A message from the Party Secretary

Anthony Butcher · 09-12-2004, 11:50 AM

http://www.ukip.org/abc_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=1139

Quote:

As Members may already be aware, on 29 November 2004 the Party Secretary received an email from Michael Harvey containing a schedule of some 50 constitutency association and branch chairmen petitioning for an Extraordinary Conference under 6.10 of the Party Constitution. The business to be put to that EC would be that

"This Extraordinary Conference (EGM) has no confidence in the Party Leader."

Mr Harvey made it clear that the petition was being submitted under the wording of 6.10 that applied before the text was amended by a 4 to 1 majority vote in favour by the Party membership in March of this year. He said that lawyers consulted by Damien Hockney had taken the view that the wording of the amendment submitted to the membership was invalid because it was not identical to that originally drafted at a meeting of the National Executive Committee.

After taking legal advice, the Party Secretary took the view that the aforesaid amendment to 6.10 of the Constitution was valid. He accordingly rejected the petition as not being in conformity with it.

It is also clear that the petition as submitted complies with neither the previous nor the present wording of 6.10 because there is no evidence that the constituency association and branch chairmen have properly consulted the membership of their repective branches through branch Extraordinary General Meetings. There may also be some discrepancies in the schedule of branch chairmen, the actual signatures of which have not been seen by the Party Secretary.

Finally, legal opinion has also been received to the effect that, on the basis of the present wording of Party Constitution 8.3, there is no certainty that an Extraordinary Conference would trigger a leadership election. Until the petitioning Party can obtain a declaration to that effect from the appropriate court, it would be unreasonable to contemplate subjecting the Party to the expense and circumstance of calling an Extraordinary Conference.

Tony Stone

Party Secretary

Nigel Garage · 09-12-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

He said that lawyers consulted by Damien Hockney had taken the view that the wording of the amendment submitted to the membership was invalid because it was not identical to that originally drafted at a meeting of the National Executive Committee

No, that was only one of a number of reasons why it was invalid. He should also know how to spell Damian's name by now.

Quote:

After taking legal advice

Which he refused to disclose to the NEC, saying he left it at home and he couldn't even remember the name of the lawyer!

Quote:

there is no evidence that the constituency association and branch chairmen have properly consulted the membership of their repective branches through branch Extraordinary General Meetings

Because that is not required under the original constitution. I think he means 'respective'.

Quote:

There may also be some discrepancies in the schedule of branch chairmen, the actual signatures of which have not been seen by the Party Secretary.

Lame. All he has to do is ask!

Quote:

Finally, legal opinion has also been received

Again, he refuses to say from whom, even when asked. 'Legal opinion' could mean anything.

Quote:

there is no certainty that an Extraordinary Conference would trigger a leadership election.

This is the most shameful bit. He's saying that even if the membership voted for a no confidence motion, the party leader might refuse to hold a leadership election!

When Mrs Thatcher had a leadership election, she won it but resigned because her majority wasn't big enough to retain her party's confidence. When John Major came under fire he resigned his leadership and challenged his critics to 'put up or shut up'. Now Roger Knapman says, even if the members pass a motion of no confidence in him, he won't take any notice!

Tom Wilde · 09-12-2004, 01:26 PM

Quote:

This is the most shameful bit. He's saying that even if the membership voted for a no confidence motion, the party leader might refuse to hold a leadership election!

That is a willfully perverse interpretation. A much more obvious interpretation would be that even if there were an Extraordinary Conference, it might vote against rather than for a leadership election. I don't personally think that is very likely, but plainly that is what is meant here.

Nigel Garage · 09-12-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Wilde

Quote:

This is the most shameful bit. He's saying that even if the membership voted for a no confidence motion, the party leader might refuse to hold a leadership election!

That is a willfully perverse interpretation. A much more obvious interpretation would be that even if there were an Extraordinary Conference, it might vote against rather than for a leadership election. I don't personally think that is very likely, but plainly that is what is meant here.

Read the letter again. He says he may not have to hold an election "Until the petitioning Party can obtain a declaration to that effect from the appropriate court" You don't need a legal declaration if the members have voted against having an election!

This is shameful.

algypug · 09-12-2004, 01:44 PM

i thought, Anthony, you didn't want any more leadership waffle ? And this is clearly waffle. It is another example of the leadership hiding behing constitutional gobbledygook. Why doesnt the leadership extract its head from the sand, and face up to what is happening ? Their inaction, indecision, and intransigence are now beginning to have a dire effect on the grass roots. To quote a most famous politician, this leadership has been here too long for any good they've been doing!

Tom Wilde · 09-12-2004, 02:35 PM

Alrighty, then. The Party Secretary's letter says:

Quote:

Finally, legal opinion has also been received to the effect that, on the basis of the present wording of Party Constitution 8.3, there is no certainty that an Extraordinary Conference would trigger a leadership election. Until the petitioning Party can obtain a declaration to that effect from the appropriate court, it would be unreasonable to contemplate subjecting the Party to the expense and circumstance of calling an Extraordinary Conference.

Here is the relevant paragraph from the Party Constitution:

Quote:

8.3 The Party leader shall be elected by a postal ballot of all paid up members of the Party. His normal term of office shall be four years, but this term may be extended if its expiry would otherwise fall in the year of a general election. A leadership election shall be called in the event of the leader's death, incapacity or resignation; on the passing of a vote of no confidence in the leader by the Party conference; on the passing of a vote of no confidence by the NEC if this is endorsed by an Emergency General Meeting of the Party; and on the leader's completion of his term of office. Nominations for the post of Party leader shall require the signature of a proposer and 20 assentors, all paid up members of the Party, drawn from at least four different constituency associations or branches. They must be submitted in writing to the Party Secretary within the time specified by him. A leader wishing to resign must communicate this decision in writing to the secretary to the NEC, who must then summon an emergency meeting of the NEC.

Note particularly this sentence:

Quote:

A leadership election shall be called in the event of the leader's death, incapacity or resignation; on the passing of a vote of no confidence in the leader by the Party conference; on the passing of a vote of no confidence by the NEC if this is endorsed by an Emergency General Meeting of the Party; and on the leader's completion of his term of office.

Now, an Extraordinary Conference called under Para. 6.10 is the Party Conference. Therefore it has the power under 8.3 to pass a vote of no confidence in the leader, if those present choose to do so. In that case, according to 8.3, "A leadership election shall be called". I find it hard to imagine that the Party Secretary has received legal opinion to the contrary, as the meaning of the paragraph seems very clear.

The only ground I can imagine for contesting this interpretation would be to say that the Extraordinary Conference is somehow not a Party Conference and therefore doesn't have the power described for Party Conference in 8.3. However, Para 6.10, setting the conditions for an Emergency Conference, is in section 6, which is headed Party Conference. Therefore I think the only interpretation possible, is that the Extraordinary Conference is indeed a full Party Conference with all the powers of a Party Conference, including the power to hold a vote of no confidence.

Nigel Garage · 09-12-2004, 02:38 PM

Thankyou! That's exactly what I think, Tom! So why does Stone say there wouldn't be an election "until the petitioning Party can obtain a declaration to that effect from the appropriate court"???

Tom Wilde · 09-12-2004, 03:19 PM

No idea - he seems to me to be plain wrong. However, the final paragraph of his letter is irrelevant if no Extraordinary Meeting has been called because the requirements of Para 6.10 haven't been met.

Why didn't the RKS campaign simply make the effort to meet the requirements of that paragraph? It might have taken a little longer but it wasn't impossible. I don't think you can shortcut the constitution and it is irresponsible to try.

jp · 09-12-2004, 04:26 PM

All this legalese and exact meanings of subsection whatever is redolent of the worst of old politics. Can anybody envisage a situation where a leadership challenge will not come about eventually?

Good leadership would recognise that and bring the issue to the test ASAP.

Biscuitman · 09-12-2004, 05:56 PM

What I find really disapointing in all this, forget the legal arguements for or against, there is obviously a strong feeling within the party that we should have a leadership election.

Arguing the toss over the wording of the constitution etc is not going to make that support go away. The poll of branch chairman is as valid as the poll the NEC did a month ago to gather support for Roger. That means both are invalid - Chairman cannot speak for the whole of a branches membership.

I wasn't contcted by the way but, having received a copy of the motion from another branch, polled my committee to get their view. The committee may or may not have represented the wishes of the total membership but at least it was a broader view than just being my choice.

We then sent the result to both parties concerned.

We cannot go INTO phpbb_an election campaign with this continuing. If the arguement goes on to the end of January then I will be standing down as a candidate and closing the branch.

I see no point in putting up £4,500 for our three candidates and everyone spending a total of 1,000 hours delivering our election leaflets, never miond this series of cards when with a leadership dispute going on we will have absolutely no chance of being taken seriously by the electorate.

I say this with a heavy heart as we all know that we will be enslaved to the EU if we don't withdraw and without UKIP to fight there is nobody.

When the leadership row first blew up I e-mailed both parties concerned and said that the sign of a great leader would be which one of them could reach a compromise to accomodate the other. Also, that if neither of them could do so or was willing to do so then they would both have demonstrated their unfitness to lead the party.

I believe in that statement more strongly now, neither of the protagonists is willing to set aside personal ego for the sake of the party.

On the one side we have RK-S who has been made the very generous offer of leading the election campaign, with all the kudos that goes with it, as a victor- because with this set aside we will win seats for sure - he would then be asked by almost everybody to take the leadership.

On the otherside we have RK and the NEC. I have stuck with the principal that Roger's the man with the badge and thats how it must remain. But, for him and his supporters to remain intransigent and ignore the rank and file feeling has to be equally as damaging as RK-S.

They argue correctly that we don't have the time frame or finance to pay for the proceedures that have to be followed. But this is no excuse. Roger can save us both by standing down and putting himself back up for election.

But as I have said, neither of them is fit for the job.

09-12-2004, 05:56 PM	#10 (permalink)
Biscuitman Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 3,486	What I find really disapointing in all this, forget the legal arguements for or against, there is obviously a strong feeling within the party that we should have a leadership election. Arguing the toss over the wording of the constitution etc is not going to make that support go away. The poll of branch chairman is as valid as the poll the NEC did a month ago to gather support for Roger. That means both are invalid - Chairman cannot speak for the whole of a branches membership. I wasn't contcted by the way but, having received a copy of the motion from another branch, polled my committee to get their view. The committee may or may not have represented the wishes of the total membership but at least it was a broader view than just being my choice. We then sent the result to both parties concerned. We cannot go INTO phpbb_an election campaign with this continuing. If the arguement goes on to the end of January then I will be standing down as a candidate and closing the branch. I see no point in putting up £4,500 for our three candidates and everyone spending a total of 1,000 hours delivering our election leaflets, never miond this series of cards when with a leadership dispute going on we will have absolutely no chance of being taken seriously by the electorate. I say this with a heavy heart as we all know that we will be enslaved to the EU if we don't withdraw and without UKIP to fight there is nobody. When the leadership row first blew up I e-mailed both parties concerned and said that the sign of a great leader would be which one of them could reach a compromise to accomodate the other. Also, that if neither of them could do so or was willing to do so then they would both have demonstrated their unfitness to lead the party. I believe in that statement more strongly now, neither of the protagonists is willing to set aside personal ego for the sake of the party. On the one side we have RK-S who has been made the very generous offer of leading the election campaign, with all the kudos that goes with it, as a victor- because with this set aside we will win seats for sure - he would then be asked by almost everybody to take the leadership. On the otherside we have RK and the NEC. I have stuck with the principal that Roger's the man with the badge and thats how it must remain. But, for him and his supporters to remain intransigent and ignore the rank and file feeling has to be equally as damaging as RK-S. They argue correctly that we don't have the time frame or finance to pay for the proceedures that have to be followed. But this is no excuse. Roger can save us both by standing down and putting himself back up for election. But as I have said, neither of them is fit for the job. __________________ IF THE EU WAS THE ANSWER, IT MUST HAVE BEEN A STUPID QUESTION!

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

09-12-2004, 01:44 PM	#5 (permalink)
algypug Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 254	i thought, Anthony, you didn't want any more leadership waffle ? And this is clearly waffle. It is another example of the leadership hiding behing constitutional gobbledygook. Why doesnt the leadership extract its head from the sand, and face up to what is happening ? Their inaction, indecision, and intransigence are now beginning to have a dire effect on the grass roots. To quote a most famous politician, this leadership has been here too long for any good they've been doing!

09-12-2004, 02:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
Nigel Garage Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ashford Posts: 557	Thankyou! That's exactly what I think, Tom! So why does Stone say there wouldn't be an election "until the petitioning Party can obtain a declaration to that effect from the appropriate court"???

09-12-2004, 03:19 PM	#8 (permalink)
Tom Wilde Moderator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: London. Posts: 2,891	No idea - he seems to me to be plain wrong. However, the final paragraph of his letter is irrelevant if no Extraordinary Meeting has been called because the requirements of Para 6.10 haven't been met. Why didn't the RKS campaign simply make the effort to meet the requirements of that paragraph? It might have taken a little longer but it wasn't impossible. I don't think you can shortcut the constitution and it is irresponsible to try.

09-12-2004, 04:26 PM	#9 (permalink)
jp Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,000	All this legalese and exact meanings of subsection whatever is redolent of the worst of old politics. Can anybody envisage a situation where a leadership challenge will not come about eventually? Good leadership would recognise that and bring the issue to the test ASAP.