Grassroots letters & reply

Anthony Butcher · 16-11-2007, 06:25 PM

Although this has been posted before, the new thread includes the reply and further response:

Quote:

Dear Nigel
GRASSROOTS MEMBERS CONFERENCE
On the 4 Nov 2007 a grassroots member’s conference took place at Bournemouth, it was also attended by 3 of your NEC members. The purpose of the conference was to give a platform to the membership to discuss current party issues and policy; this free speech platform is not provided at the present UKIP party conferences because the motions are subjected to a filter process.
Most members expect the party to be directed by a bottom up methodology, not top down, which it now appears to be. There is an increasing consensus by the membership that UKIP is becoming a party without direction, single issue and lacking voter appeal.
Below are the motions and voting results from the Bournemouth conference. We submit these for your consideration for incorporation as official party policy. We hope that you see this process as one of democratic and positive engagement with the membership, rather than viewing it as a negative development.
We would also like your support for the party to employ a forensic accountant to audit the UKIP, Ashford call centre and SE Regional accounts. You will doubtless be aware that there is general feeling of grave dissatisfaction within the membership about the transparency of UKIP's accounts, with wild rumours circulating which are causing the party to be undermined. This matter will continue to fester unless it is addressed.
An overdue demonstration of financial probity will not only show that our accounting system is transparent but it will bring great benefit by establishing confidence in the accounts and the various beneficiaries thereof. That in turn will encourage a resumption of donations from those who question the expenditure of monies which, in the SE Regional Accounts for example, are described away as merely 'other costs'. There is no reason why UKIP should not conduct its financial affairs with the integrity and standards common in any public company.
We request that you reply with your decision on all the individual motions and the use of a forensic accountant by no later than midnight 19 November 2007.
Regards

David Abbott
Denis Brookes
John Galloway
Petrina Holdsworth
Geoffrey Kingscott
Steve Povey

Anthony Butcher · 16-11-2007, 06:26 PM

Copy of Nigel Farages's Reply

Quote:

Dear Mr Galloway

I can only assume that you did not attend the annual UKIP Conference: not only were members invited to join in debates on policy, but there were also open, question-and-answer sessions. At one point, we had a vociferous protester, who was allowed the platform and the microphone.

As you well know, our accounts have all been professionally audited, and Marta Andreasen is now our Treasurer.
Good luck with your new party.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Farage posted 16 Nov 2007

Anthony Butcher · 16-11-2007, 06:26 PM

Second open letter to Nigel Farage

Quote:

Dear Mr Farage,

Thank you for your prompt reply to our letter.

We had many comments from members of UKIP after our meeting in Bournemouth to the effect that it was like "a breath of fresh air " because they could say what they wanted to about a number of topics.
Not one person mentioned to any of us that they had been able to put their points of view over at the UKIP Conference although many of them had attended.
As you well know the atmosphere of the Annual Conference with the Press in attendance is not conducive to free debate and only the hardiest of characters is likely to come forward.
You may like to consider a gathering such as our own, chaired by someone who is not part of the management structure to see what the real grass-roots concerns are.

Turning to our request for you to consider the motions passed, we do not appear to have received any response to this request and we await your opinions on them.

We understand that you had already been informed of the content of the conference by David Abbott and Jill Seymour at the NEC meeting on the following Monday.

The question of the accounts has been specifically included in our letter because UKIP`s previous accounting practices have been the subject of negative comments, both within the party and in the press in spite of the fact that the accounts had been passed by auditors.
There were many comments from the floor at our meeting as to the lack of proper system ,lack of paper trails ,and the general lack of transparency and detail. One speaker called the accounts a "running sore".
An independent forensic audit giving a clean bill of health would give UKIP a fresh start. Any faults in the systems could also be immediately addressed.

You mention the appointment of Martha Andreasen as Treasurer. We are delighted to note that someone of Martha Andreasen`s stature has been asked to be UKIP`s first paid Treasurer. Her primary role would be to look at any future accounts .

It is however unfortunate that she does not appear to qualify to join the Party as a Full Member (restricted to UK Citizens and Resident Foreign Nationals under the UKIP Constitution) as apparently she is not UK citizen and is resident in Spain, and therefore she cannot be appointed as UKIP`s Treasurer.

See Para 9.1 UKIP Constitution - A Party Treasurer shall be appointed by the NEC from amongst FULL party members in good standing.

If, in view of the above restrictions on Full Membership, she can only be granted Associate Membership then clearly some action re the constitution or re her official position is needed.

We have heard that there is now a suggestion that she will be granted Full Membership by the NEC in order to get around this problem.

Such an action would appear be outside the powers of the NEC as they are governed by the constitution in this matter and any rules which they may make would have to be subordinate to it.

Lastly you have wished us good luck with our new party, we already have a party, it`s called UKIP and it belongs to its grass-roots.

We await your further reply on the matters outlined above.

Yours sincerely,

Denis Brookes
John Galloway
Petrina Holdsworth
Geoffrey Kingscott
Steve Povey posted 16 Nov 2007

Anthony Butcher · 16-11-2007, 06:29 PM

There are two false assumptions here:

1. Farage couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks.

2. The party constitution is utterly meaningless, and had never been enforced. It is NOT regarded as a legally binding document, merely guidelines. So unless you want to take the party to court over it, you might as well give up on this line of questioning.

tito · 17-11-2007, 10:44 AM

Ha! "Good luck with your new party"! Brilliant stuff!

C_steam · 17-11-2007, 11:21 AM

Yes, I laughed at that too. Good retort. Rightly, NF is not a believer in the concept of a 'party within a party' - he is right to be dismissive, even though I do not support UKIP in it's current form.

Anthony Butcher · 17-11-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

Yes, I laughed at that too. Good retort. Rightly, NF is not a believer in the concept of a 'party within a party' - he is right to be dismissive, even though I do not support UKIP in it's current form.

It is a typical Farage comment - flippant and avoiding the issue at hand.

Wherever you stand on the Grassroots group, clearly 120+ people felt strongly enough to travel to an unofficial conference. How many more activists would have like to have attended but didn't? Even if it is the same number again, we are talking about at least 250 activists. Bearing in mind that just 2190 activists voted in the NEC elections, this represent possibly 10% or so of the active members.

Farage has effectively told these people to ****** off and form a new party because he isn't interested in anything they have to say.

If they all left now, UKIP would be in a dire mess. How many of them are the primary activists for a constituency, or even the candidates? How many branches would crumble without these people propping them up?

Farage's dismissive attitude reinforces what many of us have said all along - that he is a divisive figure. He sees everyone as an enemy and operates on a 'Don't negotiate with terrorists' policy.

A better leader would have examined why members feel it necessary to hold such a meeting, what their concerns are and at least gone some way to addressing them. Even if he didn't want to take any action, he could still have written a conciliatory letter explaining why.

Instead we have an arrogant and childish letter to amuse his loyal gang (no offence intended to anyone who found it funny).

stathan · 17-11-2007, 12:30 PM

On the other hand I know of a number of people who attended who attended merely out of interest not out of support.

I'm not entirely sure what these 6 clowns are trying to achieve but to assume that everyone attending are ardent supporters of their ideals would be wrong.

Petrina · 17-11-2007, 01:39 PM

To answer Stathan;

The Grassroots group was simply providing a platform to discuss whatever the grassroots of the party wished to discuss,to show the party that there are issues which need to be addressed .

A good many members take the view that we are not doing enough as a party to get the message out and to make an impact ,some think ( but I don`t agree ) that we should not be backing off from BOO candidates ,
just about everyone at the meeting thought that if we are going to be throwing stones at the EU should not have erected a glass house around ourselves by not answering reasonable inquiries re our accounts -including Ashford .
A great many thought that our MEP`s are basically a waste of space as far as home politics is concerned and have let us down in the EU Parl.
Some there are very keen to be shot of the party because it has not fulfilled its potential as a mass movement .They felt that a different party under a different leader might succeed.
I think however the majority hoped that things would improve and hoped that the leadership would listen .However I noted that a number reported that an MEP and his side kick had been ringing round to stop members attending and threatening that they would be " blacklisted " if they attended hardly augured well for that .
As we supposedly live in a free society there is nothing wrong with getting people together to genuinely discuss the way forward however unpleasant it may seem to those in the firing line .Heathly groups should always have open discussions especially if the group`s objectives are not being met by the present structure .

As to what comes out of it -we shall see.

Anthony Butcher · 17-11-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stathan

On the other hand I know of a number of people who attended who attended merely out of interest not out of support.

I'm not entirely sure what these 6 clowns are trying to achieve but to assume that everyone attending are ardent supporters of their ideals would be wrong.

Fair enough, but it is still a risky game that Farage is playing.

Those 'clowns' as you call them include one of UKIP's eight councillors, a former general secretary, a former party chairman and a former Regional Organiser. I don't think that insulting your fellow members, especially ones with a very broad shared experience of the internal workings of the party is particularly polite

.

Of those people who attended that you know, are they particularly impressed by Farage's response?

16-11-2007, 06:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,714 Party: None	There are two false assumptions here: 1. Farage couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks. 2. The party constitution is utterly meaningless, and had never been enforced. It is NOT regarded as a legally binding document, merely guidelines. So unless you want to take the party to court over it, you might as well give up on this line of questioning. __________________ If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled! Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

17-11-2007, 11:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Anwhere far away from the cabalistas Posts: 7,451	Yes, I laughed at that too. Good retort. Rightly, NF is not a believer in the concept of a 'party within a party' - he is right to be dismissive, even though I do not support UKIP in it's current form. __________________ -------------------------------------------------- Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at. Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply .

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

17-11-2007, 12:30 PM	#8 (permalink)
stathan Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 377	On the other hand I know of a number of people who attended who attended merely out of interest not out of support. I'm not entirely sure what these 6 clowns are trying to achieve but to assume that everyone attending are ardent supporters of their ideals would be wrong.

17-11-2007, 01:39 PM	#9 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 942	To answer Stathan; The Grassroots group was simply providing a platform to discuss whatever the grassroots of the party wished to discuss,to show the party that there are issues which need to be addressed . A good many members take the view that we are not doing enough as a party to get the message out and to make an impact ,some think ( but I don`t agree ) that we should not be backing off from BOO candidates , just about everyone at the meeting thought that if we are going to be throwing stones at the EU should not have erected a glass house around ourselves by not answering reasonable inquiries re our accounts -including Ashford . A great many thought that our MEP`s are basically a waste of space as far as home politics is concerned and have let us down in the EU Parl. Some there are very keen to be shot of the party because it has not fulfilled its potential as a mass movement .They felt that a different party under a different leader might succeed. I think however the majority hoped that things would improve and hoped that the leadership would listen .However I noted that a number reported that an MEP and his side kick had been ringing round to stop members attending and threatening that they would be " blacklisted " if they attended hardly augured well for that . As we supposedly live in a free society there is nothing wrong with getting people together to genuinely discuss the way forward however unpleasant it may seem to those in the firing line .Heathly groups should always have open discussions especially if the group`s objectives are not being met by the present structure . As to what comes out of it -we shall see.