5Democracy Strikes Back!

55 NON 45 OUI Balance of three French Exit Polls

Veritas - UKIP in London Assembly

I had heard of this development somewhat earlier, but have only now found it posted on a publicly available internet site and therefore able to be linked from here. (As an ex-member of both UKIP and Veritas I think it best to try to only post messages directed at members of those parties only as they become thus available). The report is linked from here.

A message from Damian Hockney and Peter Hulme Cross to UKIP members in London


There has been much comment from London UKIP members about our decision back in February to form the Veritas Group at the London Assembly.

The obvious conclusion from the General Election result is 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.

For instance, our London Assembly team will in June be launching a major campaign against immunity from prosecution for Europol officers.

This is a perfect example of an issue that can be attacked on two fronts, the Metropolitan Police Authority (of which Damian Hockney is a member) and the European Parliament. It clearly makes sense to act jointly in such matters.


We have therefore decided that it is in the best interests of both parties and more importantly our cause to rename the London Assembly group "Veritas-UKIP". This will enable both parties to gain the credibility that elected office brings.

Damian will continue as Leader of the Group at the London Assembly and Peter will be Deputy Leader. Both will of course be delighted to discuss any issues with members of either Party. We hope you will join with us in welcoming this step forward, and look forward to working with you in the forthcoming campaigns, including our Europol campaign and of course the referendum on the EU constitution.

Kind regards,
Damian Hockney & Peter Hulme Cross
Veritas-UKIP London Assembly Members

Conservatives in Shambles

Buy the former party house journal the Daily Telegraph or read the reports online from here, here or here.

The Common Market, EEC and the EU were the undoing of the Conservatives, the latter should now become their salvation as a withdrawalist party.

Nothing will probably develop until the September 27th meeting of the 900 Branch Chairmen. New members joining now while the right to elect the leadership still remains can themselves have a major say in determining the main driving policy of the party in the years ahead.

It might be a somewhat forlorn hope, but other than waiting for the French and Dutch to come to democracy's rescue, what other realistic alternative is now on offer?

Open Invitation to UKIP and Veritas Members from the English Democrats

To aid in the debate as to the best way forward for the restoration of national democracy and sovereignty I am happy to post this invitation to euro-sceptic activists from the English Democrats:

Statement from English Democrats


For any disillusioned UKIP or Veritas Members, Activists or ‘Whole Branches’, then the English Democrats invite you to join the English Cause.


The English Democrats are an Anti-European, Pro-English Party – if you want to make things happen in the interest of England then the English Democrats is the Party for you.


There is already a ‘back ground’ interest in the concept of a Pro-English party, as the English Democrat results show from the 2004 European and 2005 General Elections – with finance and media interest the interest (and votes) will mushroom, as many people living in England are concerned over the ‘English Question’ and the bias of British Governments towards, Scots, Welsh and Irish.


Post devolution it follows that to compliment the Scottish National Party, and the Party of Wales there must be an ‘English Party’ in England – The Engish Democrats Party – is that party.


If you would like to have ‘discussions’ to determine the possibilities for you within the English Democrats, then send an e-mail to Robin Tilbrook:


Chairman@EngDem.org


Or take a look at the website


www.EnglandsParty.com



English Democrats

National Council

May 2005

Martin Cole Resigns from Veritas

The writer of this blog has this morning resigned from the Veritas Party. The resignation letter I sent to the Party Leader was as follows:

Dear Robert,

It is with regret that I herewith tender my resignation from the party that with a few others we somewhat hastily put together a few months ago.

I have always tried to move the political debate and events towards democracy, a goal which I know you share. Looking at the post election scene in the UK I have concluded that the best way forward to achieve that aim is via the democratic structures that now exist within the seemingly directionless Conservative Party, and have today publicly urged Veritas members to consider joining that organisation to push it towards a more euro-realistic direction.

I recognise such a stance is not compatible with continued Veritas membership and therefore resign forthwith.

Yours sincerely,
Martin

PS I will place this letter on the blog Veritas Straight Talk, should you wish to reply to this please indicate whether or not you also wish your response posted there.

Take the Tories

One of the closest things to a certainty in this post-election period, is that the next Government should be formed by the Conservative Party.

What that party will be, who will be its leader, how it will have formulated its manifesto, what power is divided between the elected MPs, MEPS, party branch chairs and ordinary members is now entirely up for grabs. (Read my post and links on Teetering Tories of yesterday from here,) and the Leader and other comment in today's Daily Telegraph from here.

Members of Veritas and UKIP should now clearly realise after the fiasco of the general election, that to gain power in Britain's first past the post, two party system, it is necessary to control one of the two parties. The Conservatives, believing nothing and effectively leaderless and rudderless are there to be taken by committed individuals with firm beliefs in a sovereign Westminster Parliament and democratic debate for the adoption of party and national policies.

Many in the euro-sceptic movement might have long held aversions to joining the Tories, these cannot be valid when only the name now remains of the Conservative Party of the past.

Whether Blair, Brown or another New Labour Cabinet Minister leads Labour into the next election one thing is practically sure they cannot win. The battle for what kind of Conservative Party will then take over, even what it might be called is now getting under-way.

Members of UKIP, Veritas or the greater mass of politically unattached should immediately join their local Conservative Party branch and start the democratic process of steering the direction of Britain's next government!

Who is this Senior Veritas Figure?

This post has been removed as it could have been construed as a personal attack against an individual which was not the intention. (0600 CET Tuesday 24th May 2005)

The original posting strove to highlight the failing by senior members of the party to properly oversee the General Election campaign and subsequently put the future of the party in the hands of appointees while absenting themselves from both the debate and the decision making process.

The posting attracted comments, under various pseudonyms which were of a personal nature including allegations which the author of the blog cannot possible know whether they are true or false - these comments have therefore also been removed and no further comments will be possible on this post.

The Who's Who of Party Treachery - 17-05-05

The original blog that appeared here was unfair to Ashley Merry.
I apologise to Ashley Merry for any upset it caused.

It never intended to imply that Ashley Merry was responsible for the fiasco that many consider the Veritas general election turned out to be.

Due to sloppy drafting, for which I also apologise, it might have been read in such a manner and I have therefore, as always when being told of errors in my blogs, have taken steps to correct matters, which in this case I feel is best accomplished by removing the entire post, while leaving the sometimes legitimate complaints of "Don' in the comments box below.

In mitigation I can perhaps claim that this sloppy piece of posting was brought about at my upset over the non-democratic course the party I helped to create has now taken, particularly as I had then just read the proof of that course in the communication from Michael Harvey on the meeting held last Tuesday, where Ashley was one of the attendees. .

I have since resigned from Veritas as may be read in the postings above.

Martin Cole

And Another One Bites the Dust?

An account of last Tuesday's London meeting, seemingly mainly attended by those most responsible for the general election fiasco is now circulating amongst Veritas members .

On the important point of the South Staffordshire by election it says there was discussion but no decision.

Other than that it says very little, although it confirms our earlier postings on this blog that few of the party's original steering committee were in attendance and its conclusions, had any been reached, would therefore have been of doubtful legitimacy.

In true New Labour 'spin-speak' however the report from Michael Harvey does state the following:

Inaugural Party Conference/Business Meeting
There was a discussion about the timing of a Meeting of all Party members. This would not be an AGM (the financial year end is laid down in law for all political parties as 31st December) ......

I suggest party members should not jump to the intended conclusion from this truly weasly wording - namely that an AGM is only possible on New Year's Eve. The accounts can be closed on 31st December but a Party Conference to rid ourselves of the apparant charlatans who have now seized control of what was supposed to have been a new and honest force in UK politics could be held at any time. Those attending on Tuesday, however, considered that party democracy should continue to be further suspended for several more months.

While it has been made clear the detail of what was discussed at this supposed authoritiative meeting is strictly for distribution among party members only, I see no reason why the wider euro-sceptic movement should not have the names of those who attended and (some it appears not for the first time) have helped to once again manage to destroy an attempt at forming a straightforward and honest political movement to restore sovereignty to Westminster and democracy to the British people.

Shame upon the those most senior attendees who have colluded in bringing this about:

Present at the meeting: Damian Hockney (Deputy Leader), John de Roeck (Party Treasurer), Michael Harvey (Party Secretary), David Soutter (Chief of Staff/National Campaign Manager), Patrick Eston, Ashley Merry (National Press Officer), Daniel Moss (London Press Officer), Geoff Lover (West Mids Regional Campaign Manager), Alan Ainscow (NW RCM), David Davies (NE RCM), Harry Cichy (Eastern Region Press Officer), Catherine Cracknell (on behalf of SW RCM).

Unable to attend: Robert Kilroy-Silk (Leader), Richard Vass (Chairman), John Burke (National Agent), Alex Stevenson (East Mids RCM), Alan Eastwood (SW RCM), David Shipley (Eastern RCM).

We will be providing a Who's Who of the backgrounds of the senior attendees as is availabe on the internet over the next few days.

After that, if not now, you will surely be asking, as I am tonight, what right have such people to deprive the Veritas general party members of any say?

English Democrats Party policy on the EU

I have been asked about the EU stance of the English Democrats Party who are fielding Garry Bushell in the South Staffordshire campaign. The detail may be read from this link, but the main thrust is contained in the sections quoted below:

The EDP favours European co-operation and trade but not a European political entity which determines the independence, sovereignty, and democratic institutions of European states..
.......

...The aim from the beginning was to enmesh the states of Europe in an economic, political and military union from which they could not break free. That goal was, and still is, considered more important than the democratic nicety of explaining the goal to the electorate and seeking its approval.

The states of the EU cannot be successfully run as either an economic or social whole. Their economic and cultural circumstances are very different. Each needs to be governed in a way which accords not only with material needs but also with the democratic, cultural and other traditions of the indigenous nations. The one-size-fits-all approach of EU institutions is a recipe for disaster.

The EU has become a top heavy and outdated bureaucratic hulk which is unsuited to an age when the people of Europe need democratic nation-states to protect them and their unique cultures from the excesses of global corporations, global institutions and the global economy. The EU is a part of the problem, not the solution.

The Paltry Pounds and Pence of the Prolonged Printing Problems

I have discovered from the large amount of background material now circulating on the subject of printing disputes, which I recognise are very far from being only about money, in reality comes down to 'peanuts'.

The original printer's quote based on supplying 90 candidates was for 666.67 pounds per candidate which was rounded up to 680 pounds to cover certain extras apparently. The final run was for only thirty-eight candidates for which the printer agreed to charge 820 pounds to cover the increased unit cost for the smaller quantity.

Some candidates have already paid the full 820 pounds; others are paying only a lesser amount for various print problems, which if they can be laid as the printer's responsibility cannot become a party liability. The maximum party liability is therefore 5,320 pounds, and that is if all thirty- eight candidates refused to pay the increased charge; whereas we know some have already paid the full amount.

If we assume that as many as a half of the 38 candidates continue to refuse to meet the extra printing costs then the party's liability for the increased costs incurred by the printer would only be 2,260 pounds. If we had really chosen candidates fully believing in the founding ideals of Veritas then I believe the number unwilling to pay the extra 140 pounds would be reduced to a mere handful.

Interestingly this is about the amount of the cost of the PR display sets which were seemingly being ordered with some abandon over my objections after the party's launch.

Other aspects of how this situation arose and how it continues to be handled are not so simply understood and require much deeper investigation. The apparent links between Ashley Merry and David Soutter and an entertainment agency called Don Capo have been unearthed last evening by an eagle eyed party member, on which I hope to have more information in due course.

Veritas Report on Leaflet Fiasco!

There are fears tonight that an explosive internal report into the party's election leaflet fiasco might have fallen into the hands of those most desirous of seeing Veritas fail, flounder or preferably completely disappear.

If such fears are not groundless then the time remaining for the senior party leadership to resolve this comparatively trifling matter can now only be measured in hours rather than days.

As predicted there have as yet been no circulated statements, nor reports regarding yesterday's supposedly crucial party meeting in London.

South Staffordshire By Election

Reports circulating widely among the increasingly bemused and presumably declining membership of Veritas last evening now suggest that David Soutter, during his vist today to the City Hall offices of Damian Hockney and Michael Harvey will do a volte face and now propose Veritas not stand a candidate in the above by election.

Veritas members will therefore now be able to consider the best action they can take to advance their own beliefs freed from the irrelevance of a David Soutter led campaign in this crucial contest.

I recommend consideration be given to the English Democrats, website linked here.

There is a slim chance that UKIP may see sense and stand aside to let a strong independent candidate such as Neil Herron carry the protest banner into Parliament - but failing that it is difficult to see at this stage what best course to take.

Let's just hope for the moment that the rumours are true and there will be no Veritas/UKIP clash to further destroy the democracy of the nation!

I copy for convenience my blog of this morning on the same topic on Ukip Uncovered:

South Staffordshire By Election

The Veritas meeting being held today, looks likely to finally come to the inevitable and correct decision not to field a candidate for that party in the 23rd June potentially mould-breaking contest in the above constituency.

I have been privileged to have seen a late draft of a very important article to be published in the next edition of Eurofacts written by UKIP NEC member Anthony Scholefield which I understand will be titled 'AFTER THE VOTE'. In shattering detail it reveals the dire threats to English democracy posed by the recent General Election results and the present unacceptable political status quo within the UK.

I will this morning suggest to Veritas members through my 'Veritas Straight Talk' blog, linked here, tha they consider helping the English Democrat campaign in South Staffordshire. This now seems possibly the best means of delivering the seismic shock needed by the blinkered elite within the British political system.

If UKIP were to similarly decide not to stand and thereafter promote a renowned Independent Eurosceptic such as Neil Herron as I have previously suggested (or instead perhaps field their own prime campaign asset as a candidate) then similar support for the English Democrats might be worth consideration by fromer disaffected or former members of UKIP, many of whom I know read this blog.

Details of the English Democrats and their South Staffordshire candidate, Garry Bushell can be obtained from their website linked here.

I fully realise that this is a less than ideal alternative forthinking euro-sceptics who clearly and correctly believe the main threat to the nation comes from EU, but given that the leadership of UKIP and now lamentably Veritas seem to prefer the comforts of Brussels, Strasbourg or the London Assembly combined with never-ending internal bickering and disputation - what other realistic alternative is there?

London City Hall Meeting 17th May 2005

While I cannot pretend to be aware of all that is now happening within the party I helped to found, ( once proudly but now almost shamefacedly holding Veritas Membership Number 003) I nevertheless hear enough (in spite of having been excluded from most party email circulation lists) to be deeply concerned.

The meeting tomorrow at City Hall, London looks set to confirm the distance travelled from both the party's founding members and its founding principles.

It was at a Steering Committee meeting held at Beel House on 9th January this year, where the plans of many weeks really set the wheels in motion for the launch of a new, truthful and democratic party. Thirteen of us were at that meeting.

Of those thirteen I know of only one who will attend tomorrow's meeting in London and that is David Soutter. Certainly the majority from that January meeting will not be there according to the latest e-mails I have received. I hope a report will be available for this blog where the exact attendance can be verified, but in view of the small numbers who look like attending that cannot be relied upon.

What can have occurred in a party that started with such high hopes in such a few short months? One wierd view has been put forward today in the public section of the Veritas Party Forum by a poster called 'Wigeon'. Read it by clicking here.

Shortage of funds as argued therein, however, cannot answer all the queries over what has occurred and even more what will occur tomorrow. Not by a long way - how about these considerations:

What legitimacy will tomorrow's meeting carry?

Why are so many of those who travelled great distances and exerted such efforts to get the party going no longer inclined to attend more meetings?

Where is the Party Constitution?

Why is there no date yet set for a meeting of all the members?

Why has no investigation been opened into the various failures during the campaign?

Shortage of funds answers none of these points!

The only hope for the Party will be for tomorrow's meeting to address the points above AND then tackle the outstanding disputes over printing liabilities, courier costs etc., by the three, hardly impoverished senior members of the party namely the Leader, Deputy Leader and Chairman agreeing to underwrite the disputed amounts pending a full inquiry as to where the liabilities properly lie.

My notes on competing constitutions 31/01/05

When the London Assembly members eventually joined Veritas, Michael Harvey (MJH) circulated his own version of a constitution which I tried to directly compare to the one quoted below. This proved impossible. My memorandum to myself on the difficulties is interesting in that regard and I quote the most important aspect herewith:

If the Party is structured as proposed by MJH it would belong not to the members but to the Associations, the proposal in 3 (3) of the MJH draft that all be determined by 'The Party and its Associations' therefore becomes of little substance.

In the absence of a draft of the 'Association Rule Book' where much of the excluded provisions from the (original) Constitution will presumably be handled under the MJH proposals it is extremely difficult to continue this clause by clause comparision. The main questions that are clearly to be raised are to my mind as follows:-

1) Is the party to belong to its individual members or to the Association's whose rules of operation are yet to be defined?

2) Should the members be effectively disenfranchised with everything being decided by Association Chairmen, MPs and Council Leaders? Should those who are able to attend AGM's and SGM's really be left to solely decide on constitution and rule changes? Postal ballots are not ideal but should the wider membership be excluded from consultation?

The above issue require resolution before making further comparisons worthwhile.

Martin Cole
31st January 2005.

In reviewing my own personal notes and memo on the draft constitution originally proposedby Michael Harvey I am ever more certain that he should not be the individual co-ordinating the final document. Perhaps an extract from the Veritas Party Home Page is best quoted here in illustration of my concerns:-

If you are tired of the lies, the deceit, the evasions and the spin of the old parties in Westminster, then join us, because so are we.....

Veritas will stop all this nonsense. We will not tolerate the bullying and the intimidation by the liberal elite in London.

One Veritas Draft Constitution

There is much discussion at present about the lack of a constitution for the party and what procedures should prevail in view of its absence.

The following is a late version of a constitution dated 12th January 2005, which had the approval and was to be called by the name of a particularly influential party member. I hope therefore that those in charge of moving the party forward might deeply ponder on the importance of the ordinary members and their intended right of control through the ANNUAL PARTY CONFERENCE and ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING and the requirements regarding the ELECTION of officials!

Perhaps this document will provide a useful guide for those now genuinely seeking to find the best way though the critical situation that now confronts the party from a constitutional viewpoint.

Quote

1 NAME OF PARTY
1.1 The name of the party shall be VERITAS, hereafter referred to as ‘the Party’.
2 AIMS OF PARTY
2.1 We want the United Kingdom to trade and have good relations with our friends and neighbours in Europe, as indeed with the rest of the world, but we do not want to be governed from Brussels.
2.2 We want to be a free, independent, sovereign country that is governed by our people in its own Parliament in Westminster.
2.3 Unlike the old discredited parties, we shall not lie or engage in deceit, evasions or spin for
political ends. We shall only ever tell the truth, however unpalatable.
2.4 VERITAS is the straight-talking political party.
2.5 We will create:
(a) A country that is innovative, entrepreneurial and outward-looking
(b) A county that is based on the concepts of justice and fairness
(c) A country where our traditional democratic freedoms and values are cherished and protected
(d) A country where individuals are encouraged and helped to take responsibility for their own lives - but which is compassionate towards those in genuine need and protects the weak and vulnerable
(e) A country where everyone is equal under the law and no-one is discriminated against on the basis of race, colour, creed, sex or age.
2.6 VERITAS will openly and fearlessly speak up for Britain and the British way of life and in everything it does - every policy, every political initiative, every decision - be guided only by
what is in the interests of the British people.
2.7 The Party will promote a full range of long-term foreign and domestic policies.
3 ACTIVITIES OF PARTY
3.1 In furtherance of these aims, the Party may take part in all democratic electoral processes, including contesting General Elections, Parliamentary by-elections, local elections, and elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies..
3.2 Although the Party seeks to regain the independence of the United Kingdom from all the institutions of the European Union, it may, until that aim is achieved, contest elections to the European Parliament. If the Party wins seats in the European Parliament, it will take up the seats it has won.
3.3 The Party may work together with any other democratic parties and organisations for particular purposes consistent with its aims.
3.4 In the furtherance of its aims, the Party may­
i) raise funds and invite and receive contributions from any person or persons whatsoever by way of loan, subscription, donation or otherwise, within the limits
established by electoral law;
ii) publish, with or without charge, any items it sees fit;
iii) employ and pay people to supervise, organise and carry out the Party’s aims;
iv) purchase, lease or rent property necessary to carry out the Party’s aims and make arrangements for the management of any property acquired;
v) invest any monies of the Party not immediately required, in accordance with the Trustee Act of 1925; and
vi) do all such other lawful things as are necessary for the attainment of its ends.
4 MEMBERSHIP
4.1 Membership will be open to those entitled to UK citizenship, whether living in this country or abroad, and resident foreign nationals, who share its aims and sign the appropriate declarations on its membership application form.
4.2 Members are those who are 16 years old or over, maintain their subscriptions and agree with the aims of the Party.
4.3 Members will accept the Party’s constitution and rules and maintain its reputation.
4.4 Associate membership of the Party, who will be entitled to all the benefits of membership except voting rights, is open to supporters not entitled to full membership.
4.5 Members and associate members may not belong to another political Party.
4.6 The Party shall have the unfettered right to refuse any application for membership without having to state a reason.
4.7 Full members shall receive a membership card and the Party’s newsletter. They shall be
entitled to vote in national Party elections and in the election of Branch officers and the
selection of candidates to contest Parliamentary and local government elections.
4.8 Members shall at all times maintain the good name and reputation of the Party and avoid
bringing the Party into disrepute.
5 BRANCHES
5.1 The Party shall seek to establish a Branch in every UK Parliamentary constituency.
5.2 Branches will affiliate to the national Party by resolution at their first meeting.
5.3 At its first meeting, the Branch shall resolve to register as an ‘Accounting Unit’ with the
Electoral Commission and shall do so in due course by submitting the appropriate
forms to the Commission. The Branch Treasurer will be responsible for ensuring that the Branch meets the accounting requirements of the Electoral Commission and presenting annual accounts to the Brach AGM.
5.4 Where Branches are established, these may cover one or more Parliamentary Constit-uencies.
5.5 The Branch will administer its own financial and other affairs, including the election of local officers and the selection of candidates for UK Parliamentary and local government elections.
5.6 These functions will be conducted in accordance with procedures set down in a Party Rule Book as amended from time to time by the National Council.
5.7 The National Council shall approve newBranches where they appear to the National Council to be viable.
5.8 The National Council shall rule on which constituencies should be covered by any one
Branch.
5.9 In the case of Parliamentary constituencies not covered by a Branch, the Party Secretary shall administer the Party in that constituency, until such time as a Branch is established.
5.10 The Party shall in due course establish Regional Committees for each region of the UK and shall appoint a Regional Organiser who will be responsible to the National Council.
6 THE ANNUAL PARTY CONFERENCE AND ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING
6.1 The Party shall hold an Annual Party Conf-erence at a place and time decided by the National Council.
6.2 Matters of Party business will be decided at an Annual Business Meeting, to be held during the Annual Party Conference. The Annual Business Meeting will be open only to paid-up Party members. Its business will be to receive and debate reports from the national officers and to debate policy resolutions submitted either by local Branches or by the National Council.
Entitlement to vote at Annual Business Meeting
6.3 Those entitled to vote at the Annual Business Meeting shall be up to three representatives chosen by each Branch and all members of the National Council including the Party Leader and co-opted members. To qualify, the Branch must be a Branch that is registered with the Electoral Commission.
6.4 All prospective Parliamentary candidates, if not already one of the three Branchn representatives, shall also have the right to vote at the Annual Business Meeting.
Procedures for the Annual Business Meeting
6.5 The National Council shall publish in the agenda for the Annual Business Meeting
details of all resolutions submitted for debate and the name of the Branch which put forward
the resolution.
6.6 All resolutions at the Annual Business Meeting may be passed by a simple majority of those
voting. Procedures for submitting resolutions at the Annual Business Meeting shall be decided
by the Conference Arrangements Committee, subject to approval by the National Council.
6.6 Resolutions carried at the Annual Business Meeting by a 60% majority of those voting (and not abstaining) become Party policy. Those carried only by a simple majority of those voting (and not abstaining) will have only advisory force.
7 THE NATIONAL COUNCIL
7.1 The National Council is the Party’s management committee, entrusted with the duty of
ensuring that it functions smoothly. It is responsible for the Party’s funds, structure, and
publicity and, together with the membership and the Party Leader, its political strategy. It is answerable to the Annual Party Conference and Annual Business Meeting and is charged with carrying out Conference decisions and considering Branch resolutions passed during the year.
7.2 The National Council may accept affiliation from other organisations. Such affiliated bodies
will not enjoy voting rights.
7.3 The National Council may institute a postal ballot of Party members on amendments to the
Party Constitution, provided that a resolution to do so is approved by a two-thirds majority of
National Council members present and voting.
Appointment of Party Treasurer and Party Secretary
7.4 The National Council shall appoint a Party Treasurer, who may be a serving member of the National Council, but need not be, in which case the Treasurer shall become an ex-officio member but without the right to vote. The Treasurer must be a Party member
7.4 The National Council shall appoint a Party Secretary from amongst its own number.
Conference Arrangements Committee
7.5 The National Council shall establish a sub-committee known as the Conference
Arrangements Committee to ensure that the Annual Party Conference and Annual Business
Meeting run smoothly and that resolutions from Branches are given consideration.
7.6 Branches may, at any time during the year, submit resolutions regarding the policy or
running of the Party or any other matter related to the Party.
7.7 The local Branch Secretary shall forward the any resolution, giving particulars of the numbers of members voting for or against that resolution to the Party Secretary.
7.8 The Party Secretary will notify the National Council of all resolutions from Branches
received since their last meeting. It shall be a standing item on each National Council agenda
to receive notice of Branch resolutions.
7.9 During the period beginning three month before and ending two weeks before the Annual Party Conference and Annual Business Meeting, Branches may submit resolutions on any Party matter for debate at the Annual Business Meeting.
7.10 Resolutions submitted after that date may be considered for debate at the discretion of the Conference Arrangements Committee.
7.11 The Conference Arrangements Committee will have power to decide what Branch resolutions shall be debated and in what order.
7.12 The Nation Council will also be able to move its own resolutions at the Annual Business
Meeting.
Establishment of sub-committees
7.13 The National Council shall establish other temporary and standing sub-committees for the administration of the Party and the development of policy.
Membership of the National Council
7.14 The National Council shall initially comprise twelve elected members, the Party Leader, and up to 5 co-opted members (see Paragraphs 7.26 and 7.27 below).
7.15 The National Council will have power to vary the number of members who comprise the
National Council.
Elections to the National Council
7.16 Members of the National Council shall be elected annually. They shall be eligible for re-election at the completion of their year of service. Eligibility to stand for election to, and to serve on, the National Council shall be determined by the National Council.
7.17 Elections to the National Council shall be on a regional basis. Members of each of the 12
regions of the U.K. shall initially elect one member to the National Council.
7.18 The National Council may vary how many members each region elects to the National
Council, to cater for regions with relatively low membership which may not justify separate
representation on the national Council and for regions with a relatively high membership which
may justify extra representation on the national Council.
7.19 There shall be an election for the National Council each year, in each region of the UK, on
dates to be decided by the National Council, but no later than 31 March each year.
7.20 The National Council shall announce the date, together with the number of vacancies to be filled for each region, and the latest date for the receipt of nominations, at least eight weeks
before the date of the election, in the Party newsletter.
7.21 The election shall be by postal ballot of all paid- up members in each region.
7.22 The election shall take place on the basis of the first-past-the-post system. Each eligible Party member may cast a number of votes up to, but not exceeding, the number of vacancies. All votes shall be of equal value.
7.23 The resignation of a member of the National Council shall be evidenced in writing by the
member resigning or, if given verbally, shall be minuted after verification.
7.24 Should a vacancy occur between elections, the National Council shall in the first instance
invite the highest-placed unsuccessful candidate for the National Council in the region concerned to join the Committee, and so on until the vacancy is filled. Members joining the National Council in this way shall have the same rights as elected members and shall be eligible to stand for election at the next National Council election.
Co-opted Members
7.25 The National Council shall have the right during any one year to co-opt up to three
additional Party members who shall have full voting rights on the National Council.
7.26 The Party Leader shall have the right during any one year to co-opt two Party members who shall also have full voting rights on the National Council
Meetings of the National Council
7.27 The National Council shall meet at least six times a year. These meetings may take place by video-conferencing. Meetings may be chaired by the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Party at his/her discretion or by the Party Chairman or a Vice-Chairman, or, in the absence of all four, by an National Council member appointed by the National Council for that meeting only.
7.28 Eight members of the committee constitute a quorum, except as provided below.
7.29 Any five or more members of the NationalCouncil may requisition an emergency meeting
of the National Council by calling on the Party Secretary to summon one as soon as
practicable. They must state the business to be discussed and any related resolutions to be
put. The agenda for the emergency meeting shall comprise this business and matters
arising and no other.
7.30 A decision to suspend a member of the National Council from the Council may only be
made by a resolution to that effect carried by a two-thirds majority of National Council
members present. A minimum of seven National Council members must vote for
the suspension.
7.31 In the event of a motion of no confidence in the National Council being carried at an Annual
Business Meeting, new elections to the National Council will be held as soon as practicable, the
outgoing National Council remaining in office until their successors are elected.
Policy Committee and other sub-committees
7.32 The National Council shall establish as one of its sub-committees a Policy Committee, which
will meet at least once every two months, and will invite all Party spokesmen appointed by the
Party Leader to its meetings. The purpose of the Policy Committee is to keep under active
review the policies of the Party on all foreign and domestic issues, and to recommend
changes to Party policy, and to draft the Party Manifesto.
7.33 The National Council may authorise the establishment of other groups of Party
members to further the aims of the Party.
Emergency suspension of rules of the Constitution
7.34 Notwithstanding the provisions of this Constitution, the National Council may, by a two-thirds majority and with at least seven members voting in favour, temporarily suspend
the operation of any of its rules in cases of genuine and serious emergency only, including
cases where the smooth and effective running of the Party would be seriously hindered unless
the operation of a rule is temporarily changed.
In any such case, the decision to suspend the operation of any rule and the reasons for doing
so must be published by the National Council to all members as soon as practicable.
Decisions on Discipline and Disputes
7.35 The National Council shall consider reports from the Discipline and Disputes Committee
established under Paragraph 8.1 (below) and shall then decide what disciplinary action to
take, if any, and how to resolve any dispute that the Discipline and Disputes Committee has
been unable to resolve. The National Council, in its discretion, may allow a member to attend in
person and present his/her case but not to be represented. The decision of the National
Council on any matter of discipline or dispute shall be final.
8 DISCIPLINE AND DISPUTES COMMITTEE
8.1 The National Council shall establish a sub-Committee, made up of elected Branch officials,
to consider disputes and issues of discipline and will publicise its procedures, which may be varied from time to time by the National Council.
8.2 In the case of disciplinary matters, the sub-committee shall operate on the basis of fair
procedures and natural justice, including informing any member referred to it of the
nature and substance of the allegations against him/her, giving the member due opportunity to
respond, and the right to appear in person and be represented before the Committee.
8.3 The Discipline and Disputes Committee may in an exceptional case suspend the Party
member under investigation.
8.4 The National Council alone shall decide anydisciplinary penalty.
9 THE PARTY LEADER
9.1 The Party, through its Annual Party Conference, Annual Business Meeting, Policy Committee and Party spokesmen will give political, strategic and policy direction to the Party.
9.2 The Party Leader will provide overall direction to the Party’s strategy and policies and is
responsible for the effective execution of the agreed strategy and policies.
9.3 The Party Leader shall be an ex-officio member of the National Council enjoying full voting
rights and shall be ex-officio a member of all sub-committees and working groups set up by
the National Council.
9.4 The Party Leader shall appoint a Deputy Leader of his/her choosing, who shall be a Party member, to render assistance and act in his place in his absence.
9.5 The Party Leader shall, subject to the approval of the National Council, appoint a Party
Chairman to be in day-to-day control of the Party organisation
9.6 The Party Leader may make such other appointments, in fields such as media relations
and policy formulation, as he thinks fit.
9.7 The Party Leader shall, in close consultation with the National Council, the Party’s
Policy Committee and Party spokesmen, approve the Party’s Manifesto and national
statements of the Party’s policies.
9.8 The Party Leader shall appoint Party spokesmen on all aspects of domestic and
foreign policy. These spokesmen shall, where practicable, attend all meetings of the Party’s
Policy Committee. The spokesmen will be responsible for developing Party policy in their
field of responsibility and for maintaining regular contact with the media in order to
ensure that the Party’s policies are communicated to the public.
Elections for Party Leader
9.9 The Party Leader shall be elected by a postal ballot of all paid-up members of the Party.
9.10 A leadership election shall be called in the event of any of the following:
(a) the Party Leader’s death,
(b) the Party Leader’s incapacity for more than a temporary period
(c) the Party Leader’s resignation
(d) on the passing of a vote of no confidence in the Party Leader by the Annual Business Meeting
(e) 10% or more of Party members submitting a petition to the Party Secretary nominating an alternative candidate for Leader.

Those names must have been obtained during an annual ‘window’, which shall run from three months to two weeks before the date of the Annual Party Conference and Annual Business Meeting. The Party Secretary will check that those signing the petition are paid-up members.
9.11 A Party Leader wishing to resign must Communicate this decision in writing to the
Party Secretary, who must then summon an emergency meeting of the National Council
9.12 Nominations for the post of Party Leader shall require the signature of a proposer and 20
assentors, all paid-up members of the Party, drawn from at least four Branches. They must
be submitted in writing to the Party Secretary within the time specified by him.
9.14 If there is only one valid nomination for the post of Party Leader, the candidate nominated shall be elected without the need for a ballot, but ratification by a simple majority of members
voting at the next Annual Party Conference and Annual Business Meeting will be required.
9.15 If there are only two candidates for the post of Party Leader, the one receiving more than 50% of the valid votes cast will be elected.
9.16 If there are three or more candidates for the post of Party leader, the election shall be by the single transferable vote system, as defined by the Electoral Reform Society. Those eligible to
vote shall be paid up members 14 days before the last date for the receipt of ballot papers.
9.17 When a vacancy for the leadership occurs, the election procedure laid down by the National Council shall be implemented by the Party Secretary. Until that process is completed, the Deputy Leader will serve as acting Party Leader.
10 THE PARTY TREASURER
10.1 A Party Treasurer will be appointed by the National Council from among Party members.
10.2 His/her term of office will be annual. S/he will be an ex-officio member of the National
Council if not already a member of it. The Party Treasurer does not hold voting rights on the
National Council by virtue of his or her office.
10.3 The Treasurer shall be responsible for:
a) managing the Party’s finances
b) preparing annual accounts and for presenting them to the Annual Party Conference and Annual Business Meeting of Party members
c) ensuring that the Party complies with the financial requirements of the Electoral Commission, including filing prompt returns relating to all the Party’s
Accounting Units.
d) chairing the Finance Committee.
11 THE PARTY SECRETARY
11.1 The Party Secretary’s term of office will be one year.
11.2 The Party Secretary will be chosen by the National Council from amongst its members.
11.3 The Party Secretary is responsible for:
(a) ensuring that the administrative and other arrangements of the Party comply with all legal
requirements;
(b) maintaining an up-to-date record of Party members for national Party purposes;
(c) for the administration of leadership elections and elections to the National Council (except
when he or she is a candidate, when the National Council shall nominate another of its
members to carry out this task); and
(d) the organisation of the Party Conference, in conjunction with the Conference Arrangements Committee.
11.4 The Party Secretary will chair the Committee on Standing Orders and will sit on the Conference Arrangements Committee.
12 THE DEPUTY LEADER
12.1 [repeats Paragraph 9.4] The Party Leader will appoint a Deputy of his/her choosing, who will be a Party member, to render assistance and act in his place in his absence.
13 THE PARTY CHAIRMAN
13.1 The Party Leader will appoint a Party Chairman, subject to the approval of the National Council, from amongst paid-up members of the Party. The Chairman will be an ex-officio member of the National Council, if not already an ordinary member of it.
13.2 The Party Chairman shall chair meetings of the Annual Party Conference and Annual Business Meeting.
13.3 The Party Chairman will be responsible for ensuring that there are active and properly
constituted Branches of the Party throughout the country, financially able to support a
Parliamentary election campaign.
13.4 To that end, the Party Chairman may make such subsidiary administrative appointments as s/he sees fit and may suggest to the National Council the creation of paid administrative posts.
13.5 The Party Chairman shall report regularly to the National Council on Branch activity, as
appropriate.
14 SEPARATION OF OFFICE
14.1 The offices of Party Leader, Deputy Leader, Treasurer, Party Secretary and Party Chairman may only be held singly.
15 APPOINTMENT OF PARTY PRESIDENT AND PARTY VICE-PRESIDENTS
15.1 The Party Leader may in his sole discretion appoint a President of the Party and any
number of Vice-Presidents.
16 STANDING AND TEMPORARY COMMITTEES
16.1 The standing committees set up by the National Council shall include a Finance Committee, a Committee on Standing Orders, a Policy Committee and a Conference Steering Committee.
16.2 The Finance Committee shall be chaired by the Party Treasurer. Its responsibility will be to oversee the management of the Party’s finances and to appoint auditors.
16.3 The Committee on Standing Orders shall be chaired by the Party Secretary and will be responsible for maintaining and updating the Party Rule Book and for reviewing proposals for amendments to the Party Constitution.
16.4 The Conference Arrangements Committee will have the responsibility to make recommendations on all matters relating to the agenda of the Annual Party Conference and Annual Business Meeting, including making recommendations on procedures for handling resolutions for debate.
17 THE PARTY RULE BOOK
17.1 The National Council shall establish a Party Rule Book which will detail the rules governing the establishment and maintenance of Branches; membership of standing and temporary committees; submission of resolutions for debate at the Annual Party Conference and Annual Business Meeting, the conduct of these meetings, the calling and conduct of elections for Party Leaders and the National Council, disciplinary procedures (in conjunction with the Discipline and Disputes Committee) and all other rules and procedures forming part of the formal management and administration of the Party.
18 18 PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL
CANDIDATES
18.1 The Party shall establish a list of approved Parliamentary candidates, by means of interviewing potential candidates. Potential candidates shall make a written application and shall make full disclosure of any fact, political or personal, that may have a bearing on their suitability for selection as a candidate.
18.2 Potential candidates will be interviewed by at least two people drawn from the following
categories: members of the National Council, appointed national officers, and Chairmen and
elected officials of local Branches.
18.3 A national Candidate Selection Officer may be appointed to oversee the candidate selection
process and make recommendations on candidate selection for the final approval of the
National Council and the Party Leader.
18.4 All Parliamentary candidates, including for Parliamentary by-elections, must be paid-up
members of the Party and on the Party’s list of approved candidates.
18.5 The selection, from the list of approved Candidates, of a prospective Parliamentary
candidate to contest a constituency in a General Election or Parliamentary by-election,
Is the prerogative of the Branch concerned, subject to the discretion, in exceptional
circumstances, of the National Council or the Party Leader.
18.6 Local Branches shall draw up a short list of potential Parliamentary candidates and shall
call a meeting of all Branch members, on at least 21 days’ notice, to hear each short-listed
candidate speak and answer members’ questions. Branch members shall decide by
secret ballot whom they wish to be their prospective Parliamentary candidate.
Additional procedures for selecting Parliamentary candidates may be contained in
The Party Rule Book.
18.7 The selection of candidates for local government elections is the responsibility of
Branches, who may take decisions either by the Committee or by a first-past-the-post vote of all
Branch’s members.
18.8 The method of selecting candidates for any election requiring a Party list shall be decided
by the National Council.
19 THE CONSTITUTION: APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT
19.1 This Constitution shall come into force immediately following its approval by a simple majority of Party members.
19.2 Amendments to the Constitution may be made only by a two-thirds majority of paid-up
members voting in a postal ballot. Such ballots shall be held when a Constitutional amendment
is proposed either by the National Council, after its approval by a two-thirds majority of National
Council members voting, or proposed by 20 or more Branches, communicated in writing to the
Party Secretary.
19.3 [repeats Para 7.34] Notwithstanding the provisions of this Constitution, the National
Council may, by a two-thirds majority and with at least seven members voting in favour,
temporarily suspend the operation of any of its rules in cases of genuine and serious
emergency only, including cases where the smooth and effective running of the Party would
be seriously hindered unless the operation of a rule is temporarily changed. In any such
case, the decision to suspend the operation of any rule, and the reasons for doing so, must be
published by the National Council to all members as soon as practicable



This Constitution was adopted following approval by a majority of members on (date )

UKIP's Triumph

It has been suggested to me by a fellow Veritas member (himself ex-UKIP like me and similarly normally pretty disgusted at the goings on within that party) that I should copy my posting of last Thursday on UKIP Uncovered to this blog - to demonstrate my impartiality - presumably as there are many around who accuse me of being only capable of constant carping.

Unhappily I can find nothing to praise within my own party at present, as it is seemingly set on a course designed to totally ignore the clearly stated will of the party members for an early party conference and urgent establishment of some proper democratic procedures for the party.

Here is my post of last Thursday to UKIP Uncovered, which presently remains the most recent:

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Triumph for UKIP and Nigel Farage MEP

This blog is most usually critical of UKIP as it sees it falling so far short of what the author believes it would be possible to achieve.

When a decisive blow against the EU is struck, and such an act can only be directly laid at the door of UKIP and its most noted MEP, then we are not afraid to celebrate the achievement.

77 MEPs today forced a censure debate against the Barroso Commission on entertainment expenditure and openness which will be held four days ahead of the absolutely crucial French referendum on the so-called constitution.


Brilliant! - Well done indeed for the UKIP

posted by Martin | 6:19 PM

A Constitution and Conference

Following on from the suggestion for an open e-mail constitutional debate amongst the party membership and an autumn conference put forward by the Acting Party Secretary last evening I suggest the following:

The Constitution

As it was Mr G. Lover who kicked matters off following the election with his paper suggesting a party structure based on strong grass roots democracy I suggest he (or his nominee) be made the coordinator for the drafting of the party constitution. I will copy this posting to Mr Lover asking his permission to post that paper on this blog and also indicating whether he has the time to take on such a demanding task.

The Conference

Alan Eastwood OBE has offered to chair a Conference Committee, liasing with Mr Lover they could agree an early date for the first party conference at which the Constitution could be approved and party posts filled.

Campaigns

Following the General Election results and pending the agreement of the party constitution it seems only sensible to postpone all campaigning activity, particularly in light of the party's difficult financial position. The expenses of a National Campaign Manager will therefore no longer have to be met and immediate savings be made.

I hope that the Party Leader and the two experienced and hard working volunteers I have suggested be entrusted with the party's future will all be able to agree to this procedure, and that it will meet with the approval of the wider membership.

I am forwarding all three gentlemen a copy of this post by email.

Party Constitution Debate to Begin!

The following has just been circulated to Party Members by the Party Secretary:-

To: Veritas Members
From: Michael Harvey, Party Secretary

Dear Veritas Member,

Now that the dust is settling on the general election, we must press ahead to ensure that Veritas develops into a powerful political force.

In order to do this, we must build a firm foundation in the form of a robust Party Constitution. This document will formally set out the party's aims and define its structure: how the Leader and other national officers are elected or appointed, what powers they have and how they
are accountable to the branches and members.

The aim is to produce a straight-forward and effective structure, balancing the need for accountability with firm and decisive leadership. Some initial work has already been done and a draft constitution has been lodged with the Electoral Commission.

If you would like to be involved in developing the constitution, please reply to this email. You will then receive copies of the discussion documents already produced. Your views on these documents - improvements, brickbats or alternatives - will be gratefully received and amendments made in the light of these comments. To keep costs down, we aim to use email as much as possible during this consultation exercise.

The next stage will be to produce an agreed draft Constitution to circulate to the entire membership and to seek ratification at our first Annual General Meeting, which will be held in September or October.

This is an ambitious timetable, but I'm sure you will agree that we must aim to deal with this important technical matter as quickly as possible so that we can concentrate on our main purpose - campaigning.

I'm sure that, with goodwill on all sides, and unity of purpose in achieving our aims, we can conduct this process quickly and smoothly.

Many thanks for your support.

Yours sincerely,
Michael Harvey
Party Secretary

Who is the liar? (continued)

If we assume that David Soutter is telling the truth when he states that somebody told him I had submitted an expense claim to the party, then that person was clearly lying. If so we can then make the following further assumptions:

1. That person wished to weaken my influence within the party.

2. That person must have been of sufficient seniority and insider knowledge for his lie to have been believable.

3. As I was working for nothing for the party out of strong beliefs in the principles around which the party was founded - that individual therefore wished to damage the party and hinder what it sought to achieve. That person cannot wish the party to succeed.

4. That person is most likely in his senior position to this day and should therefore be exposed and removed.

As David Soutter has been unprepared to reveal the source of this lie and still working on the assumption that it is not Soutter himself who is the source for the slander we can make a further stab at the identity of the liar by looking at the recipients of the e-mail circulated by David Soutter in which he first made the accusation known to me. After all, if he really was told such an untruth by another person and was then passing it along it would seem logical that he would copy his own source on the email addressee list. In looking at the e-mail it appears most senior figures in the party were indeed included. It was as follows:

T0Martin Cole

Cc: Damian Hockney , Michael Harvey , Richard Vass, Robert Kilroy-Silk, Patrick Eston

It is ludicrous to believe that Robert Kilroy-Silk was the source of the story, he presumably was the one intended to be duped.

That leaves the Deputy Leader of the party, the Party Secretary, the Party Chairman and the man now rumoured to be the most likely candidate for the party in the South Staffordshire by election.

If any of these gentlemen were indeed the source of the lie that was clearly designed to smear my name and undermine my position within the party then they are clearly unfit to continue in office or represent Veritas for parliament.

I will copy this posting to each of these gentlemen this morning so that each can have the opportunity to publicly declare their innocence. Their replies will then be posted on this blog.

If, as I expect, all deny spreading this maliciously untrue story, we will have to conclude David Soutter fabricated the matter to defend his present position, one that he will then be seen as unworthy of filling.

Who is the liar?

David Soutter, Campaign Manager and Chief of Staff to Robert Kilroy-Silk MEP has stated today regarding my personal expenses for which I never claimed reimbursement from Veritas:

"He says that everything that he did was done without asking for the money to be refunded.

I heard something different.........."

So who spread the lie, which is clearly proven as such from the email from the Party Treasurer quoted in the post below.

I have asked David Soutter!

My wife Maggie (who keeps our accounts) has asked David Soutter!

"Who is the highly placed liar within the Party who Soutter chose to believe?"

Speculation may continue here tomorrow!

Party Expenses to Martin Cole

The Veritas Party Treasurer, Mr John de Roeck, this evening replied to the accusations about my expenses made today by Mr David Soutter as follows:


"Hi David,

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that Mr Martin Cole has not received any payment from the Central Office of the party and that there is no claim outstanding from him at this time......."

The treasurer subsequently confirms what I had earlier indicated regarding Mr Soutter's own expense status within the party:

"In March 2005 the party agreed with David Soutter to reimburse him monthly for expenses during the campaign in his role as Campaign Manager."

Soutter's Smears

The following is an extract from the minutes of a meeting of Veritas Regional Organisers held at the home of Mr David Soutter in North Wales, which meeting was chaired by Mr Soutter, who also approved these minutes:

A question was raised regarding reimbursement of expenses. David Soutter replied that details of expenses incurred should be retained and would be eventually reimbursed. Martin Cole pointed out that at present there were considerable demands compared to income and bearing in mind the proximity of a General Election it would be prudent for all incurring expenses to only do so in the expection of possible non reimbursement.

Earlier today in response to an accusation from Mr Soutter that I had claimed reimbursement for the expenses I incurred in setting up and aiding the party and other wild claims I stated the following:-

"I was never dismissed as Robert's Chief of Staff but suspended for a period of a week to ten days when communications were particularly difficult. I was offered reinstatement on 28th February; which offer I refused.

I never submitted an expense account to the party as may be verified by John de Roeck. I bore all the expenses of my time in the UK when I dedicated myself for almost two whole months entirely to the affairs of the party. Earlier I had made frequent visits from Switzerland to London, bearing my own travel and hotel costs to get the party up and running."

Incredibly Mr Soutter has indeed sought clarification of these facts with the Party Treasurer and in so doing has made the following extraordinary statement about myself:-

"He says that everything that he did was done without asking for the money to be refunded.

I heard something different and as he is the person who has circulated unfounded stories and comment in his emails about me I would like to get at the truth of the matter. He said that you will support his statement, I am asing you to confirm his position or at least tell me what the truth of the matter is."

(The unfounded stories I presume Mr Soutter refers to here, were the directly pasted press reports that I posted on this blog, without comment as may be read from the archives)

Apart from the obvious questions such an inquiry raises about the judgement of David Soutter and his deeply suspicious nature, this raises the issue of who, other than the Party Treasurer would be in a position to know whether expenses had been claimed by myself AND what position such a person must have held in the party for Mr Soutter to lend it any credence (particularly bearing in mind my own minuted statement above).

I did indeed keep records of my expenditures and retain the receipts to this day. If another party submitted a false claim in my name then their forged nature will be quickly verifiable.

I will await John de Roeck's reply to Mr Soutter's inquiry with interest; meantime perhaps Mr Soutter would like to let the broader party membership know who exactly the individual was who lied about my having entered an expense account claim. Both matters will be then posted on this blog as and when they become known.

A Plea to Roger Knapman and Robert Kilroy-Silk!

Just what is the problem with you two educated gentlemen?

The above is a quote from a plea by an ex-UKIP member for some sense to be shown in South Staffordshire. Precious little evidence of it having any affect is yet to be seen - especially given the UKIP leader's letter circulated to members yesterday where he maintains the party will stand in the coming unusual by election.

I am fighting my side to prevent Veritas making a similar mistake, but so far with little apparent success. Veritas members will be meeting both this evening and tomorrow to prepare pleas to their own party leadership for some sanity.

Meantime the e-mail to the two euro-sceptic and feuding party leaders quoted above, ends as follows:

As laymen, we would all welcome some unity and leadership. Bring in an outsider, if you can't agree - a third party - a figurehead, even if temporary, but somebody divorced from party dogma and regimes who can unite all Eurosceptics across the land. Bury minor differences. There are dozens of "protest groups" etc who would support a central Eurosceptic Party. Divide and rule is succeeding for Blair - don't give him the satisfaction!

A Joint Candidate for South Staffs - Neil Herron?

Rumour has it that Veritas front runner for the party's candidacy in the coming South Staffs by- election is Patrick Eston.

While I have nothing against Patrick and found him a tireless worker during the formative period and launch of the party - any separate Veritas/UKIP candidacy at this stage of the electoral cycle is surely lunacy.

NOW IS THE TIME FOR A COMMON CANDIDATE FOR THE EURO-SCEPTIC MOVEMENT. ONE WHO CAN WIN AND PUT FORWARD THE CASE FOR A HALT TO THE EU'S EROSION OF OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND DEMOCRACY THROUGHOUT ALMOST THE FULL TERM OF THE COMING PARLIAMENT!

Although I have not discussed this nomination with Neil Herron, I nevertheless have no hesitation in putting his name forward as my suggestion for such a joint UKIP/Veritas Candidate as I strongly recommended in my posts of yesterday. Widely known through his championing of the metric martyrs and more recently for his blistering defeat of the government and John Prescott in particular over regionalisation, here would be a candidate with a real chance of entering parliament - finally ensuring a loud, clear and trusted anti-EU voice in the Commons chamber!

I would remind UKIP and Veritas party members of the results Patrick achieved in Tamworth on Thursday, a considerable achievement in beating UKIP from such a late start but do we really need a similar result in South Straffordshire in a few weeks time?

Result: Tamworth

LAB HOLD

TOP THREE PARTIES AT A GLANCE
Labour		43.0%
Conservative		37.1%
Liberal Democrat		14.1%
Swing: 2.8% from LAB to CON

IN DETAIL
Name	Party	Votes	%	+/- %
Brian Jenkins	Labour	18,801	43.0	-6.0
Christopher Pincher	Conservative	16,232	37.1	-0.5
Phillip Bennion	Liberal Democrat	6,175	14.1	+2.4
Patrick Eston	Veritas	1,320	3.0	+3.0
Tom Simpson	UK Independence Party	1,212	2.8	+1.1
Majority		2,569	5.9
Turnout		43,740	61.0	+3.2

UKIP/Veritas Election Effect

The following is a press release issued by The Bruges Group:-

Europe issue deprived Conservatives of 27 seats

The incredible, untold story of the general election is the effect that UKIP (and to a lesser extent Veritas) has had on the outcome. Overall, the combined votes of these two parties affected the outcome of 27 seats which might have otherwise gone to the Conservatives.

Of these 18 are held by Labour and if the Conservatives had won them the government would have had an overall majority of 30 instead of the 66 they actually have. Also the Conservatives would have 224 seats instead of 197. Liberal Democrat gains would have been reduced to a mere two.

The seats are as follows:

- Battersea (Lab hold) Majority: 163 - UKIP: 333
- Burton (Lab hold) Majority: 1,421 ­ UKIP plus Veritas: 1,825
- Carshalton & Wallington (LD hold) Majority: 1,068 - UKIP: 1,111
- Cornwall North (LD hold) Majority: 3,076 - UKIP plus Veritas: 3,387
- Crawley (Lab Hold) Majority 37 - UKIP 935
- Dartford (Lab hold) Majority 706 - UKIP: 1,407
- Eastleigh (LD Hold) Chris Huhne Majority: 568 - UKIP: 1,669
- Gillingham (Lab hold) Majority 254 - UKIP 1,191
- Harlow (Lab hold) Majority 97 - UKIP plus Veritas 1922
- Hereford (Lab hold) Majority: 962 - UKIP: 1,030
- High Peak (Lab hold) Majority: 735 ­ UKIP 1,106
- Hove (Lab hold) Majority 420 - UKIP 575
- Medway (Lab hold) Majority: 213 - UKIP 1,488
- Portsmouth North (Lab hold) Majority: 1,139 - UKIP 1,348
- Romsey (LD hold) Majority 125 ­ UKIP: 1,076
- Sittingbourne & Sheppey (Lab hold) Majority: 79 - UKIP plus Veritas: 1,118
- Solihull (LD Gain) Majority: 279 - UKIP: 990
- Somerton & Frome (LD hold) Majority: 812 - UKIP plus Veritas: 1,531
- Staffordshire Moorlands (Lab hold) Majority: 2,438 -­ UKIP: 3,512
- Stroud (Lab hold) Majority: 350 - UKIP: 1,089
- Stourbridge (Lab hold) Majority: 407 - UKIP: 1,087
- Taunton (LD gain) Majority: 573 ­ UKIP: 1,441
- Thanet South (Lab hold) Majority: 664 - UKIP (Nigel Farage) 2,079
- Torbay (LD hold) Majority: 2,029 - UKIP 3,726
- Warwick & Leamington (Lab hold) Majority: 306 - UKIP: 921
- Watford (Lab hold) Majority: 1,148 - UKIP: 1,292
- Westmorland & Lonsdale (LD gain) Majority: 267 - UKIP: 660

From this, it is clear that potentially, UKIP/Veritas had a far more significant effect on the election than their vote would imply. Given how different today would look if Blair has a majority of 30 and Kennedy had only taken two seats, it could be said that the "UKIP effect" is the political sensation of the election - and one that the mainstream media missed completely.

Furthermore, from provisional data, it is evident that UKIP is – almost under the radar – making steady gains in a hostile electoral environment. Seats fought over the last three elections have increased from 194 and 434 to 497, while the national share of vote has increased from 0.34% and 1.47% to 2.38%, with deposits saved increasing from one in 1997 to six in 2001 and 45 in this current election.

Total votes stood at 106,001 in 1997, at 390,910 in 2001 and at roughly 610,000 this time round. Given the tenacity of the Party, even where funding had dried up, fielding 497 candidates was a considerable achievement and there is no reason to expect that the Party will be any less tenacious in the next general election.

On the basis that the UKIP vote increases the same amount in the next election, having gone through the current results and worked out, provisionally, that some 15 extra Conservative seats could be lost to the "UKIP effect" in the next election.

These include Devon West, Eastbourne, Guildford, Totnes and the Wrekin, these would be in addition to the current 27 potentials, which would bring Conservative losses to 42.

All this, of course, is theoretical but there is good reason to believe that – all things being equal – UKIP could maintain its rate of growth or even improve its performance. For instance, with a prolonged EU referendum battle, it could improve its profile and attract greater support.

Crucially, the most probable year for the next general election is 2009 which, this time, coincides with the Euro-elections, which might even be held on the same date. That would put “Europe” firmly on the agenda and could significantly benefit UKIP.

The failure to develop a fully Eurosceptic policy and the missed opportunity of making "Europe", in just a small way, a part of the Conservatives Party's election campaign handicapped them and allowed Labour to retain a sizeable majority. Clearly, the Conservatives cannot afford to ignore neither "Europe" nor UKIP at the next election, if they are to stand a chance of winning and forming a government.

Party Democracy - ASAP

The following is being circulated among party members this evening. It is a plea from Alan Eastwood for an early party conference and election of officials, which as a founding party member I wholeheartedly endorse. The attachment "Following the Election" will be posted shortly:

Quote

Dear Colleagues,

I attach my paper 'Following the election' This is NOT intended to be the last word but a suggestion for a way forward.

But what I do believe we urgently require is an EARLY Annual General Meeting. I would also seek support for that Annual General Meeting to be held in the Midlands (the centre of the Country) and for our HQ to be moved there.

We have NO elected officials and we must not be likened to ukip which prevaricated when many branches wished for a leadership election, VERITAS Must be open and honest in its dealings.

We have unelected people making decisions in all our names which must stop. The membership must be allowed to express themselves and elect their officers as soon as possible and certainly not in the Autumn.

I would ask for your support to call on Robert Kilroy Silk, our leader, to call an Annual General Meeting at which the elections for officers take place in Late JUNE 2005 in the Midlands.

The website veritasparty-southwest.com is receiving suggested motions which we could put to whomsoever Robert asks to organise the annual general meeting. May I ask you to consider motions you believe your Branch would support.

May I ask you to organise your Branch into requesting our leader to call the AGM in Late June 2005.May I also suggest that as Branches have the only elected people within Veritas, that Robert is requested to form a ConferenceArrangements Committee from Chairmen of Branches
to take this party forward.

Contact me at aeastwood@onetel.net and please pass this email to any member who may not be on email.Please ensure that everyone is aware of this call please.

Let us get started on the long journey united behind ELECTED officials who will have the full support of the Country.

Regards to you all.

Alan Eastwood.OBE.

Unquote

A Call for Sanity

Early in the General Election campaign I pleaded both on this blog, 'Veritas Straight Talk'' and on 'Ukip Uncovered for those candidates mainly opposing the EU to avoid running in the same constituencies.

The results of such pointless competition must surely now be readily seen by all considering the results of Thursday's poll over this weekend.

Incredibly enough, it appears, the lesson has yet to have been learnt. Reports are reaching me that UKIP and Veritas are preparing to do battle against one another in the coming by election in South Staffordshire.

Ordinary members of both parties should now demand that their leadership should discuss and agree a joint anti-EU, pro-democracy and sovereignty candidate to stand in this unusual immediate post general election contest.

The English Democrats, who were the only group prepared to discuss a possible electoral pact before the General Election and who polled very respectably last week might also be invited to join such a group as might other smaller parties or independents.

The British electorate should for once be offered one candidate, backed by the combined resources of all Britain's frustrated independent and patriotic parties to show exactly what they really feel about the non-democratic major parties.

Roger Knapman and Robert Kilroy-Silk should now take the lead and back their anti-EU, pro-Country rhetoric with truly effective action. Only the outraged voices of the majority of their parties' membership, seems likely to make them do so.

Do any in the country really care whether UKIP or Veritas get a handful of votes more than one another in South Staffordshire?

How much better to have a jointly backed candidate standing for real Westminster Government after renewed independence and the reform of our appalling electoral system that has allowed Blair a third term working majority on 36 per cent of the electorate's vote (a record low)

A Disappointment for Veritas - A Disaster for Democracy

The General Election 2005 ground to the seemingly inevitable watershed for democracy and national sovereignty that had become increasingly inevitable since the ousting of Iain Duncan Smith as leader of the Conservative Party.

Veritas at least has been spared the immediate resignation of its leader which the Conservatives thought would be deferred but which any thinking members of UKIP (if such still exist) must now desperately crave.

Restoration of Britain's democracy and independence now looks impossible to achieve within the context of British national politics, regardless of which set of leaders eventually position themselves to fight the next election now another long five years away - years no doubt of increasingly authoritarian New Labour rule.

In the debate as to the best way forward it occurs to me that Veritas is perhaps uniquely placed.

The party with its Latin name for truth being instantly understood across the Continent, its non-alignment with other European parties and charismatic and widely known leader could be the first genuine pan-european party, campaigning for the abolition of the legislating powers of the EU Commission, the right of individual countries to run their own currencies at exchange rates against the Euro either they or the markets might decide , the abolition of the European Parliament and restrictions on the European Courts. In other words a full return of sovereignty to national parliaments. A Party that principally believes that true democracy can only be guaranteed by the sovereign nation state, and that war and bloodshed can best be avoided through such genuine democracy!

One or more countries seem likely to reject the EU Constitution. The only subsequent real gain in an amended document as far as I can guess will be the apparent sop of a democratically elected EU President. Such a sop could become the key to reform.

National rivalries would seem to suggest that a federalist German nominee would then be elected. The elected leader of a pan-European party mighthowever give such a nominee a good run for his money and if succesful would be in a powerful position to decapitate and cauterize the increasingly totalitarian EU Hydra!

UKIP drops campaigning to thwart RKS in Erewash

Donor pays Bed-and-breakfast charges for UKIP’s ‘Get Kilroy’ Campaign in Erewash


John Whittaker MEP - the man who is standing for 8 seats in the North West - tells UKIP workers to campaign against Kilroy in Erewash, rather than campaign in their own areas

A VERITAS sympathiser in the U.K. Independence Party’s North-West Region has leaked, to VERITAS, an internal e-mail from their North-West MEP, John Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker sent his e-mail, which refers to a donor offering to pay for bed-and-breakfast for UKIP workers willing to campaign against Robert Kilroy-Silk, to all UKIP members in the North-West. The e-mail was leaked this afternoon to Mr Kilroy-Silk’s Researcher.

The e-mail from John Whittaker states:

“While I know you are all busy doing what you can in your home patches,
there is another call on our time. I am trying to gather support for the
UKIP campaign in Erewash constituency (between Derby and Nottingham) where Kilroy is standing. I do think this is important and shall be spending time there myself. If any of you, or members, family etc. could help with the usual leafleting - canvassing - general campaigning activities, please get in touch with me (07752 643946) A donor has promised to pay for B&B for any who stay over”.

The targeting of VERITAS candidates in this way has been a feature of UKIP’s strategy in this General Election. Rather than field a candidate in several Hertfordshire seats where neither UKIP nor VERITAS is standing, UKIP deliberately fielded a candidate - Hertfordshire man John Felgate - in the Essex constituency of Harlow against VERITAS candidate Tony Bennett. A similar pattern occurred in Staffordshire as soon as VERITAS announced its candidates in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. UKIP immediately put up candidates against VERITAS but not in several other constituencies in the area. As soon as Robert Kilroy-Silk announced - in February - that he was contesting Erewash, UKIP responded immediately by fielding its Regional Organiser, Geoffrey Kingscott, against him.

UKIP Dirty Tricks

Donor pays Bed-and-breakfast charges
for UKIP’s ‘Get Kilroy’ Campaign in Erewash


John Whittaker MEP - the man who is standing for 8 seats
in the North West - tells UKIP workers to campaign against Kilroy in Erewash, rather than campaign in their own areas

A VERITAS sympathiser in the U.K. Independence Party’s North-West Region has leaked, to VERITAS, an internal e-mail from their North-West MEP, John Whittaker. Mr. Whittaker sent his e-mail, which refers to a donor offering to pay for bed-and-breakfast for UKIP workers willing to campaign against Robert Kilroy-Silk, to all UKIP members in the North-West. The e-mail was leaked this afternoon to Mr Kilroy-Silk’s Researcher.

The e-mail form John Whittaker states:

“While I know you are all busy doing what you can in your home patches,
there is another call on our time. I am trying to gather support for the
UKIP campaign in Erewash constituency (between Derby and Nottingham) where Kilroy is standing. I do think this is important and shall be spending time there myself. If any of you, or members, family etc. could help with the usual leafleting - canvassing - general campaigning activities, please get in touch with me (07752 643946) A donor has promised to pay for B&B for any who stay over”.

The targeting of VERITAS candidates in this way has been a feature of UKIP’s strategy in this General Election. Rather than field a candidate in several Hertfordshire seats where neither UKIP nor VERITAS is standing, UKIP deliberately fielded a candidate - Hertfordshire man John Felgate - in the Essex constituency of Harlow against VERITAS candidate Tony Bennett. A similar pattern occurred in Staffordshire as soon as VERITAS announced its candidates in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. UKIP immediately put up candidates against VERITAS but not in several other constituencies in the area. As soon as Robert Kilroy-Silk announced - in February - that he was contesting Erewash, UKIP responded immediately by fielding its Regional Organiser, Geoffrey Kingscott, against him.