UKIP lose court case. Farage leaves court in humiliation

UKIP's appeal has been rejected! Alan Hardy emerged from the court victorious! Farage left the court with his tail between his legs. He couldn't even bear to stay for the proceedings! UKIP's legal costs run into thousands! More news soon!

UKIP Back in Court: Nigel prepares to throw away at least £30,000 in order to avoid paying £750 in court damages to member of his own party!

Alan Hardy

Readers of this blog will remember that Alan Hardy successfully defeated UKIP in court. This case concerned Gordon Parkin's - UKIP NE Regional Organiser - decision to ban Mr Hardy from attending UKIP meetings. UKIP's leadership also tried to expel him from the party. In response, Mr Hardy took them to court. UKIP foolishly relied on Lisa Duffy to argue their case in court. And the result? UKIP lost. They were ordered to reinstate Mr Hardy and pay him £750 in damages See: LINK & LINK

So would Farage accept the judgement in good grace? Fat chance! His ego won't allow it.

Now what did Bannerman say?

Nigel's taste for pursuing personal vendettas on the party’s credit account, has led to a legal bill running at £140,000 a year.

See: LINK

UKIP has been given leave to appeal and the case will be heard today. UKIP's legal costs are likely to be at least £30,000! And even if they win, Mr Hardy will not be liable for UKIP's costs!

So UKIP's leadership is willing to waste thousands contesting the original decision of the court rather than pay out a paltry £750! So will Stuart Wheeler be expected to foot the bill? And will Farage even tell him what the money is for? And what does the membership think? Are they happy that the party is willing to spend at least £30,000 in order to avoid paying Mr Hardy £750 in damages?

Farage really needs his head looking at. That crash must have affected his mind more than we originally thought. Spending at least £30,000 to avoid writing a cheque for £750 doesn't sound like the wisest of moves!

Here is a recent email from Mr Hardy:

Subject: GENERAL NEWS
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:18:20 +0100

Hello everyone,

I'm sure most, if not all of you know, that I obtained judgment in the High Court last year against not only the local chairman of the political party of which I am a member, but also the party itself.

The defendant's did not like that and appealed. The appeal is to be heard next week in the Court of Appeal in London. As at the original hearing, I shall be representing myself. And, as a condition of the appeal, the other side will not be able to claim costs against me even if they win - and I'll see to it they don't! They also have a new barrister on the job; it appears the original one left his chambers for pastures new some time after the hearing last September. I can't understand why. Perhaps losing against a layman was more than his professional constitution could bear. But that's his problem. Anyway it'll be yours truly up before the 'big beaks' next week!

I've been on something of a weight loss/fitness programme these past six weeks. I've lost a total of 16 lbs, which I suppose is fairly good going. Over the last few weeks, however, this has plateau'd to a loss of 1 lb per week, which I came to find discouraging, especially after all the effort it takes. It reached the point where, on Saturday night just gone - I weigh myself each Saturday morning - I resolved to give it up as a bad job and go back to being a fat slob again.

The next morning I woke up and, having drunk my first coffee of the day, went off to buy a copy of the last edition of the News of the World. Now I haven't bought a copy of that newspaper for YEARS, but as it was the last opportunity to do so I thought I'd see what it had to offer.

I had a good look through it. The glossy supplement didn't have much of interest to men, apart from a lovely picture of the luminously beautiful Thandie Newton near the front. There was the obligatory crossword near the end and on the opposite page were the star forecasts for the week. Now my star sign is Leo, so I had a look at what the resident clairvoyant had to say. It was this (and you can check on it):

"YOU HAVE THE WILLPOWER TO START, OR RESTART, A FITNESS PLAN AND ENSURE IT WORKS"

Mystic Meg saves the day.

BYE FOR NOW

ALAN

Dr Edmond on EUKIP

Dr Edmond was a member of UKIP's NEC. He was thrown off it because, unlike the likes of Zuckerman and Oxley, he was not prepared to turn a blind eye to corruption and dishonesty.

Rachel Oxley: Farage sycophant and, until recently, corrupt member of UKIP's NEC

We note that both Zuckerman and Oxley have now left the NEC. Members should not forget that both actively colluded in preventing Dr Edmond, Dr Abbott and Del Young from cleaning up the party and stamping out corruption. Indeed, both are two of the worst examples of the filth that have prospered in UKIP thanks to Farage's protection. Their guilt is as great as their leader. No one will mourn their departure.

Here is the latest posting from Dr Edmond's blog:

EUKIP made flesh

I received today my copy of Independence news. It also contained two slips of paper and an envelope relating to Farage's financially motivated wish to join UKIP MEPs to a Pan European, EU supporting party. Farage wants UKIP to take the EU bribe and sell out our core principle of EU withdrawal so that he can have a bigger budget solely under his control to spend in Brussels. This money cannot be used to support our withdrawal cause in any way and opens the door for Pan European parties to contest the next UK European election. I fully expect Farage will be standing for a Pan European party. He may be prepared to sacrifice his principles for money but I, and I hope many other UKIP members, will never take the EU's poisoned Euro.

While on the NEC Del, David and I fought long and hard for UKIP elections to be conducted independently by the Electoral Reform Society to maintain the probity and integrity of UKIP elections. This has now been ditched. Both slips of paper say, "Should the UK Independence party MEPs join a European Political Party and a European Political Foundation under regulation EC 2004/2003". This wonderful piece of EU gobbledegook shows how far Farage and his cronies have embraced and support the EU!

One slip has YES on it and one slip NO. They are called ballot papers which must be returned to an address, UKIP Ballot, 11 Church Street, Hartlepool, TS24 7DJ. That is not UKIP's head office. It seems to be the address of the firm Atkinson Print Ltd who printed the ballot papers. What on earth is going on? No mention of checks or scrutiny of the electoral process, or returning officer. In short a system wide open to abuse and manipulation . No wonder UKIP is fast becoming a laughing stock.

This image is furthered by some real vote losing articles printed in Independence News. One exhorts UKIP to support Israel and is written by one Jacob Campbell, Press Officer, UKIP Friends of Israel. What can UKIP gain from this association given the largely justified bad publicity Israel gets in the media and the BBC?

Then we have the batty Earl opining on the EU threat to OUR herbal pills and potions. This all seems to have originated from the Earl's grandmother Barbara Cartland. Wow! He then describes properly licensed drugs as a 'big killer' and follows with the sentence, "Over 40000 deaths are recorded in the UK alone". What on earth does that mean? Another vote loser

Our MEPs certainly do their best to live up to Cast Iron Dave's fruit cakes and loonies description of UKIP. They should stick to pissing on Brussels hotel plants and not pissing on UKIP. Still there is always Monckton being warned off pretending to be a member of the House of Lords to restore sanity to our party.

To read the original: LINK

Nuff said!

UKIP: Monckton starts to feel the heat!

Christopher Monckton: UKIP Leader in Scotland and serial liar. And who brought him into UKIP? None other than Nigel Farage!

Readers of this blog will recall how we have comprehensively exposed Christopher Monckton as a liar (LINK). We had hoped that he would desist from telling further porkies. Some hope!

Sadly, he still persists in claiming to be a member of the House of Lords. Therefore, it came as no surprise to learn that 'the powers that be' were no longer prepared to tolerate his dishonesty.

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

15 July 2011

To read the original: LINK

We note that the UKIP website (LINK) describes Monckton as a 'man of many talents'. It's a pity that honesty isn't one of them!

Monckton's lies are featured in the national press:

From the BBC News

Viscount Monckton warned off Lords membership claim

Viscount Monckton was an adviser to the Thatcher government in the 1980s UKIP climate change spokesman and deputy leader Viscount Monckton has been warned to stop calling himself a member of the House of Lords.

It follows an interview he gave to Australian radio in which he said he was a member "but without the right to sit or vote".

But he was told not to repeat the claim by the Clerk of Parliaments.

In a letter David Beamish told him: "you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords".

Legislation in 1999 ended the link between holding a hereditary peerage and being a member of the Lords.

Viscount Monckton inherited his title from his father who died in 2006 - who had been a member of the House of Lords until 1999, when the legislation was introduced.

He has since stood in four by-elections to replace hereditary peers who had died - but failed to be elected.

'Contradiction in terms'

In his letter the Clerk of Parliaments says his predecessor also wrote to Viscount Monckton twice, in July 2010, asking him to stop claiming to be a member of the House "either directly or by implication".

But he says the peer has since continued to make the claims.

"In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House"," Mr Beamish wrote.

"I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.

"No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House."

He goes on to add that he is publishing the letter "so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not".

Viscount Monckton, who served as an adviser to the Thatcher government between 1982 and 1986, is a former journalist and is well known as a climate change sceptic.

He joined the UK Independence Party in 2009, as its chief spokesman on climate change. He became the party's deputy leader last year.

To read the original: LINK

And this from The Guardian

The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.

The move follows a testy interview given by Monckton to an Australian radio station earlier this month in which he repeated his long-stated belief that he is a member of the House of Lords. When asked by ABC Sydney's Adam Spencer if he was a member, he said: "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote … [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it."

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."

In May, Mr Justice Lewison threw out an action at the Royal Courts of Justice brought by Baron Mereworth, who maintains that it his hereditary entitlement to attend the Lords, despite the House of Lords Act 1999 debarring all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, including his late father Lord Oranmore and Browne. Mr Justice Lewison ruled: "In my judgement, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to a 'member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that house … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house."

The letter from Beamish to Monckton continues: "I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a member 'without the right to sit or vote'. I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."

The Guardian understands that the House of Lords has been consulting with its lawyers on this issue since the ABC radio interview aired. It is not yet clear what form of sanction the Lords has available to it should Monckton persist with his claim.

Last year, the then clerk of the parliaments, Michael Pownall, wrote to Monckton stressing that he was not entitled to call himself a member, nor should he use parliament's famous portcullis symbol on his letterheads or lecture slides, as he has done for a number of years.

Monckton wrote back stating that "the House of Lords Act 1999, which purported to exclude hereditary peers from membership of the House of Lords, is defective". He argued that the act removed the right to sit or vote in the upper house, but did not remove membership because peerages are granted by letters patent, which are a personal gift of the monarch. Monckton claimed in the letter that "only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 act was a general law."

Buckingham Palace was drawn into the dispute when it was revealed that Pownall had sought advice from the Lord Chamberlain, a key officer in the royal household, on the potential misuse of the portcullis emblem due to it being the property of the Queen. The Buckingham Palace website states that any misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the palace pursues the matter and successfully prosecutes him.


Official logo of the House of Lords (left) and that used by Christopher Monckton (right). Photograph: Torsten Blackwood/AFP/Getty Images

Monckton has since been using a slightly altered portcullis emblem on his lecture slides. The two chains hanging either side of portcullis are now kinked instead of straight. It is not known whether the Lord Chamberlain is content with the change. A spokesperson told the Guardian that the palace was "aware of the issue", but it had a policy of not commenting on private correspondence between it and an individual.

Monckton is currently on a lecture tour of Australia discussing climate change. The tour has been dogged by venue cancellations after he referred to the Australian government's former climate advisor Prof Ross Garnaut as a fascist during a recent lecture in Los Angeles. Footage of the lecture also showed Monckton displaying a swastika next to one of Garnaut's quotes. Monckton later apologised for "having made the point I was trying to make in such a catastrophically stupid and offensive way".

To read the original: LINK

UKIP: Steve Allison on the NEC

A most interesting report!

Here are a few choice bits!

To be honest nothing of any great importance was discussed at the NEC, which is about par for the course. No papers were distributed in advance of the NEC so once again it was try to listen, read, understand and then make some useful input on the hoof. I personally am just not mentally nimble enough to do this. I am considering sending my apologies to the next NEC when no papers are circulated in advance since that will obviously mean nothing of any importance is on the agenda.

The main NEC was preceded by another Constitution Review Working Party. The draft of the constitution was at least circulated on the Friday so we had an opportunity to scan through it in advance. Unfortunately I didn’t really get the opportunity to do more than scan and so struggled to absorb and understand 18 pages of “notwithstanding” and “aforementioned clauses excepted” and other legal gobbledegook. The review meeting managed to get about half way through the third draft before it ran out of time.

Under matters arising, I gave a report on the Pan European Parties debate. The ballot papers have been printed and the fulfilment house is making up the packs this week. Ballots will be despatched to the members starting from Monday 18th July and votes need to be returned by 15th August.

The cost of preparing for the ballot has been £4,685.00 (based on an eligible voting membership of 15,519). The costs of actually receiving back and counting the returned ballots depends totally on the turn out. If we get one vote back then it will have cost £5,385.31 for that member to have his (or her) say. If we get 100% turn out then it will have cost £10,195.81 for the ballot. The actual amount will be somewhere between the two extremes! Junius says: No wonder UKIP is in the red!

Steve Crowther pointed out that the result of the ballot would be binding on all MEPs. Either all would join a P-EP or none would join. Gerard Batten, attending the NEC as one of the MEP Representatives (the other this time was Paul Nuttall) pointed out he would not join a P-EP that did not have a commitment to withdrawal in its articles. Junius says: And there was us thinking that Gerard would never join a PEP under ANY circumstances!

Nigel gave his leaders report. As per usual, nothing had been circulated in advance. Basically, all’s well with the world and things are going great. Junius says: Ouch!

Legal matters was its usual depressing report. Least said about it the better. Junius says: UKIP face ANOTHER day in court this week. Their costs could be in excess of £30,000. More on this later.

Jonathan Arnott has taken over the management of the introduction of the new membership database. He has only been doing this for a couple of weeks so is still getting to grips with the brief. I would have liked some form of written report and hopefully this will eventually be forthcoming. However, I’m not holding my breath! Junius says: Don't hold your breath. Jonathon 'frightened rabbit' Arnott is about as much use as a chocolate fireplace. If he had just one brain cell, he'd be dangerous.

John Bufton and David Bevan then addressed the NEC. The discussion was a little side tracked by a discussion on whether Wales had a regional organiser and if a dedicated campaign office was essential, (my view on that one is NO it isn't. UKIP spent £50,000 on a "Campaign Office" for the 2009 European Parliament Elections and any value for money analysis would, in my opinion, have concluded it was not money well spent.).

The Welsh discussion then further meandered off the point into a quite interesting exchange of views on UKIP’s position on an English Parliament. Ultimately, the Welsh Question could not be totally lost and the answer was that policy was indeed changed at the last minute and without reference to the Welsh Committee or indeed to the NEC.

The long-standing policy of abolish the Welsh Assembly was changed to one that, in my opinion, fudged the issue to adopt a more populist line which produced a basically reformist position rather than the clear cut abolish. This was justified on the grounds that a majority of those people who bothered to vote supported more powers for the assembly at the referendum which was held just a few days before the elections. UKIP therefore had no choice but to drop the abolish the assembly policy. Junius says: More twisted Farage logic. So as the Welsh voted for more devolution in the March referendum it would be undemocratic for UKIP to abolish the assembly? So what about the 1975 referendum? British people voted to stay in the EEC. Shouldn't UKIP then support continued EU membership using the result of that referendum as the basis for their argument?

This decision was taken by Nigel. As the UKIP Party Constitution currently stands he was totally within his rights and exercising powers he holds under the constitution. Indeed the Party Leader can adopt, amend or drop any policy he likes without any reference to anyone. He can consult IF he wishes to but is not obliged to take any notice of any advice he may receive. (This was the same reason UKIP supported AV. Nigel decided it was the way to go so that was UKIP's policy!)

The Welsh Committee may indeed feel they had their legs chopped from under them and may feel that UKIP should be seeking to abolish the assembly rather than just reform it. Being a reform party does bring UKIP into line with every other party in Wales so are they all wrong? However, the bottom line is that UKIP Policy is set by Nigel. He decided a more populist reform policy was preferable to an uncompromising abolitionist policy. That is the prerogative of the UKIP Party Leader and there is nothing UKIP Wales can do about it. Of course, if chasing populist votes is the name of the game then every other party in Wales supports the EU. So maybe UKIP Wales needs to change from withdrawal from the EU to reform the EU? Junius says: Confirmation that UKIP is a dictatorship under one man.

As usual, there was a lot of talk but very few or more accurately no real meaningful decisions taken. There is no NEC Meeting in August but I’m sure the Party will somehow manage to survive without our guiding hand. After all, if you look on page 18of your Independence News you will see a comprehensive listing of “Who’s Who in UKIP” and the NEC is conspicuous by its absence! Junius says: Why are you so surprised? Fuhrer Farage makes all the decisions! We did warn you!

Here is the full report:

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:47:09 +0100
From: steve.allison107@btinternet.com
To:
Subject: NEC DIGEST – July 2011

DISCLAIMER : You are receiving this e-mail as you have indicated in the past that you would like to be kept informed of my activities as a member of UKIP’s NEC. If you don’t wish to receive these e-mails please reply with “STOP” in the e-mail subject area. These observations are my personal comments and are not an official record of the NEC Meeting. A formal report and the summary minutes will eventually appear on UKIP’s Website. However, I am a great believer in transparency and so write this e-mail in that spirit but I do self censor these digests based on the following guidelines for deciding if something needs to be considered confidential. Regardless of how open I may wish to be I am not going to publish things that could cause problems later on.

1. Information relating to on-going or potential legal action;
2. Information of a personal nature relating to an individual;
3. Commercially sensitive information;
4. Information which could be considered privileged (eg advice of a solicitor or an accountant);
5. Information which could be used to disadvantage the party.

Hi everyone, sorry this digest is a little late but I just couldn’t summon up enthusiasm to type up my notes on the way home on Monday night. I put this down to the pint and a half I had in the Sherlock Homes before getting on the train and I have been very busy with my real life (visiting clients and earning money) since Monday. To be honest nothing of any great importance was discussed at the NEC, which is about par for the course. No papers were distributed in advance of the NEC so once again it was try to listen, read, understand and then make some useful input on the hoof. I personally am just not mentally nimble enough to do this. I am considering sending my apologies to the next NEC when no papers are circulated in advance since that will obviously mean nothing of any importance is on the agenda.

The main NEC was preceded by another Constitution Review Working Party. The draft of the constitution was at least circulated on the Friday so we had an opportunity to scan through it in advance. Unfortunately I didn’t really get the opportunity to do more than scan and so struggled to absorb and understand 18 pages of “notwithstanding” and “aforementioned clauses excepted” and other legal gobbledegook. The review meeting managed to get about half way through the third draft before it ran out of time.

There was some discussion over a clause that defined the NEC as the party’s Board of Directors and, after the Leader, the party's principal authority. The “after the leader” was vigorously contested by several of the working party and the agreement reached was that the NEC had to have final authority on all admin and financial matters and The leader would participate in these discussions as an equal member of the NEC. The NEC was also keen to maintain final authority over the party manifesto, but accepted in principle that the leader was responsible for the political direction of the party. This actually came up in the main NEC after lunch when the Welsh Assembly Elections were discussed. (More on this later).

The main NEC kicked off with apologies for absence. Michael Zuckerman was not present but it was explained that he considered his term of office expired in March and as he was not seeking re-election, he would not be attending any more NEC Meetings. Rachel Oxley was also absent but as the Chairman announced her resignation from the NEC it was not a surprise she was not at the meeting. The NEC wished both Michael and Rachel the best for the future and expressed their thanks for their service to the party. Rachel’s resignation means that there will be six vacancies on the NEC for election in September, not five as stated in the Independence News. Nominations open for the NEC next week and close in August. The candidates will get an opportunity to speak at the Conference and the vote will be by postal ballot after that.

Minutes of the last meeting went through more or less on the nod. I missed the last meeting so I could not really comment.

Under matters arising, I gave a report on the Pan European Parties debate. The ballot papers have been printed and the fulfilment house is making up the packs this week. Ballots will be despatched to the members starting from Monday 18th July and votes need to be returned by 15th August.

The cost of preparing for the ballot has been £4,685.00 (based on an eligible voting membership of 15,519). The costs of actually receiving back and counting the returned ballots depends totally on the turn out. If we get one vote back then it will have cost £5,385.31 for that member to have his (or her) say. If we get 100% turn out then it will have cost £10,195.81 for the ballot. The actual amount will be somewhere between the two extremes!

Steve Crowther pointed out that the result of the ballot would be binding on all MEPs. Either all would join a P-EP or none would join. Gerard Batten, attending the NEC as one of the MEP Representatives (the other this time was Paul Nuttall) pointed out he would not join a P-EP that did not have a commitment to withdrawal in its articles. Currently there is no P-EP that has such a commitment. It may be that in the event of a “YES” vote in the ballot then UKIP would need to set up its own P-EP in order to have such a commitment enshrined in the P-EP’s constitution.

Doug Denny then gave a brief report on Double nomination. This is sometghing I have been trying to push for a while and the NEC accepted the proposal to co-operate formally with residents' associations and local independents using the "dual candidate" route now available to registered political parties (NB Registered parties NOT individuals). If for example an organisation called "Hartlepool Independents" or “Hartlepool Residents” was registered with the Electoral Commission then UKIP could reach an agreement to field joint candidates. The ballot paper could say "Hartlepool Independent and UKIP Candidate" or “Hartlepool Residents and UK Independence Party Candidate” It costs £250 to register a political party and I’ve suggested to my branch committee that it might be a good move politically to get "Hartlepool Independents" or “Hartlepool Residents” registered and under our control. We could then maybe attract people to stand next May who are not going to join UKIP but who would like to join an “Independent” or “Residents” Party. At the very least, we should consider registering these names to deny them to others!

Nigel gave his leaders report. As per usual, nothing had been circulated in advance. Basically, all’s well with the world and things are going great. The Patrons’ Club continues to expand and the dinner that night was oversubscribed.

Chairman’s report covered the London Elections. Ten Candidates have declared for Mayor and an on-line “primary” is to be held. The names were not mentioned but I assume the London Committee are on top of this? Annual Conference in Eastbourne was mentioned. Nothing new really here apart from a suggestion that the EFD Group might use some of their budget to sponsor at least part of the conference. It was also pointed out that each individual MEP could use their allowances to have a stand at the conference show casing the work they do in their region.

A good idea really and one that would legitimately put EU/MEP money into the conference. Interesting to see how many MEPs take up this suggestion?

A new recruitment brochure was flashed in front of the NEC. This has been sent to the Regional Organisers for comment. It was not passed round to the NEC.

Legal matters was its usual depressing report. Least said about it the better

Finance showed we were in the red but not badly so. The cash flow looked worse than it was because all the costs for the conference were known but ticket sales had not yet started so that was making the situation look worse than it really was. The Deputy Treasure explained in his report that this was because the outgoings on the conference were definite items of expenditure we would be making but ticket sales were only a possible income we might be getting. So, prudence said we had to assume we wouldn’t sell any tickets until the money actually started to come in.

Jonathan Arnott has taken over the management of the introduction of the new membership database. He has only been doing this for a couple of weeks so is still getting to grips with the brief. I would have liked some form of written report and hopefully this will eventually be forthcoming. However, I’m not holding my breath!

John Bufton and David Bevan then addressed the NEC. The discussion was a little side tracked by a discussion on whether Wales had a regional organiser and if a dedicated campaign office was essential, (my view on that one is NO it isn't. UKIP spent £50,000 on a "Campaign Office" for the 2009 European Parliament Elections and any value for money analysis would, in my opinion, have concluded it was not money well spent.).

The Welsh discussion then further meandered off the point into a quite interesting exchange of views on UKIP’s position on an English Parliament. Ultimately, the Welsh Question could not be totally lost and the answer was that policy was indeed changed at the last minute and without reference to the Welsh Committee or indeed to the NEC.

The long-standing policy of abolish the Welsh Assembly was changed to one that, in my opinion, fudged the issue to adopt a more populist line which produced a basically reformist position rather than the clear cut abolish. This was justified on the grounds that a majority of those people who bothered to vote supported more powers for the assembly at the referendum which was held just a few days before the elections. UKIP therefore had no choice but to drop the abolish the assembly policy!

This decision was taken by Nigel. As the UKIP Party Constitution currently stands he was totally within his rights and exercising powers he holds under the constitution. Indeed the Party Leader can adopt, amend or drop any policy he likes without any reference to anyone. He can consult IF he wishes to but is not obliged to take any notice of any advice he may receive. (This was the same reason UKIP supported AV. Nigel decided it was the way to go so that was UKIP's policy!)

The Welsh Committee may indeed feel they had their legs chopped from under them and may feel that UKIP should be seeking to abolish the assembly rather than just reform it. Being a reform party does bring UKIP into line with every other party in Wales so are they all wrong? However, the bottom line is that UKIP Policy is set by Nigel. He decided a more populist reform policy was preferable to an uncompromising abolitionist policy. That is the prerogative of the UKIP Party Leader and there is nothing UKIP Wales can do about it. Of course, if chasing populist votes is the name of the game then every other party in Wales supports the EU. So maybe UKIP Wales needs to change from withdrawal from the EU to reform the EU?

There was some discussion on the MEPs code of conduct and the nine points it covered. Nothing really new was said. Basically the argument has now become circular and old ground is being re-hashed. The Code of Conduct signed by UKIP’s MEP Candidates is too weak and not enforceable. Stable doors and bolted horses come to mind. The lesson for next time needs to be learned and the document needs to clearly spell out what is expected.

The concept of “friends” groups was also discussed, as there is a request to recognise Hindu Friends of UKIP Group. As we have already recognised a UKIP Friends of Israel group, it makes it almost impossible to object to anyone who wants to attach the UKIP name to their own particular cause. Personally I would not officially recognise any “friends” groups as I consider them divisive and completely against UKIP’s supposed policy of not pandering to special interest groups. As it turn out the UKIP Friends of Israel have nearly a full page in the next issue of Independence News. Another dangerous precedent in my opinion. However, what do I know?

David Coburn made a brief presentation on why we should hold the 2012 spring conference in Gibraltar but as Steve Crowther informed the NEC that it was going to be in Skegness this made the whole discussion a bit pointless.

We were now running out of time. Nigel had already left to get ready for the Patrons’ Club pre-dinner drinks at 6.00pm and of course the important people on the NEC also needed to be getting over there promptly.

As usual, there was a lot of talk but very few or more accurately no real meaningful decisions taken. There is no NEC Meeting in August but I’m sure the Party will somehow manage to survive without our guiding hand. After all, if you look on page 18 of your Independence News you will see a comprehensive listing of “Who’s Who in UKIP” and the NEC is conspicuous by its absence!

As usual there were many things said that I have not covered but these are my high point recollections. There will be an official report by the Party Chairman posted on the Members forum in due course.

Rebranding UKIP: Nigel Farage & Andrew Constantine

Rebranding UKIP?

On January 29th 2011, Steve Uncles of the English Democrats wrote:

"Nigel Farage has commissioned a "Policy and Brand rethink", and has concluded that a proper English Parliament policy and the party name "English Independence Party" are a far more attractive to the voting public then UKIP ?

A UKIP relaunch is planned for the Spring Conference in 2011, as EIP (English Independence Party) and that Nigel Farage has paid in excess of £50,000 to Andrew Constantine for the English Independence Party name etc ."

On July 4th, a campaign for English Independence was launched. The campaign leader is Andrew Constantine. Constantine and one other name on the campaign website http://www.yestoei.org/ also appear as officers of the English Independence Party on the Electoral Commission website.

UKIP's position on an English Parliament was discussed by NEC members, and there was "an interesting exchange of views".

Interesting times!

UKIP Wales Chairman and Mike Nattrass slam Farage over Welsh Assembly betrayal

A very interesting series of emails concerning the Welsh Assembly. We share the concerns of Warwick Nicholson, UKIP Wales Chairman! More proof that Fuhrer Farage holds the membership in contempt! But was that ever in doubt? The membership are there to finance and serve the interests of Farage and his sycophants.

But is it so surprising that Farage supports regionisation? After all, he now supports Pan-European parties and wants his MEPs to join one! And Bloom is already in one! LINK

From: mike nattrass
Sent: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:22
Subject: FW: UKIP Wales Statement

I really do this we should all know about this ....... the demotivation of UKIP Wales..

Welsh legs were kicked away by Nigel prior to the election.... changing their policy .... please read (and the Mike quoted is not me)

Mike

MIKE NATTRASS MEP

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:04:17 +0100
From: plind.00@btopenworld.com
Subject: UKIP Wales Statement
To: mike.forthepound@btopenworld.com
CC: rich_glos@hotmail.co.uk; dannysparkes@blueyonder.co.uk; pamela708@btinternet.com; duncanrichardson@waitrose.com; bob_maceuk@yahoo.co.uk; stanleyparker66@hotmail.com; fathertone@hotmail.co.uk; steveroffey@live.co.uk; daryl.stanbury@live.co.uk; timcongdon@btinternet.com; Trevor.Colman@ukipsw.org

Thanks for this Mike. I was unaware of the change in party policy and am appalled. This is a major change of policy and ought to be the subject of a party-wide debate . How on earth did a party which I thought opposed regionalisation( which is a key strategy of our EU masters) come to fall in line with what Brussels wants?

Peter

--- On Thu, 14/7/11, MIKE SMITH wrote:


From: MIKE SMITH
Subject: Fw: UKIP Wales Statement
To: "TimCongdon" , "TrevorColman"
Cc: "RICHARDEDWARDS" , "DannySparkes" , "PamBateman" , "duncanrichardson" , "BobMace" , "StanParker" , "FatherTone" , "SteveRoffey" , "DarylStanbury" , "JuliaReid@aol.com" , "TobyMicklethwait" , "PeterLindsay"
Date: Thursday, 14 July, 2011, 11:41


Yet another reason why Farage must go.

Mike(apologies if you have received this directly.)

Keep UKIP Independent!
Say NO to P.E.Ps.
(Pan-European Parties)
Feel free to copy.


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: UKIP Wales Chairman
To: Hugh Moelwyn Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2011, 11:13
Subject: UKIP Wales Statement

Dear Chairman,

Please excuse me writing to you in this way, but it has come to our attention that some mis information has been circulating about UKIP Wales, and the events that led up to the recent Welsh Assembly Elections. We feel that it is important that everyone is clear what actually happened.

Since the inception of the Welsh Assembly - an EU inspired devolved Government, with the purpose of breaking the UK into regions - UKIP Wales has been opposed to it.

Initially, the Conservatives and UKIP were the only parties to oppose the Welsh Assembly, until the Conservatives decided they had been wrong all along, and grasped the concept whole heartedly (annoying a great deal of their membership in Wales).

In the 2007 Welsh Assembly Elections, only UKIP opposed the Assembly. UKIP Wales wanted to fight that election on a list only basis, allowing us to fully utilise the PR system for getting elected, but this was over ridden and we stood List and Constituency Candidates (we believe losing us seats).

It was agreed with the NEC in 2010, that this time around, we would fight List only seats - allowing us to focus our message clearly and also utilise the limited resources that we have.

10 days before the manifesto launch in Cardiff, Nigel Farage met with John Bufton, to inform him that the 12 year policy of opposing the Welsh Assembly and Regional Government was over, and that we would now no longer want the abolition of the Welsh Assembly.

This took the rug from beneath our feet, and removed the one clear difference between us and any of the other parties. Now, all of the parties in Wales were backing the Assembly.

In the S4C/YouGov Opinion Poll taken in March, 40% of Conservative Voters said that they wanted to Abolish the Assembly altogether.

17% of all those polled said they would Abolish the Assembly.

In the Referendum on further law making powers for the Welsh assembly, only 35.2% of people actually turned out to vote [Wales has a population of 3 million].

517,132 voted YES

297,380 voted NO

Hardly a ringing endorsement of 12 years of devolution, and clearly showing us that we could target those 297,380 voters - who had just lost a referendum.

On the 21st March, the Manifesto was given to UKIP Wales, with the first words - We will retain the Welsh Assembly.

On the 22nd, after negotiations, it was re worded to we will Renew the Welsh Assembly.

This was a matter of 7 days before the official Manifesto Launch in Cardiff. We were told that Nigel would explain this policy to the candidates in Cardiff the morning of the launch.

All of the candidates were opposed to the change in policy, and many felt that the last year's work - leading up to the referendum and Assembly Elections was now negated.

At the meeting, it was clear that this was the new policy, and it was not going to be changed, so either come with me or don't stand.

Bearing in mind the fact that all of the candidates had by now put a lot of their own money into the campaign, it was not an option to stand down, and the general feeling was, that we would have to make the most of it, and play down and completely skirt around the new policy, and hope that most people would believe that we were still opposed to the Assembly.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives and Labour immediately grasped hold of this change, and could not believe their luck. They made sure they informed their membership, and all who would listen.

It is important to point out here, that all of the candidates were opposed to the policy change. That once the election was over, at the first meeting of the Welsh Committee, the members of the committee unanimously voted the attached resolution, stating that UKIP Wales has reverted to the long standing policy of opposition to Regionalisation of the UK, and the break up of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland through the EU imposed Regional Assemblies. This new policy was not passed by or endorsed by the NEC either.

As members of UKIP - we joined the party, because we believe in Britain, and we want Britain to leave the EU. UKIP should in no way adopt the EU's policies or endorse them.

Sincerely

Warwick Nicholson
Chairman UKIP Wales

On behalf of the UKIP Wales Welsh Committee.

Keep UKIP Independent!
Say NO to P.E.Ps.
(Pan-European Parties)
Feel free to copy.