Leader of the UKIP accused of selling out - S.Times article.

Lawrie Boxall · 29-05-2007, 07:15 AM

Just to add something to what Barboo said earlier about the policy switch - as a newly elected NEC member in 2001 I can confirm that the NEC was not consulted about the change in advance.

I quickly learned that these decisions were taken by others and presented to the NEC as fait accompli. This one was no exception. The first we heard about it was when the election address leaflet was presented to the NEC including the referendum message, completely contrary at that time to UKIP policy. We were told that Sykes would pull his funding of the election campaign unless we agreed to the policy change. Amid much grumbling about the membership not liking it the NEC reluctantly accepted it. This was much as we did the initial negotiations with Sykes when we were asked to give NF and JT power to take decisions on our behalf. This would have been acceptable had we been given notice. As it was we were presented with the information that Sykes was in the building and we had 5 minutes to make a decision and take a vote.

In those days there was still much good will towards NF and we were usually prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. We also believed the money would make a massive difference to our campaign and that our single issue message about the EU would go down well with the voters. We were wrong.

Barboo · 29-05-2007, 01:56 PM

Lawrie Boxall wrote:

Quote:

The first we heard about it was when the election address leaflet was presented to the NEC including the referendum message, completely contrary at that time to UKIP policy. We were told that Sykes would pull his funding of the election campaign unless we agreed to the policy change. Amid much grumbling about the membership not liking it the NEC reluctantly accepted it.

It was a wrong decision, Lawrie, and the NEC failed in its duty by not vetoing the policy change. I realise it was extremely unlikely that UKIP would win enough seats to form a government but a party's manifesto and election address are the basis on which it solicits votes, regardless of the likelihood of it winning enough of them to put its promises into effect. Had UKIP by some miracle been able to form a government in 2001, its commitment to holding a referendum would have prevented it from immediately carrying out its principal constitutional aim of repealing the European Communities Act (1972). Had it held the referendum and lost, which was not unlikely considering the EU money that would have been pumped into the 'stay in' side, a UKIP government would have had either to break faith with the electorate by ignoring the referendum result, or by respecting the result break its own constitution's principal undertaking. I know the financial and other pressures were great, but by giving in to them the NEC proved its unfitness to govern either party or country.

Petrina · 29-05-2007, 02:58 PM

I wasn`t on the NEC at the time but I well remember all the mutterings from the membership about watering down our message and also about the wording of the posters .

It was morally wrong to have accepted Sykes dictating our policy but without his money and the poster campaign we would not have reached half so many people with any message .

Good to remeber these things and how they happened ,that it is why is better to have a number of large donors if possible .Don`t worry NF promised us a number of rich and influential backers ! No doubt once the move is over he can get back to concentrating on that .

eublues · 29-05-2007, 03:03 PM

The money was much needed, and the change in policy was for the good.

To promise withdrawal from the EU without a referendum made us for ever a single issue party (just like the Referendum Party had been) - we would have been going nowhere.

So the leaders did their job.

Barboo · 29-05-2007, 04:20 PM

Withdrawal from the EU was, and is, not only UKIP's principal aim but was 'specially protected' in the constitution of the time. Any other policy which acts as a bar or block to carrying out that principal aim must be unconstitutional. Those who favour a manifesto commitment to a referendum need only persuade UKIP members to approve dropping the principal aim from its constitution. It is patently absurd to demand 'let the people decide' regarding fundamental changes to Britain's constitution, whilst denying UKIP members the right to decide on fundamental changes to theirs.

Populist Lee · 29-05-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eublues

The money was much needed, and the change in policy was for the good.

To promise withdrawal from the EU without a referendum made us for ever a single issue party (just like the Referendum Party had been) - we would have been going nowhere.

So the leaders did their job.

And when UKIP does win a General Election, you'll be able to say "I told you so".

Incidentally, what is UKIP's current Policy on a Referendum/Withdrawal.

Populist Lee · 29-05-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Bennett

Populist Lee wrote:

QUOTE

Interesting post, Tony.

On the point about "holding a referendum". I think that change of tune by UKIP for the 2001 General Election was the point at which I realised UKIP could never win.

I understand you co-wrote the 2001 Manifesto with Aidan Rankin.

Who instructed you to change the committment of immediate EU withdrawal to "holding a Referendum"?

UNQUOTE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY:

Barboo has already part-answered this.

To which I would add:

1. I was on the 'Manifesto Committee' for the 2001 General Election. Other members, as I recall, were: Nigel Farage, Tony Scholefield, Craig Mackinlay, Damian Hockney and Jeffrey Titford, plus two or three others.

2. Aidan Rankin, formerly of Third Way, was pulled in at the last minute by Nigel Farage to join the Manifesto Committe and to draft a Manifesto. No-one could quite understand where he came from and why he was given the job.

He had been recommended to apply for a job with UKIP by fellow-homosexual Michael Gove, then a 'Times' journalist and now a Conservative Party MP. I know this because he told several of us.

After the General Election, he published an lengthy article in the 'Guardian' which included a scathing attack on UKIP as a bunch of right-wing racist nutters in which he compared joining UKIP, rather unsportingly, I felt, to (and I quote verbatim) 'engaging in rough trade' - something which of course he knew all about.

During the election campaign he refered to his sexuality in a letter to the 'Guardian' as 'a chap who likes chaps' and - while meant to be fighting William Hague for UKIP in the Ripon constituency - 'forgot' to submit his nomination papers in time, thus meaning that UKIP supporters were denied a candidate in that constituency.

Rankin, at a late stage in the campaign, wrote a very academic Manifesto which was difficult to follow in parts (a bit like an Oliver Letwin speech). Added to that, Rankin, Hockney and Mackinlay kept on trying to get the Manifesto to pitch UKIP as 'pro-gay' e.g. by committing UKIP to end all 'anti-gay discrimination' (e.g. backing gay marriage and gay adoption) - and there were endless arguments about that as we neared the election.

I did not take part in the final meetings and editing of the Manifesto, but I had drafted some sections of it and my name was left on because I had an M.A. and it looked good to the public, it was thought, to have someone with an M.A. having co-written the Manifesto.

3. Barboo has given an accuarte reference as to how the policy of holding a referendum was added to the Manifesto. Actually, I support that policy.

A. The proportion of people who support a referendum on our membership of the E.U is far higher (around 70% to 80%) than those who would vote for us to leave.

B. To offer a referendum sounds much more reasonable than 'Leave Now!' and would promote the party as more sensible and electable.

C. Am I not right in thinking that at the last General Election, UKIP's Manifesto proposed that Britain should start having referendums on all manner of issues? - as they do so successfully in prosperous Switzerland - if a minimum number or proportion of people demand one?

If so, that must in turn mean that it would also be appropriate to hold a referendum on 'in or out of Europe'. IMO that was one of the best features of UKIP's 2005 Manifesto. There's no better safeguard against the politicians running the country than allowing the people to make key decisions directly - examine how the system works in Switzerland. And remember that in 2000, they held a referendum on this question: 'Do you want to allow your governement to open negotiations for memberhsip of the E.U.?' It was defeated 78% to 22%.

D. I actually think we would *win* a referendum on 'in or out of Europe', or at least get so close that our membership of the E.U. would thereafter continue to remain such a contentious issue that eventually we would vote to leave

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for that.

Yes, the sudden appearance and behaviour of Rankin has been a puzzle to many people.

My own view about the EU is very clear.
Destroy the Damned thing asap.
That is not a common [or popular?] view, even on this Board.

But give the EU another ten years to work its stuff; and you'll see how differently people will regard it.

Politics shouldn't only be about short-termism.

T K Hipperdoodly · 29-05-2007, 07:07 PM

Aren't we drifting a bit off the main point? Farage has got himself into the papers for drunkenness, financial rumours about Ashford won't go away -and another call centre has opened up in Ramsgate. Now comes the news that he has signed UKIP up to a declaration endorsing subsidiarity and the CAP. He is a disaster as a leader. If UKIP are going to gain any credibility, they should ditch him. Te Lib Dems showed less mercy to Kennedy for a fraction of the misdemeanours NF has committed

Knapman has been right to make a stand - I hope he follows this up by calling for Farage to resign. If UKIP believe Britain can manage without the EU, but say (as some on tis forum seem to be) that it cannot survive without its current leader, then they have no hope of ever going anywhere. Farage is the biggest hindrance to the emergence of a strong, credible Euro-withdrawalist party.

Lawrie Boxall · 29-05-2007, 07:08 PM

The policy shift may have softened the message a little but don't kid yourself for a moment that it turned UKIP into anything other than a single issue party. It's arguable that UKIP is still even now a single issue party but if it claims not to be that anymore, then if there has been a change it is directly traceable to the actions of the Lechlade Group in 2006. The 2005 GE was certainly fought on exactly the same basis as the 2001 campaign; the one more heave triumph of hope over experience strategy focused entirely on the single issue. This was incredible considering that all the main players had witnessed it fail so miserably only 4 years earlier.

Note I am talking about the 2005 campaign here not the manifesto which no doubt was packed to overflowing with many awe inspiring policies.

But irrespective of how you view the policy of offering a referendum, and I am not saying how I view it, it was the way it was done, simply to appease Paul Sykes, that was wrong.

What I did not explain in my previous post was the timing of events. Having been told that Sykes's funding would mostly be in kind his companies immediately took over the production of the election address for how many was it 430 candidates I think. Days before we were ready to go to press with our election address we disbanded the team responsible for the leaflet, (myself, Aiden Rankin, Michael Harvey, John Harvey, Heather Coynigham from memory) and said sayonara to the printing companies we had lined up, and handed it over. It was several weeks later that we saw the policy change for the first time writ large across Sykes version of our leaflet. By then the clock had moved on to 5 minutes before midnight. The choice we had was therefore one of sticking to our principles by telling Sykes to take a hike - oh and leaving 430 candidates without any of the promised leaflets - or accepting we had been well and truly stuffed and trying to make the best of it.

What a way to run an organisation! Perhaps surprisingly not one NEC member resigned over it that I recall although many were unhappy. We had all seen that previous incumbants had resigned before their seats had got warm and we did not want to throw the party back into chaos. Neither did JT, who had brought such stability after the open warfare of the 2000 EGM, wish anyone to go at that crucial time. I will say in my case however that I had had enough of wasting my time on the NEC within 24 months of being elected (by then RK had taken over), and because I new I could achieve much more in my constituency I walked away with one year of my 3 year term still to go.

Tony Bennett · 29-05-2007, 07:13 PM

REFERENDUMS

This is an extract from UKIP's 2005 General Election Manifesto on the subject of referendums (and it's still on UKIP's website):

QUOTE

Our democratic system of government has not, however, prevented our political leaders from transferring powers to the European Union. To provide some protection from this misuse of office by professional politicians and to restore some confidence in our democratic process we believe there is a place for an additional safeguard. In line with the agreement by our present government to call a referendum on the EU’s Constitutional treaty, the UK Independence Party proposes that referendums may be held whenever there is sufficient popular support:

If, during a period of 6 months, 5% of the national electorate signs a petition demanding a referendum on any matter of policy, then the government is obliged to hold such a referendum and be bound by its result (note 12).

UNQUOTE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It must follow from that, that UKIP would agree to a referendum on 'in or out of the European Union'. Incidentally, 5% of the national electorate would be, I think, just under 2 million, roughly the number that signed the anti-road pricing petition.

I agree with UKIP's policy on referendums 100%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29-05-2007, 07:07 PM	#98 (permalink)
T K Hipperdoodly Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 19	Leader of the UKIP accused of selling out - S.Times article. Aren't we drifting a bit off the main point? Farage has got himself into the papers for drunkenness, financial rumours about Ashford won't go away -and another call centre has opened up in Ramsgate. Now comes the news that he has signed UKIP up to a declaration endorsing subsidiarity and the CAP. He is a disaster as a leader. If UKIP are going to gain any credibility, they should ditch him. Te Lib Dems showed less mercy to Kennedy for a fraction of the misdemeanours NF has committed Knapman has been right to make a stand - I hope he follows this up by calling for Farage to resign. If UKIP believe Britain can manage without the EU, but say (as some on tis forum seem to be) that it cannot survive without its current leader, then they have no hope of ever going anywhere. Farage is the biggest hindrance to the emergence of a strong, credible Euro-withdrawalist party.

29-05-2007, 07:13 PM	#100 (permalink)
Tony Bennett Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 778	UKIP on referendums REFERENDUMS This is an extract from UKIP's 2005 General Election Manifesto on the subject of referendums (and it's still on UKIP's website): QUOTE Our democratic system of government has not, however, prevented our political leaders from transferring powers to the European Union. To provide some protection from this misuse of office by professional politicians and to restore some confidence in our democratic process we believe there is a place for an additional safeguard. In line with the agreement by our present government to call a referendum on the EU’s Constitutional treaty, the UK Independence Party proposes that referendums may be held whenever there is sufficient popular support: If, during a period of 6 months, 5% of the national electorate signs a petition demanding a referendum on any matter of policy, then the government is obliged to hold such a referendum and be bound by its result (note 12). UNQUOTE ------------------------------------------------------------------------- It must follow from that, that UKIP would agree to a referendum on 'in or out of the European Union'. Incidentally, 5% of the national electorate would be, I think, just under 2 million, roughly the number that signed the anti-road pricing petition. I agree with UKIP's policy on referendums 100% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

29-05-2007, 07:15 AM	#91 (permalink)
Lawrie Boxall Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sandhurst Posts: 1,015	Just to add something to what Barboo said earlier about the policy switch - as a newly elected NEC member in 2001 I can confirm that the NEC was not consulted about the change in advance. I quickly learned that these decisions were taken by others and presented to the NEC as fait accompli. This one was no exception. The first we heard about it was when the election address leaflet was presented to the NEC including the referendum message, completely contrary at that time to UKIP policy. We were told that Sykes would pull his funding of the election campaign unless we agreed to the policy change. Amid much grumbling about the membership not liking it the NEC reluctantly accepted it. This was much as we did the initial negotiations with Sykes when we were asked to give NF and JT power to take decisions on our behalf. This would have been acceptable had we been given notice. As it was we were presented with the information that Sykes was in the building and we had 5 minutes to make a decision and take a vote. In those days there was still much good will towards NF and we were usually prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. We also believed the money would make a massive difference to our campaign and that our single issue message about the EU would go down well with the voters. We were wrong.

29-05-2007, 02:58 PM	#93 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 942	I wasn`t on the NEC at the time but I well remember all the mutterings from the membership about watering down our message and also about the wording of the posters . It was morally wrong to have accepted Sykes dictating our policy but without his money and the poster campaign we would not have reached half so many people with any message . Good to remeber these things and how they happened ,that it is why is better to have a number of large donors if possible .Don`t worry NF promised us a number of rich and influential backers ! No doubt once the move is over he can get back to concentrating on that .

29-05-2007, 03:03 PM	#94 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,970	The money was much needed, and the change in policy was for the good. To promise withdrawal from the EU without a referendum made us for ever a single issue party (just like the Referendum Party had been) - we would have been going nowhere. So the leaders did their job.

29-05-2007, 04:20 PM	#95 (permalink)
Barboo Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 354	Withdrawal from the EU was, and is, not only UKIP's principal aim but was 'specially protected' in the constitution of the time. Any other policy which acts as a bar or block to carrying out that principal aim must be unconstitutional. Those who favour a manifesto commitment to a referendum need only persuade UKIP members to approve dropping the principal aim from its constitution. It is patently absurd to demand 'let the people decide' regarding fundamental changes to Britain's constitution, whilst denying UKIP members the right to decide on fundamental changes to theirs.

29-05-2007, 07:08 PM	#99 (permalink)
Lawrie Boxall Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sandhurst Posts: 1,015	The policy shift may have softened the message a little but don't kid yourself for a moment that it turned UKIP into anything other than a single issue party. It's arguable that UKIP is still even now a single issue party but if it claims not to be that anymore, then if there has been a change it is directly traceable to the actions of the Lechlade Group in 2006. The 2005 GE was certainly fought on exactly the same basis as the 2001 campaign; the one more heave triumph of hope over experience strategy focused entirely on the single issue. This was incredible considering that all the main players had witnessed it fail so miserably only 4 years earlier. Note I am talking about the 2005 campaign here not the manifesto which no doubt was packed to overflowing with many awe inspiring policies. But irrespective of how you view the policy of offering a referendum, and I am not saying how I view it, it was the way it was done, simply to appease Paul Sykes, that was wrong. What I did not explain in my previous post was the timing of events. Having been told that Sykes's funding would mostly be in kind his companies immediately took over the production of the election address for how many was it 430 candidates I think. Days before we were ready to go to press with our election address we disbanded the team responsible for the leaflet, (myself, Aiden Rankin, Michael Harvey, John Harvey, Heather Coynigham from memory) and said sayonara to the printing companies we had lined up, and handed it over. It was several weeks later that we saw the policy change for the first time writ large across Sykes version of our leaflet. By then the clock had moved on to 5 minutes before midnight. The choice we had was therefore one of sticking to our principles by telling Sykes to take a hike - oh and leaving 430 candidates without any of the promised leaflets - or accepting we had been well and truly stuffed and trying to make the best of it. What a way to run an organisation! Perhaps surprisingly not one NEC member resigned over it that I recall although many were unhappy. We had all seen that previous incumbants had resigned before their seats had got warm and we did not want to throw the party back into chaos. Neither did JT, who had brought such stability after the open warfare of the 2000 EGM, wish anyone to go at that crucial time. I will say in my case however that I had had enough of wasting my time on the NEC within 24 months of being elected (by then RK had taken over), and because I new I could achieve much more in my constituency I walked away with one year of my 3 year term still to go.