge of overall messaging as detailed in the report presented to the NEC November 2011.

Despite having the areas of responsibility explained he was keen to include other policies not under the direct control of the Mayor i.e. 5% Vat on beer and Cider. Other

Confidential

Page 7 of 19

ideas were also included that were a distraction and difficult to defend (see Appendix 3). Other suggested changes were simply ignored despite emails.

Similarly the Party Election Broadcast was poorly thought out. Attempts to plan this last summer were ignored with the result that something had to be cobbled together at the last minute (see Appendix 4).

6) Appointed Candidates

Having twice asked the members to vote on who they who like to see at the top of the Assembly List and then ignored them had a devastating effect on the active London Membership. Much time was wasted preventing members including Branch Officers resigning, when they should have been arranging stalls and events in their areas. Similarly appointing S-C candidates had a similar effect.

It is clear that there was a determined attempt by the leadership to influence the NEC in deciding which candidate was to be top of the list regardless of how the London members had voted.

Unsubstantiated comments were made with the clear intention of denigrating some whilst other comments were clearly intended to promote others. Much was made of one candidate's experience as a councillor (although not relevant to the GLA). If the full facts had been known then I believe the outcome would have been very different, there would have been a far greater motivation to get people elected, as it was senior Party figures from around the country have stated that they believe that getting no one elected was preferable to getting the wrong person elected.

Confidential

Page 8 of 19

7) Wasted Resources

Although Peter Staveley had been appointed as the Agent and was therefore legally responsible for any expenses incurred he was excluded, as was I, from any decision on how and where the money was spent. We have spent £6000 on surveys and polling data, much of which proved to be whole inaccurate. Similarly there was a lot of wasted effort promoting Super-Constituency candidates when the effort should have been spent on promoting the London-wide list, the only place we were likely to win any prizes.

Although we saved double the number of deposits this time around we failed to get any one elected from the List.

The advans were not deployed to the right areas and contained the wrong messages. The accompanying music "Maybe its because I'm a Londoner" is more likely to have put voters off in our strongest areas as they do not associate themselves as being Londoners.

The bus spent too much time in Westminster and central London and not in the outer boroughs where we get our best votes.

8) Conclusion: Too Little Too Late

Appointing candidates led to a disenfranchised membership

The candidates were selected too late - to be effective they should have been in place at least a year before the election to raise their profile.

The people with local knowledge were ignored. Most disastrously with the result that UKIP did not
appear on the ballot paper.

No effective campaign (after the beginning of March)

No media strategy (after the end of March)

Resources were poorly allocated

This campaign lacked any true chain of command, and people were given roles and responsibilities beyond their capabilities. There was no check on spending or proper recording of what had been spent. Even now Peter Staveley (the agent) is still being sent invoices for things he knew nothing
about (see Appendix 5).

Far from becoming a truly professional organisation we are less competent than ever making the most basic of errors. Rather than leaving those who know London to run the campaign, it was run by an uninformed committee (of non-Londoners) with the result that we ended up with a camel rather than a horse.

The effects of the gerrymandering and leadership interference in this campaign will have long lasting ramifications for the party as a whole. This, coupled with the recent statement by the current Leader that he wants to stand joint Tory UKIP candidates has taken away all and any incentive for candidates to 'work' a constituency in the years before an election as they run the risk of either being replaced or asked to stand down.

END

Confidential

Page 9 of 19


9. Appendix 1

From: Lawrence Webb
To: reeve@ukip.org
Cc: peter staveley
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:44 AM
Subject: London DNO

Peter,

Just a quick reminder that I am still waiting for my DNO certificate.

What was the NEC's decision on the party description? If approved what is the Elcom timescale on approval?

Regards,
Lawrence J Webb
UKIP London
Tel. 020 7403 7175


From: Cllr Peter Reeve [mailto:reeve@ukip.org]
Sent: 06 March 2012 16:14
To: Lawrence Webb
Subject: Re: London DNO


HI Lawrence

They approved the London descriptor. Time scale is 10 to 20 days.

Will get DNO Cert over to you this evening.

Pete
Cllr Peter Reeve
Member for Ramsey  Cambridgeshire County Council UKIP Group Leader -
Huntingdonshire District Council tel : 07792 290 434 email :
reeve@ukip.org
NB forwarded to Peter Staveley


From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 07 March 2012 11:54
To: reeve@ukip.orgâ
Cc: Lawrence Webb
Subject: FW: London DNO


Peter

What is the party description? If I know it now then I can put it on all the forms.

10 to 20 days from today means that some candidates will potentially be submitting a nomination form with the wrong description. If it does not make it onto the Elcom website by 20th March is there any letter of comfort we could have from Elcom?

What is the party emblem we are going to use?

Please remember that I am urgently waiting your PDF letter of authority for me to receive electoral registers.

Regards
Peter Staveley
GLA Election Agent for UKIP London
07973 168742

Confidential

Page 10 of 19

From: Cllr Peter Reeve [mailto:reeve@ukip.org]
Sent: 09 March 2012 05:45
To: UKIP
Subject: Re: London DNO

To Peter

The Description used is for the campaign team to decide, prob best to speak to Janice.

I can not confirm if the changes descriptors will be in place by 20th March as they have to go through ElCom vetting and may not be approved. Janice may want to revert to the standard descriptors in order to add some clarity for form filling.

Will let you know as soon as we get any confirmation from Elcom.

Pete
Cllr Peter Reeve
Member for Ramsey Cambridgeshire County Council UKIP Group Leader Huntingdonshire District Council tel : 07792
290 434 email : reeve@ukip.org


From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 11 March 2012 21:29
To: UKIP

Cc: reeve@ukip.org; Lawrence Webb; david coburn; Elizabeth Jones; pauljamesoakley@ntlworld.com; chairman@ukip.org; StevenWoolfe; mickjackmcgough@gmail.com; GawainTowler; MazharManzoor;
mariannebowness@yahoo.co.uk; Winston McKenzie; smalljan@btinternet.com; helen dixon;  Michael Corby; Jeff Bolter

Subject: Re: Winston's leaflets

Dear Peter

Thank you for this clarification, and I am very pleased that you are the party's appointed Agent for this election. Please let me know if you need any support from me at any stage; it's very important that you are able to fulfil this vital role to the letter we can't afford any slip-ups or legal anomalies.

I've added Michael Corby and Jeff Bolter to this circulation, I hope that's right?

Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon
EX31 4DG Phone 01271 813844 Mobile 07775 787579

From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 11 March 2012 21:59
To: Steve Crowther
Cc: reeve@ukip.org; Lawrence Webb; david coburn; StevenWoolfe; smalljan@btinternet.com
Subject: RE: Winston's leaflets

Dear Steve

Thanks for that. I fully agree we cannot afford any slip-ups or legal anomalies.

The main thing that is holding me back at the moment is that Pete mentioned that he had applied to Elcom for the authorisation for the new party description. However, he failed to state the exact wording that he (i.e. what the NEC agreed) was applying for. Once I have that then I can ask the boroughs to check the nomination forms (subject to Elcom agreeing) and then be one step further to meeting the 20th March deadline for nominations.

I have got back 4 Mayoral nomination forms and I will start checking them tomorrow and then, as a belt and braces, ask the relevant boroughs to check them as well so that when we put in the Mayoral nomination that will get through without any problems.

I do not wish to go too much into the Winston issue again but it is very disconcerting when Marianne mentions to the Croydon AGM that Winston is going to have a campaign office and then to see a leaflet produced without any consultation from myself and also the wrong imprint. Let's be clear I will give the full and immediate authorisation for any campaign expenditure if I have strong independent evidence that it has been agreed by at least Janice and David (and preferably Steven and Lawrence as well). So I promise that I will not be a bar on expenditure. However, I do not

Confidential

Page 11 of 19


expect to have to be Sherlock Holmes in order to find out about what candidates have apparently spent without consulting me.

Similarly we need full records for any donations over £500 (or £50 if Winston has any donations).
Just so that you know unlike all other GLA Constituency Candidates I intend to deliver the nomination for Croydon and Sutton personally. To a certain extent it is very convenient for me. However, from my previous experience with Winston I feel that there is a risk that he would 'accidentally' lose the agent's appointment form and possibly substitute Marianne. Certainly if I were Winston or Marianne that is what I would try to do in order to get rid of Peter Staveley's
involvement.

I would request that the party, and Pete Reeve as the NO ensures, that only Lawrence’s DNO certificate is used to accompany Winston's nomination. If he persuades another DNO to sign for him then we will be in chaos since he would have an 'independent' UKIP nomination.

Obviously I am liaising with Lawrence on a regular basis on obtaining Lawrence's signatures and his DNO form.

Regards
Peter Staveley
Electoral Agent for UKIP London
247 Davidson Road
Croydon
CR0 6DQ
07973 168742


From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 11 March 2012 22:53
To: UKIP
Cc: Peter Reeve
Subject: Re: Winston's leaflets

Dear Peter

The agreed slogan was 'Fresh Choice for London'. I don't think any DNO certificates are still valid; they all lapsed at the end of 2011. Only Pete can create new ones. I am copying him on this for clarity.

I understand your approach and entirely endorse it.

Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon
EX31 4DG Phone 01271 813844 Mobile 07775 787579


From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 11 March 2012 23:04
To: Steve Crowther
Cc: Peter Reeve
Subject: RE: Winston's leaflets

Steve

Just to be clear could you please confirm that the words UK I P do not appear in the party description? So in effect we are relying on the emblem to convey the UKIP brand. Please note that 'UK I P Fresh Choice for London' is not admissible as that is seven words.

Thanks for the DNO clarification. Pete has already issued Lawrence with a DNO certificate for London and I have a copy of that. So that side of things are sorted.

Thanks
Peter Staveley
Electoral Agent for UKIP London
247 Davidson Road
Croydon CR0 6DQ
07973 168742

Confidential

Page 12 of 19

From: Steve Crowther
To: Peter Reeve
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:31 AM
Subject: FW: Winston's leaflets


Dear Peter

Please could you clarify this to Peter?

Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon
EX31 4DG Phone 01271 813844
Mobile 07775 787579

From: Cllr Peter Reeve [mailto:reeve@ukip.org]

Sent: 12 March 2012 09:35
To: Steve Crowther
Cc: UKIP
Subject: Re: Winston's leaflets

Hi Steve / Peter

I am not sure what I am being asked to clarify.

The Descriptor that the London team have asked to have registered is 'A Fresh Choice for London'

This has not yet been approved and when it is, it is for the campaign team in London to decide if they want to use it or not. I have just requested the registration that the London team have asked for.

The party name will still be on the ballot paper and also appears in the logo. The bit that will change is the description beneath the logo if that is what is requested on the nomination papers.

It is correct that UKIP Fresh choice for London would not be acceptable but no one has asked us to try to register it???

Hope this helps?

Pete

Cllr Peter Reeve
Member for Ramsey – Cambridgeshire County Council UKIP Group Leader – Huntingdonshire District Council tel : 07792
290 434 email :
reeve@ukip.org


From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 12 March 2012 09:45
To: Cllr Peter Reeve
Subject: RE: Winston's leaflets

Pete
I just wanted to be clear that we are not including UKIP in the description?

Also I wish to do informal checks with the boroughs. So it would be helpful if I could have something from you to say that the description is being processed. It certainly does not need to be formal just an email from you to Elcom or a copy of your letter to Elcom etc.

Regards
Peter Staveley
Electoral Agent for UKIP London
247 Davidson Road
CroydonCR0 6DQ
07973 168742
Confidential

Page 13 of 19

10. Appendix 2

From: J SMALL
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:38:26
To: k.farage@yahoo.co.uk

Subject: Branding on ballot papers clarification

Hi all
Just to confirm what was agreed today following the discussions regarding the ballot paper wording.

The NEC had apparently agreed a 'Fresh Choice for London' with the UKIP logo appearing on the left of the paper.

David Coburn raised concerns over this and thought it would be better having the UKIP branding and wording clearly spelt out.

However, as 13 nomination papers had been returned and approved it was agreed that this would not be possible.

After speaking to Lisa, Pete Reeve, David and Lawrence we agreed that the Fresh Choice would remain but on the List ballot papers it would revert to UKIP logo and name. Peter and Lawrence are meeting the various officials to sign this off tomorrow.

Regards
Janice
Janice Atkinson
020 8694 7587/07889 927430


From: clancoburn@hotmail.co.uk
To: smalljan@btinternet.com; partydirector@ukip.org; sjcrowther@btinternet.com; k.farage@yahoo.co.uk;
lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:51:25 +0000
Subject: Re: Branding on ballot papers clarification


Not quite ! I believe the NEC thought this was in addition to “UK Independence Party” not instead of. Either my ear trumpet is bashed or the dementia business the PM has been banging on about has become contagious. Drunk or sober I would not have substituted the party name for something warm and woolly. Simple stupid is best. That's how the voters like it. Too many cooks comrades !!!

David Coburn London Chairman
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

From: UKIP

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:11

For the Mayoral candidate and the GLA Constituency candidates the UKIP emblem with the party description 'Fresh Choice for London' will be shown. For the GLA List Candidate the UKIP emblem and the party description 'UK Independence Party' will be shown. This was the decision of the NEC, the party's Nominating Officer and the Party Chairman. I checked before putting it on the nomination papers.

Regards
Peter Staveley
Electoral Agent
for UKIP London 247 Davidson Road
Croydon CR0 6DQ


From: Steven Woolfe [mailto:stevenwoolfe1@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 April 2012 07:32

To: UKIP

Peter
I don't want to be pedantic, but the NEC only approved the phrase 'a Fresh Choice For London' could be included in the Parties list of approved ELCOM descriptors. As advised they should by the Parties Nominating Officer who had stated it was a request from the London Campaign Team constituted at that time.

The NEC also approved that it was the London Campaign Team, as constituted at the time, choice whether to use it in this election, how to use it best, whether it could be used under the rules of the London election. It was nit the decision of the NEC to use the UKIP logo on the right of the ballet paper and descriptor under the name without the UKIP name.

Confidential

Page 14 of 19


This would have been the upto the London Campaign Team.

This is all documented in the minutes and discussions.

Steven
Sent from my iPhone


From: UKIP

Date: Thu 19 Apr 2012 08:05

Steven

Obviously I have not seen the minutes of the NEC and the public summary is not clear enough to determine what was agreed (and in any case arrived too late to be of effect in this case).

However, on 11/3 at 21:58 I asked Steve Crowther what party description had been agreed by the NEC to be used. The reply came back on 11/3 22:59 that the agreed slogan was 'Fresh Choice for London'.

I fully accept that the NEC might not have agreed to use the party description 'Fresh Choice for London' but that is not how it was communicated to me by the Chairman. I was also communicating with the Nominating Officer and his view of the NEC decision was the same. Therefore, I stand by what I said on 18 Apr 2012, at 23:11 (below).

By the way on the ballot paper UKIP does not have a logo, it is the party emblem.

Peter

From: Steven Woolfe [mailto:stevenwoolfe1@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 April 2012 08:17
To: UKIP
Subject: Re: Last 72 hours thoughts please

Peter
Are you saying that the NEC said that on the ballet paper A Fresh Choice for London under the name of the candidate with the Party Emblem ? And that is what the Party Chairman communicated to you ?

Sent from my iPhone

From: Steven Woolfe
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:18:44
To: ;
Subject: Accusations of NEC control of Campaign

David and Mick

Please see below email correspondence between Peter and myself re the issues this morning. ( before your cease and desist notice David)

The implication is clear that Peter believes he was told by SC and PR that the NEC decided to use the phrase in the London campaign. As all three of us were on the committee that day and voted for the motion that would suggest we part of the process that made the decision to use the descriptor on the ballot paper.

I know my recollection of events but is it your combined understanding that NEC decided to use it on the Ballot Paper or left it for the London Campaign

Yours Steven
Sent from my iPhone


From: UKIP ;
Date: 19 April 2012 08:36:10 GMT+01:00
To: Steven Woolfe ;
Subject: RE: Last 72 hours thoughts please

Steven
As I said, I am not allowed to see what the NEC said and, obviously, I was not at the NEC meeting.

So my view of life has to be how the NEC's decisions were portrayed to me by the Steve Crowther and Pete Reeve. The 'decision' was that the party description for all of the London Election was 'Fresh Choice for London'. Unfortunately they implied that it was the NEC decision.

Peter

Confidential

Page 15 of 19

From: david coburn

Date: Thu 19 Apr 2012 10:14

CONFIDENTIAL.

The NEC approved the use of this ludicrous phrase with other things like "and residents".. etc. at the behest of Pete Reeves. The general understanding was that they were to be used in conjunction with 'UKIP' but not EXCLUDING. 'UKIP' no one is that daft !!! Pete Reeves seems to have misunderstood what could be put on the ballot paper and did not check it properly. When I went through my nomination papers in detail with Bexley when I was putting them in the returning officer pointed out how it would appear and that UKIP would not be included in the
descriptor.

I called Pete Reeves on my mobile in front of the returning officer and Pete told me that was nonsense. I passed the phone to the returning officer who confirmed what I had said. Pete then said something like 'Woops!' and giggled nervously. He had obviously misunderstood the regulations. I phoned Stavely who confirmed his instructions. As a matter of fact he had questioned both Messrs Crowther and Reeve twice by email and Reeve had confirmed the descriptor. So unusually for UKip Stavely actually obeyed orders. It was too late to change the descriptor for the superconstituences as most had gone in and there was insufficient time to change the rest. After frantic calls between myself, Reeves, Crowther and Nigel it was decided to carry on with the rest of the supers as
they were for the sake of consistency and I immediately ordered Messrs Stavely and Webb to drop everything and re do the papers for the list and replace the descriptor with 'UK Indepedence Party' If I hadn't discovered this nonsense we would have had 'fresh start for London' on the list too !!! I further suggested we should market the 'fresh start for London' as a cunning plan by our press and marketing wonks. Funnily enough they belived it as no one could be that stupid. YOU COULD'T MAKE IT UP !!! Yours aye David CONFIDENTlAL

Sent using BlackBerry from Orange

Confidential

Page 16 of 19

11. Appendix 3

From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 15 February 2012 18:51
To: Lisa Duffy; Peter Staveley; Steven Woolfe; David Coburn; Lawrence Webb
Subject: P&C Manifesto

Dear All

We need an eye-catching idea on crime. Paddick is trusted to look after it, just because he's a copper, but his policy is incoherent EXCEPT for one thing, which he's nicked from us - neighbourhood watch patrols (like Pete's Police in Ramsey) armed with torches and fluorescent jackets.

How about: some revision of Police procedure in London that enables more citizen action, eg bringing back Citizen's Arrests. These (a long cherished imaginary 'right' of the freeborn Englishman) could trump Paddick's hi-vis militia. I don't think he'd be able psychologically to match it.

We say that the Met Police will actively support and promote Citizens' Arrests, through a well-publicised code of practice and set of rules, plus active neighbourhood liaison rather than, as they tend to do now, arresting the citizen and charging them with assault/false imprisonment to get their numbers up.

As long as our plan is thought-through and coherent, it could look good to the Londoner who's concerned about crime and thinks the police don't do squat about it except arrest innocent householders trying to protect their property.

Downsides? Okay, one or two, but we'll deal with them when we're in City Hall.

Whaddya think?

Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther
Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon EX31 4DG


From: Lawrence Webb [mailto:lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com]
Sent: 26 March 2012 15:01
To: J SMALL
Cc:
Subject: S-C leaflet

Janice,

I have just spoken to Damian and all comms. is to come through you

Page one of this is fine although I would suggest changing the 'UKIP' in the first line with the party Logo as this and 'fresh choice for London' are what will appear on the ballot paper

Of the three red circles the bottom one is meaningless without greater explanation for which there is no room.

Let's change it to. Parking fines 'a tax on small business' or 'crippling small business'

Of the three message points

Stronger on jobs OK
Safer on crime change to Tougher on Crime
Fairer on transport
Introduce a flexible off-peak travel card
70 minute bus ticket allowing multiple changes within the time limit
Stop penalising the motorist
1. Scrap the congestion charge
2. 20 free parking across London
3. Free Saturday night and all-day Sunday parking
Also as on the op of page one change the word UKIP with the logo
NB on mine the printers address was not visible.

Lawrence J Webb

Confidential

Page 17 of 19

From: J SMALL [mailto:smalljan@btinternet.com]
Sent: 26 March 2012 15:27
To: lawrenceWebb
Subject: Fw: super leaflet again.


You OK with this? We made some of the changes, logo is the approved one.
Regards
Janice
Janice Atkinson
020 8694 7587/07889 927430


From: Lawrence Webb [mailto:lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com]
Sent: 26 March 2012 16:44
To: J SMALL
Cc: DamianWilson
Subject: RE: super leaflet again.


Janice,

Save £10m in parking admin by putting one central authority in charge, instead of 33 local councils.
Unless this is going to be explained it is not going to float anyone's boat £10m in the greater scheme of things is nothing and admin ....really!

If this is going to be used it must be bold..

Take parking enforcement away from greedy councils ... save motorists £millions in wrongly issued parking charges

Lawrence J Webb
UKIP London
Tel. 020 7403 7175
Confidential

Page 18 of 19

12. Appendix 4

From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 01 April 2012 21:54
To: Steven Woolfe; Lawrence Webb
Subject: FW: Draft


Dear Lawrence, Steven

First draft PEB idea for your delectation. Your feedback appreciated.

Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party

From: Lawrence Webb
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:58:59 +0100
To: Stephen Crowther ,Steven Woolfe
Cc: Janice Atkinson-Small , David Coburn
Subject: RE: Draft

Dear All,

I have only just had time to look at this in any detail and without wishing to put a downer on things it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Can we not use some of the graphics from the save the city DVD to avoid the talking heads.

I understand DC is moving into Wiffen territory and has come up with a script.

Lawrence J Webb
UKIP London
Tel. 020 7403 7175


From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 03 April 2012 16:27
To: Lawrence Webb; ‘Steven Woolfe’
Cc: Janice Atkinson-Small; David Coburn
Subject: Re: Draft


Dear Lawrence

Why would you want to avoid the 'talking heads'? The 'talking heads' are the candidates we want them to vote for. You are the star of this show. People mostly don't watch PEBs if they can avoid them, especially if they're made of graphics'. If they are being spoken to by a nice bloke who seems to be making sense and is saying something interesting, we have some chance to taking them with us.

We're following a deliberate strategy here - talk about a very big and controversial issue (which hopefully will act as a multiplier by getting us talked about in the media), but in a very personable, human, ordinary-folk-like-us way (which hopefully will counteract any negative perceptions and win us support).

If we want people to engage with this, we need to do that: engage with them, person to person. If we want them to take on board our message, we have to put it in such a way that they can feel reassured that we are nice, trustworthy, next-door-neighbour people giving it to them - not some political machine.

And we're asking them to vote for you. To get to the end of the film and go: I'm going to vote for them, they seem alright and they make a lot of sense. This whole script is about playing to your strengths.

Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party

Confidential

Page 19 of 19

13. Appendix 5

From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 30 May 2012 16:25
To: J SMALL
Subject: RE: Public Meeting at Hillingdon

Janice

Firstly, why did you not tell me about the invoice at the time?

Secondly, why did you not ask me to authorise the expenditure as required by legislation? The situation of unauthorised expenditure 'appearing' has arisen many times both during and after the election in spite of me reminding you several times that ALL campaign expenditure needs to be authorised by the agent.

Thirdly, why did you state that I have received all the information when that was obviously not true? You, presumably, kept detailed expenditure records and compared them with the information I supplied you. Obviously it is was true then I presume that you will be challenging the invoice.

Fourthly, why was the media company having to Google information? They should have been given detailed information as to where the invoice was to be sent and to whom the invoice was to be made out to.

Fifthly, as a matter of interest, who authorised that expenditure? Was it you, Annabelle or someone else? If it was not you then why did that people not have the courtesy to tell me about it? I made strong efforts to respond to emails and telephone calls promptly, so they could not claim that I was impossible to contact.

In any case since I received the invoice today it is now too late. I was required to have received all the invoices by last Thursday. Now that all those invoices have been paid I have sent off the election returns and Helen has certified them as being correct. So they cannot be changed.

Therefore, the invoice is not a campaign expense and nothing to do with me. I suggest that you direct the invoice to head office for them to pay. Please let me know to whom, if anyone, I should send the invoice to?

Regards
Peter Staveley


From: J SMALL [mailto:smalljan@btinternet.com]
Sent: 30 May 2012 15:55
To: Annabelle Fuller
Cc: UKIP
Subject: Re: Public Meeting at Hillingdon


It's just like Jaws, just when you think it was safe to go back in the water ... [cue Jaws music]
Yes, we organised a public meeting, that's what you do in campaigns and the hall was packed - coincidence? It should be paid from the London campaign. It was probably sent to Queen Anne's Gate because the media co Googled the wrong address and all correspondence is being forwarded to
Robin.

Regards
Janice Atkinson
020 8694 7587/07889 927430

Ends.

See: LINK