Lies Surrounding A Claim That UKIP NEC Members Favoured BNP Alliance.
.
Please Be Sure To .
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
To Spread The Facts World Wide
.
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable!
.
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
.
Lies Surrounding A Claim That UKIP NEC Members Dr. David Abbott & Dr. Eric Edmond Favoured Alliance between UKIP & The BNP & dishonesty in their removal from the NEC as with Richard Suchorzewski.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
one has to wonder if some authors, be that media or book authors do any research or whether they just write the propaganda as it is fed to them!
Senior Ukip members ‘backed pact with BNP’
Proposal was canvassed among party’s National Executive Committee in 2008 according to a new book
Daniel Boffey, policy editor
Saturday 8 March 2014 16.29 GMT
Nigel Farage
Two members of Ukip considered forming a pact with the BNP five years ago but in 2008 Nigel Farage said the deal had been unanimously rejected. Photograph: Simon James/GC ImagesA new book has revealed that Ukip considered forming a pact with the BNP six years ago, with two members of the party’s national executive committee at the time in favour of the idea.In 2008 Nigel Farage acknowledged that the BNP had proposed a deal for the European elections the following year, but insisted it had been unanimously rejected. Farage told reporters then: “I’m simply amazed that the BNP thought we would even consider such a thing.”
Now the new book, Revolt on the Right, by Dr Matthew Goodwin and Dr Robert Ford – called the most definitive account yet of the Ukip movement – reveals that the BNP’s proposal was canvassed among 17 members of the party’s NEC. Two members supported the proposal, it has emerged.
Farage, who said he had been against a pact, told the authors: “There were a lot of people saying to me at that time, ‘You’ve got to do a deal with them.’ I even had Tory MEPs saying to me, ‘Nigel, you’ve got to do a deal with these people.’ We were being beaten by them regularly in local elections. So there was huge pressure on me. The nature of the deal was the BNP would stand in some regions in the European elections in the north, and Ukip would stand in the south, and that would be the electoral pact: we wouldn’t oppose each other.”
Of the members who offered support for the pact, Farage said: “They were the angry old men of old Ukip who thought Ukip was doomed.”
The political predicament of Ukip in 2008 contrasts with its potential today, the authors say. In the book, published this week, they say the party has emerged from the crash with the potential to attract a third of the electorate.
Around 30% of voters are now believed to be both Eurosceptic and opposed to immigration, or Eurosceptic and politically dissatisfied, the defining themes for Ukip. Such sentiments are continuing to grow in strength among the electorate, according to the authors, who draw on the biggest pool of data so far amassed on the political movement.
The book provides evidence that the share of voters holding Eurosceptic views and at least one other radical right belief has increased by five to seven percentage points since 2008. Ukip is widely seen as not having a credible manifesto and has faced serious questions about the calibre of its MEPs, the authors note.
This weekend, the party was dogged by claims that it had misused EU funds in paying staff working in the UK. Yet Goodwin, from Nottingham University, and Ford, of Manchester University, say the “army of potential supporters for Ukip is growing in size” and is being aided by continued anger at Labour’s record and disaffection with the Tory leader.
They argue that Farage and Ukip face huge challenges in the first-past-the-post electoral system, and given the party’s continued unpopularity among women, ethnic minorities, graduates and the young. However, Ukip is now the favoured electoral option among those who strongly disapprove of the EU – 20% of all British voters.
Over the past three years, the party has also performed better than Labour among older, working-class voters and those who are struggling financially. The party is using tactics similar to those once successfully deployed by the Lib Dems, the authors say, in that they seek to deepen their vote in particular areas by getting into local councils and building strongholds.
It is claimed that, of the five constituencies where Ukip stands its best chance of general election success, four are Labour seats (Great Grimsby, Plymouth Moor View, Ashfield and Walsall North) and one is Tory (Waveney). The consistent feature in these areas is a splintering of the traditional vote and the existence of a large, older, blue-collar demographic.
The book suggests that the potential for Ukip’s rise can be clearly seen in societal changes that developed decades ago. The authors write: “Its seeds lay among groups of voters who struggled with the destabilising and threatening changes brought by deindustrialisation, globalisation and, later, European integration and mass immigration.”
The academics claim Farage is fusing three issues to make a coherent message: “Farage’s party now encourages voters to say ‘no’ three times: no to the Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg; no to the politicians in Westminster; and no to immigration. This is not a grand ideological vision – there is no ‘Farageism’ – but it is a coherent and highly effective message.”
They add: “Ukip is not a second home for disgruntled Tories in the shires; it is a first home for disaffected working-class Britons of all political backgrounds who have lost faith in a political system that ceased to represent them long ago.”
On publication of the book Revolt on the Right I read it but found it was tedious and pretentious in the extreme and the reporting of this story in the article above was just as inaccurate as shown! The story put forward regarding the claim that an official approach from the BNP was made and was supported by two members of UKIP’s NEC is utter hogwash.
At the time I wrote numerous factually based and sourced articles regarding this even which I showed to be nothing more than Nigel Farage’s ‘Reichstag Fire’ event giving him an excuse for his own ‘Crystalnacht’.
Never have those who Farage and his clique identified who actually proposed a link with the BNP backed by a single fact.
Was it in fact Nigel Farage?
This photo shows Nigel Farage, Mark Deavin (who sat with UKIP NEC) and Tony LeComber (National Front & subsequently BNP Lecomber was convicted for criminal damage in 1982, offences under the Explosives Act in 1985, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in 1991 for an attack on a Jewish teacher.)
It is widely believed that the photograph was taken after a lunch between the three in which the possibility of Nigel Farage joining the BNP with a view to leading the party as at the time Farage was not a member of UKIP having fallen out with his colleagues!
The NEC meeting referred to in the article, and in the rather sloppy book, was attended by arrangement, as a guest of Martin Hasslam, an attendee at the NEC at the behest of Nigel Farage, agreed to by Nigel Farage, by Buster Mottram, a Farage family friend who I understand was living with a relation of Nigel Farage’s and let us not forget that Nigel Farage, against widespread advice, enrolled and welcomed Buster Mottram as a favoured member of UKIP and as something of a personality and spokesman.
Buster Mottram presented a scenario of association with the BNP claiming he had the approval of the BNP leadership!
I am reliably advised that NO ONE elected to UKIP NEC was in favour of the suggested scenario, interestingly by dint of lies and inuendo, rumours and spin it was claimed by the ‘Farage faction’, a view promoted via certain liars amongst UKIP’s press staff, that two members of the elected NEC supported the suggestion – this was and is a lie.
The claimed, by inuendo, supporters were Dr. David Abbott and Dr. Eric Edmond, both of whom have sought clarification of the implied slur and have promised to sue Farage and any member of his odious clique who claims they have supported the BNP in this context. It is interesting to note that both Abbott & Edmond had actively campaigned for transparency in UKIP’s use and abuse of both tax payers’ money and that of UKIP donors – particularly in respect of the apparent scam of The Ashford Call Center and its ramifications where another elected member of the UKIP NEC
Richard Suchozevski had proved that less than 15% of the money raised by ‘Ashford’ ever reached the Party!
Interestingly not only were Drs. Abbott and Edmond forced off of UKIP NEC by Farage’s cult but so also was Richard Suchorzewski, a position that was inevitable once he had, in campaigning for clarity and probity, asked 30 questions regarding UKIP accounts and use of donors’ and tax payers’ money, questions that Andrew Smith, treasurer at the time, was seemingly unable to answer and quit his position thereby avoiding the question leaving UKIP accounts in total disaray – seemingly with possibly £Millions unaccounted for.
I must apologise for not having posted this article when it was first published, but at the time I felt it was so shoddy, inaccurate and unchecked as to be irrelevant, as with the book quoted! I find that a subsequent article elsewhere made it relevant and therefore added the article with this comment on 10-May-2014.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Reclaim YOUR Future
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
to Reclaim YOUR Future
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01594 – 528 337
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
TWITTER: Greg_LW
Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W)
Ukip-vs-EUkip 
We welcome comments but reserve the right to moderate & refuse libelous or offensive comments and those we choose to delete when written by unidentifiable individuals hidden in anonymity in a cowardly manner to defame or abuse. No comment has EVER been barred or deleted which is genuine & clearly authored by a named & identifiable individual. You will note many comments made have been commented on and even corrected by the blog owner. We welcome genuine comments.