<!–var googleUrl="/telegraph/template/ver1-0/templates/fragments/search/components/google/GAFSTransform.jsp?";function doneGAFShtml (htmlstr) { //alert(htmlstr); htmlstr = htmlstr.split("<").join("”).join(“>”).split(“&”).join(“&”); var parts = htmlstr.split(“[BREAK]”); var slot1 = document.getElementById(“gafsslot1”); var slot2 = document.getElementById(“gafsslot2”); if (parts[0] != null) { slot1.innerHTML=parts[0]; if (parts[1] != null) { slot2.innerHTML=parts[1]; } }}function initGoogleWS () { var ajaxgws = new AJAXInteraction(googleUrl+’q=%22tim+Congdon%22&ua=Mozilla%2F5.0+%28Windows%3B+U%3B+Windows+NT+5.1%3B+en-US%3B+rv%3A1.9.1.10%29+Gecko%2F20100504+Firefox%2F3.5.10+%28+.NET+CLR+3.5.30729%29&ip=81.129.95.33&p=’, null, doneGAFShtml); ajaxgws.doGet();}initGoogleWS();//–>

var gaJsHost = ((“https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.&#8221; : “http://www.&#8221;);document.write(unescape(“%3Cscript src='” + gaJsHost + “google-analytics.com/ga.js’ type=’text/javascript’%3E%3C/script%3E”)); try {var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker(“UA-7226372-1”);pageTracker._trackPageview();} catch(err) {}

UKIP: The Leadership Election

Young Independence members wait with bated breath to see who will lead UKIP on November 5th

Interesting article from one of our contacts:

Rarely is all what it seems in the realm of Ukip power politics, and Bannerman‘s candidacy, along with the bogus spats between Bannerman and Farage during the hustings, is a case in point.

As with the last time Farage was placed as leader when David Noakes and Richard Suchorzewski stood against him the placeman, liar and poodle David Bannerman entered the farce to split the opposition vote yet further, to ensure Farage was placed as leader as was planned. Even then there was a fear that Richard Suchorzewski would beat him as in terms of economics, education, management and leadership skills he was so clearly the front runner and UKIP’s dishonest supporters and those seeking self enrichment who were willing to lie on his behalf such as:
John Moran
David Lott
Jim Carver
Mark Croucher
Annabelle Fuller
Toby Mickelthwait
Douglas Denny
& others
published many lies to subvert the integrity of the so called election.

Put it this way, Farage is well known to be the ‘establishment’s’ poodle. So would the ‘establishment’ leave too much to chance by allowing a totally free and fair election, with the chance that Nigel would be defeated, of course not!

Let me remind you of an earlier election contest, in 1999 (or was it 2000?), when Rodney Atkinson entered the race to become Ukip leader. Mysteriously, the Ukip membership lists were purloined and members found themselves the recipients of poison pen letters from journalists Bill Jamieson and Chris Booker, warning that Atkinson’s concerns over Bilderberg would discredit the party and the cause (As many will appreciate, Farage has always steered well clear of any question relating to Bilderberg.). No one knows for sure who stole those membership lists but many have pointed their fingers at Farage and raised questions over his role in the incident.

Interestingly this is completely inaccurate as I was supplied with two electronic copies of the entire mailing list – but as is well known UKIP has NEVER had much regard for Data Protection or for responsible handling of private information or confidentiality.

I was also supplied, delivered to my business premises, a copy of an ‘e’Mail I had published on the internet – this had been printed and there were envelopes sufficient for every UKIP member and also the membership labels and the stamps required. Since the letter was my personal opinion of the runners and riders in the election for leadership of UKIP and reitteration of the undertakings of Michael Holmes that he WOULD NOT stand for leadership – and a summary of MY opinions of the contestants.

It has always amused me over the years that in the pretence of being a largely Libertarian party UKIP has itself rigged every single election it has EVER taken part in yet it has constantly made a fool of itself by having tantrums and spreading lies because I chose to excercise my right of freedom of speech to broadcast my personal opinion of those who were standing for election.

That Rodney atkinson was standing and it was my personal opinion that he was a very poor judge of people, had NEVER been a leader of anything, was running his own quasi party which he refused to renounce yet wished to lead UKIP, that he was near obsessed with Nazi grounds for the EU when it was VERY clear that the last world war and Nazi Party would act as a deterent to those of sense from leading UKIP.

It was clear that without intervention this strange obsessive who had all but destroyed Sovereign Britain with his demands for fees, editorial powers and refusal that they could recoup their costs for the large Taunton meeting they funded and needed to sell The CDs to recoup their outlay – Rodney Attkinson was self serving. Further his involvement with Mrs. Riley waspotentially dangerous as shown subsequently with the dishonesty that surrounded the South Moulton Undertaking which was suggested and discussed in South Moulton by myself and others and then taken forward by Attkinson in determination to refute my involvement in his pathetic insecurity. This was the idea we had rejected but which he took forward as the unworkable so called BDI (Bloody Daft Idea).

As I had absolutely no reason totrust Attkinson or his supporters I could not with any morality advocate he became UKIP leader. As a result of my intervention the leadership was placed in the hands of Jeffrey Titford – who was clearly as much use as a soup sandwich as a leader with the inspiration of an earth worm but I saw his function and stated it as being a calm (uninspired) pair of hands to ‘heal’ UKIP after the turbulent period under Michael Holmes.

I also had delivered to me a printed letter mailed as a letter from Christopher Booker and Bill Jamieson, very strong supporters of the principles of UKIP members. The letter came with sufficient copies, envelopes, stamps and labels printed. I confirmed with both Christopher Booker and also Bill Jamieson that they were happy that a copy of their letter to reach every UKIP member – they were, so we mailed them from my business.

I believe that I acted correctly and with integrity in my distribution of the 2 letters and I am relieved that Jeffrey Titford became leader, useless as he was he fulfilled his purpose.

I have NEVER considered Nigel Farage had the ability to lead the party, nor the integrity or probity, intellect or vision to lead the party – I believe circumstances and the passage of time have proved me to be absolutely correct.

Similarly, during the EGM around the same time, a then junior member of theNEC reported that the meeting was packed with a contingent of 150 ‘members’ that no one knew and whose sole purpose seemed to be to support Farage’s take on things.

The present election contest has a similar strange smell about it. Indeed many are now of the view that the entire thing stinks. Indeed, a simple examination of the record of the two contenders, Farage & Bannerman, should of itself be cause for concern that this election is all above board!

I regret I can only totally agree.

Consider:

On the one hand, there exists a candidate for real change in the form of Tim Congdon. His ‘running mate’ is Gerard Batten, who is reported to have been told by Farage before the Euro elections that if he placed one step out ofline, he would be de-selected. No wonder Batten watches his ‘Ps’ and his ‘Qs’.

On the other hand, there stands David Bannerman. Bannerman, of course, is from the same Conservative stable as Lord Pearson and, for that matter, Farage. Bannerman was Chairman of the Tory Bow Group, and a senior ‘bag carrier’ for then Northern Island Secretary, Patrick Mayhew.

Bannerman, while he may not be as fundamentally dishonest as Farage, was caught out soon after the start of his Ukip political career. Dr David Abbott discovered, inter alia, that Bannerman’s claimed link with the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, was deceitful.

Bannerman’s Ukip career, as well as his status as an MEP, may be attributed almost entirely to the backing provided by his mentor, Nigel Farage. Farage plucked him out for rapid promotion. Bannerman was a close confidant of Farage during many years of wheeler-dealering. Bannerman also owes his position as an MEP to Farage. The elections in Bannerman’s Eastern Region were, IMHO, rigged. The scandal peaked with the disgraceful undermining of John West’s campaign and the shocking treatment of Robin Page, whose bid to become an MEP was sabotaged.

As Junius states: “There is not a single UKIP election that has been run properly. Every single election has been dogged by allegations of corruption and vote rigging.” The intelligent observer of Ukip power politics should ask why it is that Farage, who cannot abide political competition, should consistently and persistently promote Bannerman? Farage, it will be remembered, has managed to sideline all the real talent in Ukip and, in particular, anyone with personality, skill, ability and some degree of speaking talent. Most within these categories, have left the party. Strange that Bannerman should stay the course???

Could it be, the intelligent observer might ask, that Bannerman is contending because he is a useful steam-vent? Farage knows he is disliked and distrusted by many within the party, especially by the activists and officials. He also knows that many see through him and view his wheeler-dealer activities with contempt.

Farage – and his backers – cannot afford a ‘loose cannon’ in control of Ukip, because their influence will diminish. What better tactic, therefore, than to arrange a useful safety-valve? Step forward, Bannerman!

One is ably reminded of Unilever’s strategy of old. Their policy was to controlthe two largest brands – on the face of it competing with the other for sales but, in reality, both under the same parent.

If Bannerman is a real threat to Farage and if he really will lead Ukip in a fresh direction, why is he not supported by Mike Nattrass, who has left the Parliamentary EDF group?

Mike Nattrass is supporting Congdon. Batten stood down from the contest to become Congdon’s running mate. Why, instead, did principled opposition not solidify around Bannerman? Indeed, why is Bannerman not supporting Congdon, if he wants real change?

Clearly, Batten and Nattrass do not support Bannerman because there would be no real change were Bannerman to win.

There is also the somewhat surprising change of allegiance by Congdon’s earlier supporters, Chris Browne and Toby Miklethwait (from UKIP’s Runnymede, Weybridge and Spelthorne branch (South East region), who are are now urging members of their branch to ‘vote for DCB’.

Chairman Chris Browne and Treasurer Toby Micklethwait (editor of the UKIP Bulletin and Ukip Informer) say “DCB’s experience with the policy groups indicates managerial skills”. Well, maybe, but Bannerman has been running these policy groups for sometime, not merely since the leadership contest was announced. And let’s not forget that Tim Congdon’s business skills are provably far more extensive that David Bannerman’s!

A less charitable explanation in the world of Ukip power politics may be the possibility that they wanted to sabotage Congdon’s campaign. After all both Micklethwait and Browne have, both, been strong Farage supporters in the past, it’s not inconceivable that Farage has called in a few favours here! Think about it!

Then what about the friction between Bannerman and Farage at the recent conference and the controversy over that Question Time appearance?

There is a simple explanation. If Bannerman was to become a serious challenger for the Ukip leadership, then clearly he would have to place some distance between himself and Farage. The reality is akin to the Unilever strategy: both peas are from the same pod but the competition is only skin-deep.

As for that Question Time appearance, the Farage camp gave the game away. They revealed that Question Time was about the huge new wind farm at Thanet, which UKIP has opposed. Nigel, they say, would have been the token anti-windmill panel member and was chosen ahead of a Green Party spokesman. “Now UKIP will be denied the publicity that Question Time always brings and the programme will probably go ahead without someone credible speaking out against the global warming scam. So much for party loyalty.”

As was remarked on the Junius Blog: “Give us a break! The panellists are not supposed to know the questions in advance. And why would ANYONE in Cheltenham be interested in a wind farm in far away Kent? Sycophants for Farage will really have to do better than that!”

As for the claim that Question Time’s production team did not know there was a leadership contest ongoing in Ukip, this is simply unbelievable. How is it possible that a BBC team of the nation’s most informed political researchers, who determine the questions for the BBC flagship current affairs’ programm, were unaware of Ukip’s leadership contest?

Frankly, with more television appearances than any other politician in QT’s history, one more or one less appearance would be neither here not there.

The reality is that the BBC has merely postponed Farage’s next appearance. It seems more likely that the BBC was playing the same game, given their historical connections with Farage. Less there should be any question over Bannerman’s anti-Farage credentials, the Bannerman campaign has been given an extra degree of credibility by the BBC – which has neatly enabled Farage to issue his statement about Bannerman’s ego.

A few years ago, outside of the Green Room, BBC Television Centre

As Wedgwood-Benn so aptly commented, observers should ask what is the cause and what is the effect?

The cause is the contest. The effect is two-fold: detract from the Congdon campaign by placing Bannerman as the most realistic anti-Farage candidate. Create some theatre and contrive some friction. Attack the candidate(Bannerman) over his ego to detract from accusations over the favourite’s own ego. Use the party websites to propagate the message. Result: game, set and match to the wheeler-dealer spiv – Farage.

Wake up people, the European project is too important for its UK chapter – Farage’s EUKIP -to be threatened by a loose cannon – Congdon. That is why the BBC is backing Farage. That is why Bannerman is standing. Bannerman, who is not the brightest button on the bench, probably does not see the bigger picture. But then useful fools rarely do!

As there are so many instances of electoral manipulation in past Ukip elections, why should this election be run any differently. Put it this way, with, Farage luvvy, Ms Duffy, in charge of the election, would, you, put money on this election being any more honest and above board than previous occasions? No, neither would I!!!!!

To view the original article CLICK HERE.

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance