brian lee

The relevant clause 6.7 stated, 'Motions carried by a two-thirds majority of those voting become Party policy. Those carried only by a simple majority have only advisory force.'

This was the case when the matter was voted on at Conference. As Petrina says, it was listed as a debate, not a motion, but what is the difference unless you are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the members? Later if you recall when Nigel was ignoring Conference opinion, he told the press something like, ' In the cold light of day, the members would think differently'.

Page 6 of the December 2004 isue of Independence News reported, 'The conference was also addressed very professionally by Robert Kilroy-Silk, MEP,...And in the first major debate of the weekend, conference voted overwhelmingly to fight as many seats as possible at the General Election, irrespective of the views on Europe of the sitting MP.'

Needless to say it did not report that Farage and Nattrass were stuffed. Gerard as it happens put the contra opinion to Farage and Natrass. RKS if you recall also spoke against them and, to rapturous applause, said something like, 'I want to bury the Conservatives'.

But as someone has already said, we are now into the start of a new Millennium.

Tom Wilde

As this was a vote in 2004, presumably the General Election in question was the one held in 2005. Or do you think the vote was intended to tie the party's hands for all future general elections too? (This is not a rhetorical question!)

komerad

Unfortunately Bryn - I think more & more members are begining to agree with your last two sentences. As a matter of fact, I think your complete posting hits the nail on the head. The party has become a one man dictatorship. :cry: :cry:

Petrina

Tom Wilde is correct when he points out that the conference vote on the debate in question could only refer to the General Election which lay ahead not to all future elections .
The NEC is perfectly entitled to vote on how it intends to proceed in future elections .

Gerard`s resignation was clearly based on the fact that he could not support such an outcome .He has wrapped himself in the UKIP flag declaring that it is the will of the membership to fight every seat when he can`t possibly know if that is still the case .

Bryan Parry

I'm glad you took my post the right way. I added, "(imo, of course )" to let it be known I am not flaming. I'm a patriot, too, guys! I wanted to join UKIP aged 16. I couldn't, tho, as I didn't have a job, and consequently had no money to even sign up with. That all changed in 2003 when, aged 19, I got a job. I joined UKIP a few months later. I was a member for two years till earlier this year when I came to the conclusion that I just can't support UKIP presently. Not cos it's as bad as the Lib-Lab-Con, and not cos it isn't full of a bunch of great patriots, and not cos folks haven't achieved great things with UKIP, and not because UKIP hasn't had *some* kind of impact. The reason I cannot presently be a UKIP member, is that the party is increasingly out of touch (ironic, I know), and is, and in fact always has been, run by a small group of disgruntled erstwhile Tories.

To my mind, the reality of why UKIP isn't making the breakthrus it should is fairly simple. It isn't that the electoral system is rigged against small parties (which it is), and it isn't that the press and establishment are basically against UKIP (which is also basically true), it is rather something more fundamental; whilst we have gifted individuals within UKIP, the leaders of the party essentially don't have the standpoint/philosophy/background to turn us into a credible party. And I believe the reason for this is that the party is essentially run as a Disgruntled Former Tory Boy's Club, even tho this description is not fitting for the overwhelming majority of members.

Or to put it another way. To my mind, the ONLY significant breakthru we have EVER had, was 2004. Ya know, when Silky boy was around... now, I know, he is a total prannet, and that's undeniable. And yes, he DID let his ego get ahead of him (if he had been wise, he would have waited out Knappman). However, and whilst the reasons for our successes that year are complex and varied, it remains true that the ONLY time in our whole history when we have REALLY made a SERIOUS breakthru, the only time at all, was when Silky boy was at the helm. And when I say "at the helm", I mean metaphorically (of course he never lead the party.... quite contrary to the beliefs of a number of people I know, which itself says a lot, really....). Since then, we have slid back to where we were. Now, there will be those who proffer reasosn for why this is so. "Oh, we have made 1.251pc increase on our pre 2004 results", or whatever, but the fact is we took about ten steps forward, and then ten steps back. Why are we still struggling and essentially level-pegging (or worse) with the likes of the BNP or the Greens after 2004? IT is unacceptable and intolerable. Most Britons agree with the idea of British sovranty, so it wasn't like they were voting FOR Silky Boy. HOWEVER, Silk was an ENORMOUS asset, and he made UKIP, to use the media phrase, "sexy". UKIP is no longer sexy. UKIP is now as it always was but for that brief blip: a bunch of disgruntled tory-boys (at the top, at least, and the top is all the general public ever sees, and why not, since it is the top which sets the policies and all).

[EDIT] In short, I hope UKIP gets real, gets big, succeeds, and we free ourselves from the EU and become an ever more liberal nation. However, currently I don't think UKIP is at that point. As I said at a meeting at the London assembley after a speech of Silk's in 2004, to David Hockney and other members present afterwards, I really have no loyalty to UKIP. UKIP is simply a means to an end, a tool to achieve British Independence. The moment I believe UKIP is no longer the best tool to free Britain is the moment I leave UKIP. And thus I claim credit for planting the idea of Veritas in Hockney's mind...

prober

Ouch ! Bryan, why do you have to be so brutal in telling it how it is. The ridiculous thing is that this dispute is not even necessary until a general election is nearer , & has wasted time and energy when we are waiting to to see what the plan is for local elections. ( If UKIP still wants to bother with local elections after all )

kernow

I know it must stick in the "craw" of all the Nigel 'haters' who post on this forum, but UKIP has had more good publicity since Nigel won the leadership contest than at anytime since the 2004 Euro elections. Judging by some of the comments posted I think that a lot of you would sooner UKIP failed, rather than be a success under Nigels leadership!

Bryan Parry

I can only speak for me, and I explicitly state in my above post that I gladly would see UKIP succeed, whatever the leadership [the proviso being the values are stuck to].

under my rock

Hear Hear

I'll be sorry if Mr Batten has gone from the NEC. Is this an intermediate step to leaving UKIP alltogether? Three MEP's down and counting???

The statement regarding not standing against MP's who are signed up and active in BOO seems very sensible to me. The Eurosceptic movement needs to fight the real enemy not squabble amongst themselves. As far as I was aware the deal was for sitting MP's seeking re-election ONLY. The deal did NOT apply to Tory (or other Party) Candidates who were not sitting MP's. If a Candidate fighting a seat is signed up to BOO then they should be UKIP anyway.

Bryan Parry

This is true. However, and whilst I don't oppose this point of view, a certain reality must be borne in mind; the whipping system. Facts are facts, and the fact is MPs are frequently, and thoroly, whipped. Only the very most extremely extremely hardcore MPs don't bend to their leadership's will, and even then....