Gerard Battens statement

TomPhil · 16-02-2005, 10:22 PM

Kilroy had no right to any leadership position. He should have been greatful to have been offered any position. The positions that he was offered, according to Batten at least, even if they would not have given him total control of the party, would most certainly have given him a great deal of control in the party. How can he turn his nose up at these and snub them as if they are an insult? The leadership is elected; nobody ever elected him. The leadership have a democratic right to run the party. He doesn't. He knew that when he joined; he cannot now make claims the UKIP acted unfairly towards him because we would not comply with all his demands. It was UKIP who got him elected to the European Parliament, UKIP who offered him key positions in the party when they didn't have to. Who the hell gave him the impression that he had any right to any position of power? Who the hell does he think he is?!

(And UKIP were completely right not to offer him any positions of power if they didn't; look at what a complete lunatic, maverick and non-team-player he turned out to be.)

--

Count the Cost of EU Membership

mkpdavies · 16-02-2005, 10:28 PM

Thats a cool little program there Tom. Like the counting the cost of the Iraq war thing I have seen a few times.

Scares you more when you see it racking up like that!

Lawrie Boxall · 18-02-2005, 07:32 AM

You make some understandable points Tom but I don't think you can see the bigger picture. Of course Kilroy had no god given right to demand anything. Neither do I - apart that is for an expectation of sound reasoning and professional management from the leadership. What we get instead is the creation of mythical hate figures to be purged from the ranks. We should also be able to expect support and encouragement from our colleagues and the building of trust, not the selective leaking to the press to undermine us.
I have worked closely with the current leadership, which happens to be the same as the old leadership, and observed first hand how obstructive they are to new ideas, and how paranoid they are about people more able and talented than themslves. They are inward looking and defensive rather than outward looking and inclusive. The incident with Kilroy was very instructive. That is the best you can expect from them and the very best people that UKIP needs will be turned away. If this carries on UKIP will end up as a party of pygmies rather than giants.
Btw - Roger was not elected.

Paul Birch · 18-02-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrie Boxall

Btw - Roger was not elected.

Sure he was. He was elected unopposed.

Bluemerle · 18-02-2005, 11:59 AM

Roger stated on The Politics Show that nobody else wanted the job when he took it.

mkpdavies · 18-02-2005, 12:08 PM

This was one of the things that annoyed me about the argument from certain quarters that Knapman was unelected. The bottom line is people pulled out to give him a free run. They didn't have to do that, but they did and then moaned that he was unelected later on.

There are some deviosus people on this planet, but thankfully we seem to have lost most of them from UKIP now!

Paul Birch · 18-02-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

This was one of the things that annoyed me about the argument from certain quarters that Knapman was unelected. The bottom line is people pulled out to give him a free run. They didn't have to do that, but they did and then moaned that he was unelected later on.

When no one stands against a candidate that is what is known as an unopposed election. As members of a political party seeking election for its candidates we ought all to understand what election means! It does not mean voting. A vote is needed only in contested elections. The main alternative to election is appointment or cooption (often used between elections or when no one stands for election). Since others could have stood against him had they wished, Knapman was elected, not appointed or coopted.

Lawrie Boxall · 21-02-2005, 07:44 AM

OK so I'm a pedant. I just did not want anyone to think that Roger was elected in the normal sense. He inherited the position from Jeffrey Titford.
Roger was very smart - he got virtually the whole NEC to sign his nomination form before anyone else got started. Damian Hockney, the only other serious contender, chose not to stand as it appeared the NEC was endorsing Roger - which it was.
I agreed at that time that an election would be a waste of time. I thought Roger would be a welcome balance to the overwhelming influence that Nigel exerted at that time. Remember he was one of only 3 MEPs and by far the most influential. Unfortunately the opposite happened and NIgel's influence has grown stronger than ever under Roger.
Btw - Ian Gilman, mentioned elsewhere on this forum, was another leadership candidate. He was persuaded to stand down.

Paul Birch · 21-02-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrie Boxall

OK so I'm a pedant. I just did not want anyone to think that Roger was elected in the normal sense. He inherited the position from Jeffrey Titford.

Not a pedant - [SNIPPED]. Knapman was elected in the normal sense - the sense that also applies to parliamentary and local elections in this country. He stood unopposed in an open election. No one stood against him in the election, even though they were fully at liberty to do so, because of the very high level of support he was believed to have. He was the only candidate, even though there had been other prospective candidates. He did not "inherit" the position, for that would falsely imply that Titford made the decision. He was elected.

Edited to add: I object strongly to my post's having been censored. Boxall has displayed his woeful ignorance of a matter crucial to party politics, a matter of fundamental knowledge to anyone in his position - the nature of an election. That means that he is factually an ignorant person. The term for that is an ignoramus. I could be wrong, of course; he may understand it all well enough, and simply be lying, as part of a vendetta against Knapman. But I do not accuse him of that.

Tom Wilde · 21-02-2005, 11:43 AM

I thought at the time and still think now that there should have been a contested election. Please note that I am not blaming Roger Knapman for this omission. As you say, other candidates were free to stand against him and chose not to. But the fact that the election was uncontested meant that the ordinary members were denied a choice, and that always backfires in the end.

So who is to blame? This is a rather unconstructive question and I don't see much benefit in dwelling on it at length. Basically, anyone who could have stood for the leadership and chose not to do so - whether or not they had a realistic chance of being elected - is to blame. In that case all who were UKIP members or supporters at the time are in a sense to blame - including me!

16-02-2005, 10:22 PM	#11 (permalink)
TomPhil Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stockport Posts: 498 Party: UKIP	Kilroy had no right to any leadership position. He should have been greatful to have been offered any position. The positions that he was offered, according to Batten at least, even if they would not have given him total control of the party, would most certainly have given him a great deal of control in the party. How can he turn his nose up at these and snub them as if they are an insult? The leadership is elected; nobody ever elected him. The leadership have a democratic right to run the party. He doesn't. He knew that when he joined; he cannot now make claims the UKIP acted unfairly towards him because we would not comply with all his demands. It was UKIP who got him elected to the European Parliament, UKIP who offered him key positions in the party when they didn't have to. Who the hell gave him the impression that he had any right to any position of power? Who the hell does he think he is?! (And UKIP were completely right not to offer him any positions of power if they didn't; look at what a complete lunatic, maverick and non-team-player he turned out to be.) -- Count the Cost of EU Membership __________________ "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." In Labour we trusted and now we are busted... again. It's the economy, stupid.

16-02-2005, 10:28 PM	#12 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	Thats a cool little program there Tom. Like the counting the cost of the Iraq war thing I have seen a few times. Scares you more when you see it racking up like that! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

18-02-2005, 12:08 PM	#16 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	This was one of the things that annoyed me about the argument from certain quarters that Knapman was unelected. The bottom line is people pulled out to give him a free run. They didn't have to do that, but they did and then moaned that he was unelected later on. There are some deviosus people on this planet, but thankfully we seem to have lost most of them from UKIP now! __________________ 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

18-02-2005, 07:32 AM	#13 (permalink)
Lawrie Boxall Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sandhurst Posts: 1,015	You make some understandable points Tom but I don't think you can see the bigger picture. Of course Kilroy had no god given right to demand anything. Neither do I - apart that is for an expectation of sound reasoning and professional management from the leadership. What we get instead is the creation of mythical hate figures to be purged from the ranks. We should also be able to expect support and encouragement from our colleagues and the building of trust, not the selective leaking to the press to undermine us. I have worked closely with the current leadership, which happens to be the same as the old leadership, and observed first hand how obstructive they are to new ideas, and how paranoid they are about people more able and talented than themslves. They are inward looking and defensive rather than outward looking and inclusive. The incident with Kilroy was very instructive. That is the best you can expect from them and the very best people that UKIP needs will be turned away. If this carries on UKIP will end up as a party of pygmies rather than giants. Btw - Roger was not elected.

18-02-2005, 11:59 AM	#15 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	Roger stated on The Politics Show that nobody else wanted the job when he took it.

21-02-2005, 07:44 AM	#18 (permalink)
Lawrie Boxall Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sandhurst Posts: 1,015	OK so I'm a pedant. I just did not want anyone to think that Roger was elected in the normal sense. He inherited the position from Jeffrey Titford. Roger was very smart - he got virtually the whole NEC to sign his nomination form before anyone else got started. Damian Hockney, the only other serious contender, chose not to stand as it appeared the NEC was endorsing Roger - which it was. I agreed at that time that an election would be a waste of time. I thought Roger would be a welcome balance to the overwhelming influence that Nigel exerted at that time. Remember he was one of only 3 MEPs and by far the most influential. Unfortunately the opposite happened and NIgel's influence has grown stronger than ever under Roger. Btw - Ian Gilman, mentioned elsewhere on this forum, was another leadership candidate. He was persuaded to stand down.

21-02-2005, 11:43 AM	#20 (permalink)
Tom Wilde Moderator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: London. Posts: 2,776	I thought at the time and still think now that there should have been a contested election. Please note that I am not blaming Roger Knapman for this omission. As you say, other candidates were free to stand against him and chose not to. But the fact that the election was uncontested meant that the ordinary members were denied a choice, and that always backfires in the end. So who is to blame? This is a rather unconstructive question and I don't see much benefit in dwelling on it at length. Basically, anyone who could have stood for the leadership and chose not to do so - whether or not they had a realistic chance of being elected - is to blame. In that case all who were UKIP members or supporters at the time are in a sense to blame - including me!