Mark Croucher

OK, here goes.

First, the MA newsletter leaves the party open to a charge of contempt of court: there is an injunction which prevents publication of the legal arguments surrounding Ashley Mote's case, as has been discussed here previously.

Second, the by-election supporters club is an excellent idea, but run as a private club within a club, it leaves UKIP open to potential breaches of the PPERA. Also, I have been unable to find anyone in authority within the party who knows anything about it - a simple phone call ahead of the publication of the last Independence would have gained it official status, publicity in Independence, and a considerable sum of cash for Livingston, where it was desperately needed. It's all very well coming up with bright ideas, but to then not disseminate them would seem diametrically opposed to the objectives of an MA.

Third, the original MA leaflet made claims which it simply could not substantiate. The policy forums, in so far as ideas belong to anyone, was completely unconnected with the MA. The fact that MA members belong to it is incidental. SearchUKIP was authorised many months ago, as was YouthKIP.

Fourth, as several others have pointed out in this thread, MA's, like Reform UKIP before it, have a habit of creating havoc and chaos. Many of the arguments seem identical to those of Hockney and co, while the more intemperate MA members are clearly itching to create just that sort of scrap - if you doubt it, take a look at some of their comments.

Fifth, a political party is a members association by definition. An MA along the lines of those touted is effectively a party within a party, with alternative manifestos, fund-raising, membership lists etc.

Sixth, there is a concerted effort going on within the official UKIP structure to accelerate those with political ability INTO phpbb_more prominent positions: Anthony is one of the first beneficiaries of this. The whole MA thing is perilously close to de-railing this process, particularly Anthony's involvement so visibly and so soon after being given a high profile post. The leaflet caused a major row at senior level, and caused me considerable grief personally.

Seventh, it was my decision to withdraw the table from the MA at conference. While it might look like a huge conspiracy, in actual fact it was simply rather busy the week before conference, hence the timing. It was nothing to do with Nigel, although it is fair to say that he doesn't like the idea of the MA any more than I do. On the specific point, it is simply not possible to allow an unofficial group which uses UKIP's logo to hand out literature without the appearance of some form of official sanction, and this the MA conspicuously lacks: it has never even bothered to attempt to gain it. This was exactly how Hockney and his fellow band of troublemakers began.

There is always a route for good ideas within the party to be adopted, in some cases very rapidly. If you don't know where to go with them, then phone me, and, assuming you can convince me of the possibilities within the confines of existing resources, I will do everything I can to make them happen. My number is 0207-222-9365. If I think the idea sucks goats, then I'll either sit on it or, more likely, tell you so - I'm not noted for my subtlety. If it's good, I'll make it happen. Will the originator of the idea get credit for it? Maybe, maybe not, it depends; as long as the party and the country benefits, who cares? You'll note I've got this far without claiming credit for the policy forums, even though it was me who dreamt them up and made them happen, and me who insisted that Anthony was the man for the job. I don't say this because I want everyone to clap me on the back and say how wonderful (or more likely, not) I am, but simply to demonstrate that it doesn't matter who dreamt it up: it's not about gaining personal plaudits for heaven's sake, we're a political party, not a glee club.

There are currently a whole raft of good initiatives designed to modernise the party which have already been announced: policy forums, opportunity knocks, etc etc. There are many more which are in the preparation stage. I fully intend to push for an official by-election supporters club, and plug it in the next Independence. It will happen. The difference between the MA's and the official one is that the offical one will be advertised to 25,000 people, not 42.

While it may seem less daunting to float ideas within an MA, the party is open to them, and I've done my best to push these ideas more widely within UKIP. Independence has been opened up to the membership for precisely that purpose. If you've read it, you will have seen the new columns which will appear soon with precisely that in mind. Would anyone care to guess how many submissions I've had for the 'What UKIP needs is.....' column? 1. How about the policy discussion column, 'the case for'? 0. So where are they, guys? If we're brimming over with good ideas, and want to help the party, why not put pen to paper and try it the proper way through official channels?

So, yes, it was my responsibility that the MA had its table cancelled. And no, I don't like the idea of an MA. But contrary to what would appear popular belief, it is not a huge conspiracy by a mythical 'cabal'. It is because the MA appears to have been slung together in haste, it's poorly thought out, it hasn't even attempted to get it's either its best ideas or the MA as a whole officially sanctioned, it's left UKIP open to legal action, it's made claims which at best are unsubstantiated about it's own actions, and it is eerily reminiscent of past days. Reform UKIP was a mixture of decent, forward looking members and disgruntled troublemakers whose gripe was that the party had not recognised their personal brilliance. That they were brilliant is reflected in the blinding success they made of Vanitas.

You may not like the answer, but there it is.

Best regards,

Mark