Statement: UKIP/Veritas & the London Assembly

mkpdavies · 02-06-2005, 05:50 PM

I could stomach Hulme-Cross and any of the regular members.

The rest of the Veritas Leadership are posion best left out of UKIP.

Nigel Garage · 02-06-2005, 05:54 PM

From politics.co.uk -

Quote:

UKIP and Veritas in name row
Thursday, 02 Jun 2005 16:06

The ongoing conflict between UKIP and Veritas is showing no signs of ending after a row erupted over the naming of a London Assembly group.

Last week, the Veritas group in the London Assembly decided to change its name to Veritas-UKIP.

Its two London Assembly members were originally elected under the UKIP ticket, but chose to join Robert Kilroy-Silk when he broke away from UKIP to found Veritas.

Both groups suffered disappointment in the general election and failed to win a single seat.

Speaking last week, Assembly members Damian Hockney and Peter Hulme Cross said the "obvious conclusion" from the election was that "it makes no sense for UKIP and Veritas to be in competition for the same votes.

"It is also clear from discussions with both UKIP and Veritas members in London and elsewhere that the vast majority agree that the two parties should co-operate wherever possible. Problems at leadership level should not be allowed to disrupt good relations at local level."

As such, they said it was "in the best interests of both parties and more importantly our cause" to rename the group Veritas-UKIP to "enable both parties to gain the credibility that elected office brings."

But today, UKIP issued a furious press statement saying it would be raising the "improper use" of its name with both the London Assembly and the Electoral Commission.

UKIP said the name change "was done with neither authorisation by nor the knowledge of the U.K. Independence Party."

A spokesperson for Veritas-UKIP told politics.co.uk that the assertion was "very strange", claiming that the two parties had been in discussion about the group incorporating UKIP in its name since before the election and this was the "compromise" that had been reached.

He also entirely rejected UKIP's claim that the Mr Hockney and Mr Hulme-Cross had recently approached UKIP about the possibility of leaving Veritas and rejoining UKIP.

http://www.politics.co.uk/party-politics/ukip-and-veritas-in-name-row-$8652029.htm

Anthony Butcher · 02-06-2005, 05:57 PM

I appreciate the sentiment of cooperation, but that is very different to the apparent merging and association that the new name suggests.

mkpdavies · 02-06-2005, 06:18 PM

It's like asking Julius Caesar to cooperate with the Roman senate just after they have put a blade in his back.

Neocon · 02-06-2005, 09:20 PM

As I mentioned in another post a day or two ago, Peter Hulme-Cross lists membership of UKIP on his standing entry of members' interests at the London Assembly, yet everything else ("Veritas-UKIP" group and so on) is up to date. This is all getting too confusing!

Intbel · 02-06-2005, 09:39 PM

And I'm still not certain that re UKIP, RKS was not a paid Labour plant.

Anthony Butcher · 02-06-2005, 11:37 PM

It would appear that the Veritas members aren't too happy about the situation either:

http://veritas.netfreehost.com/viewt...mforum=veritas

http://veritas.netfreehost.com/viewt...mforum=veritas

So what are the possibilities here?

1) Veritas leadership has offered an olive branch.

2) Hockney has acted on his own to try and get back in with UKIP.

3) Hockney has acted on his own to try to destroy what is left of Veritas.

4) UKIP has cunningly set Hockney up to make him look like a traitor to Veritas.

5) There is a genuine misunderstanding, and Hockney was acting in good faith.

Have I missed any possible explanations?

Intbel · 03-06-2005, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Have I missed any possible explanations?

Yep.

B.A.Ware · 03-06-2005, 01:09 AM

When I first read this post I thought I must take time out to consider the options, I did not want to take the stance of !!Stuff em!! It is a childish attitude and achieves nothing. So here is my opinion. All of you people that have slated Damien Hockney you obviously know all of the facts as to why he did what he did (Judge Jury and Executioner) unlike me all I know is that he has given many good years to ukip and stood aside for Roger to be leader. Now I’m not saying he was right but I can honestly say if this leadership carried on the way they have I probably would leave and join another party. I have heard on this forum that people want Roger to step down because he is not good enough to lead us INTO phpbb_the next election and Im sure there were similar problems prior to most of us getting involved in ukip.
But the hypocrisy of letting Peter rejoin is absolutely unbelievable, basically I hate Damien but it really wasn’t peters fault. Poor old peter he didn’t know what he was doing Pathetic.
I think this is just certain people reeking revenge and not thinking what is best for the party, this is a perfect time to have an amnesty and bring everyone back on board.

Anthony Butcher · 03-06-2005, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intbel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Have I missed any possible explanations?

Yep.

Come on then! Or should I have said "any likely explanations"?

02-06-2005, 05:50 PM	#21 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,102 Party: Libertarian Party	I could stomach Hulme-Cross and any of the regular members. The rest of the Veritas Leadership are posion best left out of UKIP. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

02-06-2005, 06:18 PM	#24 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,102 Party: Libertarian Party	It's like asking Julius Caesar to cooperate with the Roman senate just after they have put a blade in his back. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

02-06-2005, 09:39 PM	#26 (permalink)
Intbel Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In a field near you - look for the yellow and purple tent ... Posts: 4,665	And I'm still not certain that re UKIP, RKS was not a paid Labour plant. __________________ We are all free to choose - every step of the way - no exceptions.

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

02-06-2005, 05:57 PM	#23 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,192 Party: None	I appreciate the sentiment of cooperation, but that is very different to the apparent merging and association that the new name suggests.

02-06-2005, 09:20 PM	#25 (permalink)
Neocon Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 95	As I mentioned in another post a day or two ago, Peter Hulme-Cross lists membership of UKIP on his standing entry of members' interests at the London Assembly, yet everything else ("Veritas-UKIP" group and so on) is up to date. This is all getting too confusing!

02-06-2005, 11:37 PM	#27 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,192 Party: None	It would appear that the Veritas members aren't too happy about the situation either: http://veritas.netfreehost.com/viewt...mforum=veritas http://veritas.netfreehost.com/viewt...mforum=veritas So what are the possibilities here? 1) Veritas leadership has offered an olive branch. 2) Hockney has acted on his own to try and get back in with UKIP. 3) Hockney has acted on his own to try to destroy what is left of Veritas. 4) UKIP has cunningly set Hockney up to make him look like a traitor to Veritas. 5) There is a genuine misunderstanding, and Hockney was acting in good faith. Have I missed any possible explanations?

03-06-2005, 01:09 AM	#29 (permalink)
B.A.Ware Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Birmingham Posts: 4,629 Party: UKIP	When I first read this post I thought I must take time out to consider the options, I did not want to take the stance of !!Stuff em!! It is a childish attitude and achieves nothing. So here is my opinion. All of you people that have slated Damien Hockney you obviously know all of the facts as to why he did what he did (Judge Jury and Executioner) unlike me all I know is that he has given many good years to ukip and stood aside for Roger to be leader. Now I’m not saying he was right but I can honestly say if this leadership carried on the way they have I probably would leave and join another party. I have heard on this forum that people want Roger to step down because he is not good enough to lead us INTO phpbb_the next election and Im sure there were similar problems prior to most of us getting involved in ukip. But the hypocrisy of letting Peter rejoin is absolutely unbelievable, basically I hate Damien but it really wasn’t peters fault. Poor old peter he didn’t know what he was doing Pathetic. I think this is just certain people reeking revenge and not thinking what is best for the party, this is a perfect time to have an amnesty and bring everyone back on board.