Leadership battle is going to court

Johnny Hates Jazz · 07-12-2004, 02:39 PM

Dear mkpdavies

I totally agree, that if RKS has the support of the majority of the UKIP membership, then yes, he should 'tough it out' however you seem to forget that time is not on the side of RKS.

As the UKIP NC have decided to go the 'legal route' then this will cost RKS a minimum of £20 K in legal costs plus risk him up to £20 K (other parties legal costs) if he lost, plus the whole process could take months.

Thus taking us past the next General Election.

RKS has a golden opportunity now - not after the next General Election.

I would suggest that RKS will simply take the more direct route, by either starting his own party, or joining another party, or joining a consortium of other parties - a substantional proportion of UKIP members will move over to whatever RKS is leading.

If RKS become the leader of UKIP tomorrow, I would probably join UKIP myself, and encourage the English Democrats to merge with UKIP, mainly because RKS has not only got the same views on Euorpe as I have, but also because he has made encouraging remarks about England, and an English Parliament.

However this is not going to happen - and we will simply be left with UKIP led by the same old crew.

Interesting times

mkpdavies · 07-12-2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

mkpd: Your branch chairman is taking the members acquiescence for granted?

To be honest, I have not been to a Woking branch meeting yet. I am trying to get more involved now, so he may well have taken a show of hands at a meeting. He didn't poll me by phone or post though.

Nigel Garage · 07-12-2004, 03:24 PM

Time for me to clear up a few things -

Anthony Butcher, the constitutional changes were deliberately made to make it infinitely more difficult to hold an EGM. If Kilroy sticks to those rules it will be a prolonged, bloody process which will damage the party further and take us closer to the General election. They were also brought in against the party constitution, as set out in the solicitor's letter. That's why he wants it done under the proper original rules.

For example, the party says there are 200-odd branches, the Electoral Commission say there are 47 fewer. And many of the branches on both lists are no longer in operation. So how many is 20%?
The party constitution says any constitutional change must be agreed by a 2/3 majority of the NEC. But what the NEC voted on was different to what the party members voted on and was subsequently adopted. So the changes were not agreed by the NEC.
The party's Standing Order Committee is supposed to approve any constitutional changes. They never approved these ones.
There are many other reasons, but I can't be bothered to type them all!

MKPD, Quentin Williamson is Knapman's assistant. He has no party position and is not the party spokesman on anything. I'm guessing Michael Harvey didn't ask you because RKS was trying to operate under the original legitimate rules, by which only the branch committee have to vote for an EGM rather than the whole branch.

Anthony Butcher · 07-12-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

the constitutional changes were deliberately made to make it infinitely more difficult to hold an EGM

That would seem likely, and the membership voted in favour of those changes. I don't think that this was challenged at the time.

Quote:

If Kilroy sticks to those rules it will be a prolonged, bloody process which will damage the party further and take us closer to the General election

There aren't any other rules to stick to, unfortunately. Some of the branches have indeed held their local EGMs, so why haven't they all?

There has been more than enough time for concerned branches to hold a local EGM. Changing the constitution will not speed up the affair one bit; in fact it will simply mean that we have to wait for a legal ruling.

Quote:

They were also brought in against the party constitution, as set out in the solicitor's letter. That's why he wants it done under the proper original rules.

I have heard this argument. However, what RKS has done is submit a motion before properly challenging the constitution. Until the constitutional issue is settled, the NEC can do nothing but stick with the current version. Hence, I can't see any other motive than the desire to see their motion rejected publicly.

I ask again, can you offer any other explanation why an improper motion was submitted?

Quote:

For example, the party says there are 200-odd branches, the Electoral Commission say there are 47 fewer. And many of the branches on both lists are no longer in operation. So how many is 20%?

As I understand it, there are 233 branches, not all yet registered with the commission. Therefore 47 branches are required for an EGM. RKS claims to have 51, so what is the problem?

Quote:

I'm guessing Michael Harvey didn't ask you because RKS was trying to operate under the original legitimate rules, by which only the branch committee have to vote for an EGM rather than the whole branch.

That's very weak.

As I said, I am not taking sides in this. But what we have is RKS fighting two battles at once. The fact that he feels it is necessary to fight the constitution (that has remained unchallenged since it was voted in), rather than sticking to the rules perhaps says a lot about the level of support that he has.

I may be wrong, but it suggests that the movement is too weak to get enough support to force a party EGM properly.

mkpdavies · 07-12-2004, 03:52 PM

The good news is Woking Branch is having its social meeting tonight at the Red Lion Inn, Horsell. I am hoping to see Mr Harvey and have a chat about various things. He has been with UKIP a long time and does have the parties interests at heart.

It just gauls me that this whole affair is taking all members eye off the real goal, and I hope it does become, as some people suggest, 1 step back to take 10 forwards.

Nigel Garage · 07-12-2004, 04:04 PM

Quote:

That would seem likely, and the membership voted in favour of those changes. I don't think that this was challenged at the time

It was sold to the membership as merely a 'tidying up exercise'. Where have we heard that before? It was challenged at the time, but the concerns were ignored.

Quote:

There aren't any other rules to stick to, unfortunately. Some of the branches have indeed held their local EGMs, so why haven't they all?

There has been more than enough time for concerned branches to hold a local EGM. Changing the constitution will not speed up the affair one bit; in fact it will simply mean that we have to wait for a legal ruling.

Come on AB, you know the way UKIP is. Some branches are large and active, some are one man and his dog, some need 6 weeks to organise an EGM, some even longer. You can't agree that the rules were changed to make it harder, then say 'it's perfectly simple, why haven't they done it?'

Quote:

However, what RKS has done is submit a motion before properly challenging the constitution. Until the constitutional issue is settled, the NEC can do nothing but stick with the current version

He submitted a motion at the same time as challenging the constitution. The NEC has the perfectly honourable option of accepting the bona fides of the legal challenge and holding an EGM for the good of the party.

Quote:

As I understand it, there are 233 branches, not all yet registered with the commission. Therefore 47 branches are required for an EGM. RKS claims to have 51, so what is the problem?

If they're not registered with the commission then they're not proper branches. There's no problem with him having the numbers, but it's another reason why the constitutional change was unreasonable and unworkable.

Quote:

That's very weak.

How? Seems perfectly legitimate to me, especially as time is of the essence.

Anthony Butcher · 07-12-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Garage

Some branches are large and active, some are one man and his dog, some need 6 weeks to organise an EGM, some even longer

But they have had that. RKS declared his desire to be party leader at the conference. They only have to give 21 days notice for a local EGM.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Garage

The NEC has the perfectly honourable option of accepting the bona fides of the legal challenge and holding an EGM for the good of the party.

Do they? I would say that they don't. Surely the NEC have to stick to the current rules. They don't have the authority to overrule the constitution. as I understand it.

All I am saying is that they have had the time to call all of the necessary branch EGMs and they claim to have more than enough branches on side. Why on earth are they messing around with the party constitution instead of just getting on with a proper application?

Nigel Garage · 07-12-2004, 05:05 PM

Well, from what I hear things are changing. EGMs are being called as we speak. Other things are afoot also. Drastic things...

jp · 07-12-2004, 10:27 PM

Hi mpkd - after your evening out, have you any more info on this subject?

cynic · 13-12-2004, 06:01 PM

This is from the Western Morning News:

Quote:

"UKIP Leaders don’t need this"

Kate Ironside - Western Morning News
It’s tragic, really. Robert Kilroy-Silk could have been one of the UKIP’s most formidable campaign weapons. Instead, he is proving a first-class liability.
UKIP leader Roger Knapman must rue the day that his path ever crossed that of the former chat show host. The idea that Mr Celebrity has been trawling round the West Country drumming up support for a putative leadership bid must be galling and , frankly, my heart goes out to Mr Knapman.
Now Roger knows that I disagree with him profoundly about Europe, but I would be the first to say that he is a decent, sincere and hard-working man who has seen UKIP go from strength to strength under his command. He has served UKIP well and it must be infuriating to keep opening the papers and finding articles full of Kilroy-Silk outbursts deriding the 'little-known' Knapman for his policy vacuums and lack of leadership in general.
If this shabby little contest continues, it will undermine all the good work that has been done under Mr Knapman’s leadership to propel the party from a fringe player INTO phpbb_one snapping at the big guys’ heels. Anyone listening to the barrage of bile from Mr Kilroy-Silk would come away with the impression that the only reason that UKIP commands any voter support at all is because of his indispensable presence and that he and he alone can save this intellectually defunct party from its apparent headlong dive onto the rocks. This is total rot - the product of Mr Kilroy-Silk’s over-inflated sense of his own importance.

There is no doubt that the former chat show host did help attract voters to the party at the last Euro elections when he himself was elected as a UKIP MEP, but I beg to suggest that the majority of people who backed the party in June would have done so whether Kilroy was campaigning for UKIP or the Monster Raving Loony Party. They were voting for the cause, not for the chat show host. Moreover, they were voting for UKIP not because Mr Kilroy-Silk had spent the last five minutes promoting it, but because of the diligent, steady, stolid campaign work put in over the years by UKIP activists under Mr Knapman’s leadership.
The principal credit for the party’s quadrupling of its contingent of MEPs belongs to the existing leadership and the grass-roots, not Mr Kilroy-Silk and his personal assistants. As for the TV star’s denunciation of the party’s lack of preparedness for next year’s General Election, that really takes the biscuit. It would be arguably considerably more prepared if the leadership did not have to spend so much time defending itself against his onslaughts, double-checking with the grass roots that they are still on board the Knapman ship.
Mr Kilroy-Silk’s claims that the party doesn’t have any policies for the general election campaign is simply mischief-making. UKIP can produce as many detailed policies as it likes, but the only policy that matters is its already well-established pledge to pull Britain out of the E.U. That is it’s intellectual appeal to the voters. You might agree with it or disagree with it, but unless you passionately back that core policy, no manifesto of glittering promises on everything from wheelie bins to flights to the moon, will make you change your mind.
The pity from a UKIP perspective, is that Kilroy was potentially a huge bonus to the party. The smooth, suave television star was just the sort of celebrity a small party like UKIP likes to help it hold its own in the full flood of an election campaign. Last June in the EU elections, Mr Kilroy-Silk was able to command media attention with a click of his fingers and, for the brief moments he was on message, exploited it effortlessly on UKIP’s behalf. During that campaign he was worth his weight in, if not gold, then certainly in silk, to party strategists keen to convert popular support INTO phpbb_concrete electoral gains.
But the partnership was only ever going to work if Mr Kilroy-Silk was willing to remain a team player. He wasn’t.
The celebrations of the June result were still in full flush when the first reports of Kilroy’s leadership ambitions landed deftly on the newspaper pages. Although, Heseltine-like, they were denied, the reports were true. The partnership became unworkable, and by October Kilroy had severed his ties with the other MEPs, jumping before he was pushed. Ever since then he has been openly mobilising grass roots support for his leadership bid.
Activists attracted to his banner might do well to remember that Kilroy is a one-man show. But the whole point about UKIP is that it is not a one-man party.

07-12-2004, 03:52 PM	#25 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,843 Party: Libertarian Party	The good news is Woking Branch is having its social meeting tonight at the Red Lion Inn, Horsell. I am hoping to see Mr Harvey and have a chat about various things. He has been with UKIP a long time and does have the parties interests at heart. It just gauls me that this whole affair is taking all members eye off the real goal, and I hope it does become, as some people suggest, 1 step back to take 10 forwards. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-12-2004, 02:39 PM	#21 (permalink)
Johnny Hates Jazz Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,973 Party: English Democrats	Dear mkpdavies I totally agree, that if RKS has the support of the majority of the UKIP membership, then yes, he should 'tough it out' however you seem to forget that time is not on the side of RKS. As the UKIP NC have decided to go the 'legal route' then this will cost RKS a minimum of £20 K in legal costs plus risk him up to £20 K (other parties legal costs) if he lost, plus the whole process could take months. Thus taking us past the next General Election. RKS has a golden opportunity now - not after the next General Election. I would suggest that RKS will simply take the more direct route, by either starting his own party, or joining another party, or joining a consortium of other parties - a substantional proportion of UKIP members will move over to whatever RKS is leading. If RKS become the leader of UKIP tomorrow, I would probably join UKIP myself, and encourage the English Democrats to merge with UKIP, mainly because RKS has not only got the same views on Euorpe as I have, but also because he has made encouraging remarks about England, and an English Parliament. However this is not going to happen - and we will simply be left with UKIP led by the same old crew. Interesting times

07-12-2004, 03:24 PM	#23 (permalink)
Nigel Garage Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ashford Posts: 557	Time for me to clear up a few things - Anthony Butcher, the constitutional changes were deliberately made to make it infinitely more difficult to hold an EGM. If Kilroy sticks to those rules it will be a prolonged, bloody process which will damage the party further and take us closer to the General election. They were also brought in against the party constitution, as set out in the solicitor's letter. That's why he wants it done under the proper original rules. For example, the party says there are 200-odd branches, the Electoral Commission say there are 47 fewer. And many of the branches on both lists are no longer in operation. So how many is 20%? The party constitution says any constitutional change must be agreed by a 2/3 majority of the NEC. But what the NEC voted on was different to what the party members voted on and was subsequently adopted. So the changes were not agreed by the NEC. The party's Standing Order Committee is supposed to approve any constitutional changes. They never approved these ones. There are many other reasons, but I can't be bothered to type them all! MKPD, Quentin Williamson is Knapman's assistant. He has no party position and is not the party spokesman on anything. I'm guessing Michael Harvey didn't ask you because RKS was trying to operate under the original legitimate rules, by which only the branch committee have to vote for an EGM rather than the whole branch.

07-12-2004, 05:05 PM	#28 (permalink)
Nigel Garage Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ashford Posts: 557	Well, from what I hear things are changing. EGMs are being called as we speak. Other things are afoot also. Drastic things...

07-12-2004, 10:27 PM	#29 (permalink)
jp Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,000	Hi mpkd - after your evening out, have you any more info on this subject?