UKIP Catastrophic Local Election Results Explained!
.
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!
.
UKIP Catastrophic Local Election Results Explained!
This is the ‘text’ of the Full Report to UKIP NEC regarding the debacle and unprofessional shambles that is UKIP leadership’s abitity to run or manage virtually anything!
UKIP under its present leadership & structure is clearly unfit for purpose & corrupted!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
the following information which exposes the rats nest that is UKIP leadership, with its utter incompetence, unprofessional behaviour, internal squabbling, back stabbing and the bungling stupidity of its crass salaried & unsalaried staff.
It is abundantly clear that UKIP’s utter incompetence makes them, on virtually every count, unfit for ANY responsible office – It is so sad to see the Party which so many of us have supported turned into a self serving scam in total betrayal of the EUroSceptic cause.
The parasites and liars like Mick McGough (and many more) defaming and lying to protect their personal interests – endless attacks based on their repetition of lies to mislead and beguile the gullible to keep their own positions.
Their own electoral returning officer’s detailed report on the selection and election process in The EUro elections showed current NEC members, like Mick McGough, to be willing to lie and cheat their associates and so called friends for their own personal gain and the report exposed so very much more, as presented to UKIP NEC but denied by the liars on the NEC for their own self preservation.
No doubt in the realisation that Junius & I had a copy of the latest report to The NEC – McGough & other low lifes in UKIP leadership claque have been desperately dissembling and openly telling lies about myself, Junius, UKFirstParty and various other UKIP supporters who have been driven out of the party by its corruption and incompetence – its betrayal of the very people who put these scum in office!
The detailed 19 page report published below was supplied to me as a .pdf by ‘e’Mail from a reliable source working as staff for UKIP in the EU, known to me. We have deliberately left it for a few days to permit wider circulation so that it could not be so readily traced to our sources and also so that more UKIP members would see it and it would be harder for UKIP’s corrupt leadership to scurry around and try to hide copies and deny the truth – as they have done in the past!
UKIP’s usual attempts to cover-up all too readily involve attacking the messenger and using usefull idiots and ambitious sock puppets to lie and defame the messenger.
A measure of the stupidity of UKIP is that in repeatedly telling lies they hugely damage themselves and as they have failed to find and identify a single solitary dishonest entry on the whole of my web site, blogs or various other postings they are shown for the low lifes and liars they clearly comprise.
Similarly with their duplicitous attacks on those who publish the Junius blog.
May I also remind them whatever character they invent for me does absolutely nothing to damage the facts conveyed or the details provided – There being not a single solitary ethical member of UKIP leadership or staff clearly as I would not cross the road to have a drink with such low lifes I clearly couldn’t care less what tyhey invent about me as they have proved time and again they are untrustworthy and self serving.
I have been, as yet, unable to load the material as a .pdf with its graphs and tables and in the interim am posting this document as a text document at the same time as Junius has agreed to publish the document.
I regret the layout is at times hard to follow but we are seeking a way to present the document with its original layout.
Absolutely no material has been deliberately added or removed – other than in electronic conversion from .pdf to text and uploading to this web site and in Junius’ case to Google’s Blogger or CLEARLY annotated as additional.
Confidential
Page 1 of 19
London Mayoral and Assembly Elections 2012
Detailed Election Report NEC May 2012
By Lawrence WebbContent
1. The Results
2. Key Dates and Timings
3. The Campaign
4. Fresh Choice for London
5. Messages/ PEB
6. Appointed Candidates
7. Wasted Resources
8. Conclusion: Too Little Too Late
9. Appendix 1
10. Appendix 2
11. Appendix 3
12. Appendix 4
13. Appendix 5
Confidential
Page 2 of 19
1) The Results
Mayor 1.96% +1.06%
List 4.5% +2.6% (deposit saved)
Constituency 4 deposits saved (+2)
Mayor London-wide (List)
It is important to note that although this shows the total number of second preference votes only 82,880
were valid for BJ and 102,355 were valid for KL this is because some people were either giving 1st and 2nd to
the same candidate or putting BJ first and KL second (and vice versa).
2) Key dates and timings
Summer 2010
Even before I had been selected as the UKIP Mayoral Candidate I had spent some time courting
specific interest groups, taxis and various groups affected by the low emission zones. This has
resulted in an article in the Daily Express and a monthly column in The Badge newspaper (a Taxi
publication). In addition to these I also had mentions in a number of trade press including the Ice
cream alliance and those covering the recovery industry.
September 2010
First attempt to get on the NEC to discuss the London elections.
February 2011
Submitted strategy to NEC (no action taken). It was stressed however that the Party would have
overall control rather than London region to avoid similar problems that had occurred in Wales.
Spring 2011
I attempted to start the candidate selection process – this was delayed to concentrate on the Mayor
selection.
June 2011
Steve Crowther attended the LRC meeting to oversee and direct preparations for the campaign. The
selection of candidates was discussed. As can be seen from this extract of the LRC minutes for
Thursday 16th June 2011 (point 4.4) the manifesto was always going to be a collusion of ideas from
all the Mayoral candidates and not as SC suggested in his report to the NEC, which implied that the
Manifesto was the sole responsibility of the incoming Mayoral candidate.
“Messaging. It proved extremely difficult to create the London manifesto, which should
have been effectively in place with the incoming Mayoral candidate”
Total % including 2nd preference votes
Total of all votes 3,971,484
Combined
Total
Combined
%
Boris Johnson 1225640 30.86
Ken Livingstone 1225316 30.85
Jenny Jones 462106 11.63
Brian Paddick 455466 11.46
Siohban Benita 296326 7.46
Lawrence Webb 204526 5.14
Carlos Cortiglia 102104 2.57
Top up list 2008 2012
List Total List Total
Conservative 3 11 835,535 3 9 708528 -3.0%
Labour 2 8 665,443 4 12 911204 +13.3%
Lib Dems 3 3 275,272 2 2 150447 -3.8%
Green 2 2 203,465 2 2 189215 +2.1%
UKIP 0 0 46,617 0 0 100040 +2.6%
BNP 1 1 130,714 0 0 47024 -3.3%
11 25
Confidential
Page 3 of 19
July 2011
Steve Crowther once again attended the LRC and presented his ‘Proposed Plan for the London
Elections 2012’. My suggestion of selecting the Assembly candidates first to give them time to
embed themselves was overridden in favour of selecting the Mayoral candidate first using a public
vote; about which there was much scepticism amongst the LRC. The reluctance of the LRC was
overcome when it was explained that the proposed plan would enable UKIP to ‘harvest’ the details
of all those who participate in the process. SC appointed Lisa Duffy to oversee the campaign.
The main areas of policy were discussed; Transport and Crime being the two areas for which the Mayor has control.
ConfidentialPage 4 of 19
August 2011
Mayoral candidate selected. In the end this was decided on the member’s ballot alone because the
online vote was subject to a massive fraud and in the end failed to harvest any details.
October 2011
There was an altercation between Nigel Farage and Steven Woolfe where Nigel insisted that he
wanted Steven to be top of the list in London. Nigel was heard to say that he controlled the NEC
and if he didn’t do what Nigel wanted he would not be able to stand as an MEP elsewhere.
November 2011
The first ballot to select the Assembly candidates. Steve Crowther, Lisa Duffy and Peter Reeve
attend LRC meeting. The process for selecting the list candidates is presented by SC. LRC are very
concerned about the NEC altering the running order after the members have voted. SC said this was
to ensure the list was ‘balanced’ which raised further concerns he stressed however that changes
would only be made in extreme circumstances.
December 2011
The second ballot to select the Assembly candidates
January 2012
At the end of the month the NEC decided the order of the candidates on the list.
February 2012
The super-constituency candidates were appointed.
March 2012
Lisa Duffy was removed from the campaign (at the beginning of March).
Duncan Barkes leaves for pastures new (at end of March).
Confidential
Page 5 of 19
Despite my best efforts to start planning for these elections to allow time for the candidates to embed
themselves into their constituencies and become aware of the local issues, the candidates were not finally
in place until three months before polling day.
NB: These Elections are at fixed intervals – the next one is Thursday 5th May 2016.
3) The Campaign
The early start of the campaign went well with Lisa, Duncan, Damian and I working on the messaging and a
media strategy. This had some degree of success with several hits in the media the best being on 8th March
when I was quoted in the Express, Star, Mirror and Metro (in their printed versions) and in the Mail,
Telegraph and London Loves Business online.
However there was no effective campaign from the point that Lisa was removed and there was no
effective media campaign from the point at which Duncan moved on. What is worse, is from the point that
Lisa was removed Janice Small failed to keep the agent (Peter Staveley) informed of expenditure: at the
very least this is wilfully negligent if not criminally negligent.
Even now Janice has failed to supply a proper record of what was spent and how it is to be allocated.
Similarly, events were missed from the campaign schedule despite advised well in advance.
Despite Havering being the best area for UKIP in London it was not included in Nigel’s campaign schedule
even though he did come for Question Time, which was broadcast from Havering the week before polling.
ConfidentialPage 6 of 19
This is one of two or more emails giving details of events in Havering
4) Fresh Choice for London
As Part of the messaging it had been decided to stress that UKIP was
a “fresh” alternative because Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems
were putting up the same candidates as in 2008.
When the newspaper was produced it was done so believing that this
would be the principle campaign literature, and that;
“UKIP A Fresh Choice” should be registered as a Party description.
However after Lisa was replaced I was removed from any of the
decision making process.
There is a huge and fundamental difference between London the capital of the UK and London Region
which is not understood by those outside of London.
Although I live in London region I in no way consider myself to be a “Londoner” and nor do most of the
people who live in the outer boroughs where most of our support comes from. In the end the decision to
register and use “Fresh Choice For London” was made by those who do not know or understand
London/London Region, in the mistaken belief that it would appear on the ballot paper along with the
Party name.
As can been seen by the email threads in Appendix 1 and 2 there was total lack of command and control
nobody seemed to know who was doing what everyone wanted to take the glory but nobody wanted to
take responsibility
5) Messaging/ PEB
From the outset Steve Crowther was put in
charge of overall messaging as detailed in the
report presented to the NEC November
2011.
Despite having the areas of responsibility
explained he was keen to include other
policies not under the direct control of the
Mayor i.e. 5% Vat on beer and Cider. Other
ConfidentialPage 7 of 19
ideas were also included that were a distraction and difficult to defend (see
Appendix 3). Other suggested changes were simply ignored despite emails.
Similarly the Party Election Broadcast was poorly thought out. Attempts to
plan this last summer were ignored with the result that something had to be cobbled together at the last
minute (see Appendix 4).
6) Appointed Candidates
Having twice asked the members to vote on who they who like to see at the top of the Assembly List and
then ignored them had a devastating effect on the active London Membership. Much time was wasted
preventing members including Branch Officers resigning, when they should have been arranging stalls and
events in their areas. Similarly appointing S-C candidates had a similar effect.
It is clear that there was a determined attempt by the leadership to influence the NEC in deciding which
candidate was to be top of the list regardless of how the London members had voted. Unsubstantiated
comments were made with the clear intention of denigrating some whilst other comments were clearly
intended to promote others. Much was made of one candidate’s experience as a councillor (although not
relevant to the GLA). If the full facts had been known then I believe the outcome would have been very
different, there would have been a far greater motivation to get people elected, as it was senior Party
figures from around the country have stated that they believe that getting no one elected was preferable
to getting the wrong person elected.
Sorry – the last bit didn’t copy!
[Additional info – G.L-W.: More can be read of this regarding Steven Woolfe on this blog for Feb.2008 CLICK HERE]
Confidential
Page 8 of 19
7) Wasted Resources
Although Peter Staveley had been appointed as the Agent and was therefore legally responsible for any
expenses incurred he was excluded, as was I, from any decision on how and where the money was spent.
We have spent £6000 on surveys and polling data, much of which proved to be whole inaccurate.
Similarly there was a lot of wasted effort promoting Super-Constituency candidates when the effort should
have been spent on promoting the London-wide list, the only place we were likely to win any prizes.
Although we saved double the number of deposits this time around we failed to get any one elected from
the List.
The advans were not deployed to the right areas and contained the wrong messages. The accompanying
music “Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner” is more likely to have put voters off in our strongest areas as
they do not associate themselves as being Londoners.
The bus spent too much time in Westminster and central London and not in the outer boroughs where we
get our best votes.
8) Conclusion: Too Little Too Late
• Appointing candidates led to a disenfranchised membership
• The candidates were selected too late – to be effective they should have been in place at least a
year before the election to raise their profile.
• The people with local knowledge were ignored. Most disastrously with the result that UKIP did not
appear on the ballot paper.
• No effective campaign (after the beginning of March)
• No media strategy (after the end of March)
• Resources were poorly allocated
This campaign lacked any true chain of command, and people were given roles and responsibilities
beyond their capabilities. There was no check on spending or proper recording of what had been
spent. Even now Peter Staveley (the agent) is still being sent invoices for things he knew nothing
about (see Appendix 5).
Far from becoming a truly professional organisation we are less competent than ever making the
most basic of errors. Rather than leaving those who know London to run the campaign, it was run by
an uninformed committee (of non-Londoners) with the result that we ended up with a camel rather
than a horse.
The effects of the gerrymandering and leadership interference in this campaign will have long lasting
ramifications for the party as a whole. This, coupled with the recent statement by the current Leader
that he wants to stand joint Tory UKIP candidates has taken away all and any incentive for
candidates to ‘work’ a constituency in the years before an election as they run the risk of either being
replaced or asked to stand down.
END
Confidential
Page 9 of 19
9. Appendix 1
From: Lawrence Webb <mailto:lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com>
To: reeve@ukip.org
Cc: ‘peter staveley’ <mailto:ukip@peterstaveley.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 11:44 AM
Subject: London DNO
Peter,
Just a quick reminder that I am still waiting for my DNO certificate.
What was the NEC’s decision on the party description? If approved what is the Elcom timescale on approval?
Regards,
Lawrence J Webb
UKIP London
Tel. 020 7403 7175
———-
From: Cllr Peter Reeve [mailto:reeve@ukip.org]
Sent: 06 March 2012 16:14
To: Lawrence Webb
Subject: Re: London DNO
HI Lawrence
They approved the London descriptor. Time scale is 10 to 20 days.
Will get DNO Cert over to you this evening.
Pete
Cllr Peter Reeve
Member for Ramsey – Cambridgeshire County Council UKIP Group Leader –
Huntingdonshire District Council tel : 07792 290 434 email :
reeve@ukip.org
NB forwarded to Peter Staveley
———-
From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 07 March 2012 11:54
To: ‘reeve@ukip.org’
Cc: ‘Lawrence Webb’
Subject: FW: London DNO
Peter
What is the party description? If I know it now then I can put it on all the forms.
10 to 20 days from today means that some candidates will potentially be submitting a nomination form with the
‘wrong’ description. If it does not make it onto the Elcom website by 20th March is there any letter of comfort we could
have from Elcom?
What is the party emblem we are going to use?
Please remember that I am urgently waiting your PDF letter of authority for me to receive electoral registers.
Regards
Peter Staveley
GLA Election Agent for UKIP London
07973 168742
———-
Confidential
Page 10 of 19
From: Cllr Peter Reeve [mailto:reeve@ukip.org]
Sent: 09 March 2012 05:45
To: UKIP
Subject: Re: London DNO
To Peter
The Description used is for the campaign team to decide, prob best to speak to Janice.
I can not confirm if the changes descriptors will be in place by 20th March as they have to go through ElCom vetting and
may not be approved. Janice may want to revert to the standard descriptors in order to add some clarity for form
filling.
Will let you know as soon as we get any confirmation from Elcom.
Pete
Cllr Peter Reeve
Member for Ramsey – Cambridgeshire County Council UKIP Group Leader – Huntingdonshire District Council tel : 07792
290 434 email : reeve@ukip.org
———-
From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 11 March 2012 21:29
To: UKIP
Cc: reeve@ukip.org; Lawrence Webb; ‘david coburn’; ‘Elizabeth Jones’; pauljamesoakley@ntlworld.com;
chairman@ukip.org; ‘StevenWoolfe’; mickjackmcgough@gmail.com; ‘GawainTowler’; ‘MazharManzoor’;
mariannebowness@yahoo.co.uk; ‘Winston McKenzie’; smalljan@btinternet.com; ‘helen dixon’; ‘Paul Wiffen’; Michael
Corby; Jeff Bolter
Subject: Re: Winston’s leaflets
Dear Peter
Thank you for this clarification, and I am very pleased that you are the party’s appointed Agent for this election. Please
let me know if you need any support from me at any stage; it’s very important that you are able to fulfil this vital role
to the letter we can’t afford any slip-ups or legal anomalies.
I’ve added Michael Corby and Jeff Bolter to this circulation, I hope that’s right?
Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon
EX31 4DG Phone 01271 813844 Mobile 07775 787579
———-
From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 11 March 2012 21:59
To: Steve Crowther
Cc: reeve@ukip.org; Lawrence Webb; ‘david coburn’; ‘StevenWoolfe’; smalljan@btinternet.com
Subject: RE: Winston’s leaflets
Dear Steve
Thanks for that. I fully agree we cannot afford any slip-ups or legal anomalies.
The main thing that is holding me back at the moment is that Pete mentioned that he had applied to Elcom for the
authorisation for the new party description. However, he failed to state the exact wording that he (i.e. what the NEC
agreed) was applying for. Once I have that then I can ask the boroughs to check the nomination forms (subject to Elcom
agreeing) and then be one step further to meeting the 20th March deadline for nominations.
I have got back 4 Mayoral nomination forms and I will start checking them tomorrow and then, as a belt and braces, ask
the relevant boroughs to check them as well so that when we put in the Mayoral nomination that will get through
without any problems.
I do not wish to go too much into the Winston issue again but it is very disconcerting when Marianne mentions to the
Croydon AGM that Winston is going to have a campaign office and then to see a leaflet produced without any
consultation from myself and also the wrong imprint. Let’s be clear I will give the full and immediate authorisation for
any campaign expenditure if I have strong independent evidence that it has been agreed by at least Janice and David
(and preferably Steven and Lawrence as well). So I promise that I will not be a bar on expenditure. However, I do not
Confidential
Page 11 of 19
expect to have to be Sherlock Holmes in order to find out about what candidates have apparently spent without
consulting me.
Similarly we need full records for any donations over £500 (or £50 if Winston has any donations).
Just so that you know unlike all other GLA Constituency Candidates I intend to deliver the nomination for Croydon and
Sutton personally. To a certain extent it is very convenient for me. However, from my previous experience with
Winston I feel that there is a risk that he would ‘accidentally’ lose the agent’s appointment form and possibly substitute
Marianne. Certainly if I were Winston or Marianne that is what I would try to do in order to get rid of Peter Staveley’s
involvement.
I would request that the party, and Pete Reeve as the NO ensures, that only Lawrence’s DNO certificate is used to
accompany Winston’s nomination. If he persuades another DNO to sign for him then we will be in chaos since he would
have an ‘independent’ UKIP nomination.
Obviously I am liaising with Lawrence on a regular basis on obtaining Lawrence’s signatures and his DNO form.
Regards
Peter Staveley
Electoral Agent for UKIP London
247 Davidson Road
Croydon
CR0 6DQ
07973 168742
———-
From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 11 March 2012 22:53
To: UKIP
Cc: Peter Reeve
Subject: Re: Winston’s leaflets
Dear Peter
The agreed slogan was ‘Fresh Choice for London’. I don’t think any DNO certificates are still valid; they all lapsed at the
end of 2011. Only Pete can create new ones. I am copying him on this for clarity.
I understand your approach and entirely endorse it.
Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon
EX31 4DG Phone 01271 813844 Mobile 07775 787579
———-
From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 11 March 2012 23:04
To: Steve Crowther
Cc: Peter Reeve
Subject: RE: Winston’s leaflets
Steve
Just to be clear could you please confirm that the words UK I P do not appear in the party description? So in effect we
are relying on the emblem to convey the UKIP brand. Please note that “UK I P Fresh Choice for London” is not
admissible as that is seven words.
Thanks for the DNO clarification. Pete has already issued Lawrence with a DNO certificate for London and I have a copy
of that. So that side of things are sorted.
Thanks
Peter Staveley
Electoral Agent for UKIP London
247 Davidson Road
Croydon CR0 6DQ
07973 168742
———-
Confidential
Page 12 of 19
From: “Steve Crowther” <sjcrowther@btinternet.com>
To: “Peter Reeve” <reeve@ukip.org>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:31 AM
Subject: FW: Winston’s leaflets
Dear Peter
Please could you clarify this to Peter?
Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon
EX31 4DG Phone 01271 813844
Mobile 07775 787579
———-
From: Cllr Peter Reeve [mailto:reeve@ukip.org]
Sent: 12 March 2012 09:35
To: Steve Crowther
Cc: UKIP
Subject: Re: Winston’s leaflets
Hi Steve / Peter
I am not sure what I am being asked to clarify.
The Descriptor that the London team have asked to have registered is
“A Fresh Choice for London”
This has not yet been approved and when it is, it is for the campaign team in London to decide if they want to use it or
not. I have just requested the registration that the London team have asked for.
The party name will still be on the ballot paper and also appears in the logo. The bit that will change is the description
beneath the logo if that is what is requested on the nomination papers.
It is correct that UKIP Fresh choice for London would not be acceptable but no one has asked us to try to register it???
Hope this helps?
Pete
Cllr Peter Reeve
Member for Ramsey – Cambridgeshire County Council UKIP Group Leader – Huntingdonshire District Council tel : 07792
290 434 email :
reeve@ukip.org
———-
From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 12 March 2012 09:45
To: Cllr Peter Reeve
Subject: RE: Winston’s leaflets
Pete
I just wanted to be clear that we are not including UKIP in the description?
Also I wish to do informal checks with the boroughs. So it would be helpful if I could have something from you to say
that the description is being processed. It certainly does not need to be formal just an email from you to Elcom or a
copy of your letter to Elcom etc.
Regards
Peter Staveley
Electoral Agent for UKIP London
247 Davidson Road
CroydonCR0 6DQ
07973 168742
Confidential
Page 13 of 19
10. Appendix 2
From: J SMALL <smalljan@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:38:26
To: <clancoburn@hotmail.co.uk>; <partydirector@ukip.org>; <sjcrowther@btinternet.com>; k.farage@yahoo.co.uk>;
<lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com>
Subject: Branding on ballot papers clarification
Hi all
Just to confirm what was agreed today following the discussions regarding the ballot paper wording.
The NEC had apparently agreed a ‘Fresh Choice for London’ with the UKIP logo appearing on the left of the paper.
David Coburn raised concerns over this and thought it would be better having the UKIP branding and wording clearly
spelt out.
However, as 13 nomination papers had been returned and approved it was agreed that this would not be possible.
After speaking to Lisa, Pete Reeve, David and Lawrence we agreed that the Fresh Choice would remain but on the ‘List’
ballot papers it would revert to UKIP logo and name. Peter and Lawrence are meeting the various officials to sign this
off tomorrow.
Regards
Janice
Janice Atkinson
020 8694 7587/07889 927430
———-
From: clancoburn@hotmail.co.uk
To: smalljan@btinternet.com; partydirector@ukip.org; sjcrowther@btinternet.com; k.farage@yahoo.co.uk;
lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:51:25 +0000
Subject: Re: Branding on ballot papers clarification
Not quite ! I believe the NEC thought this was in addition to “UK Independence Party” not instead of. Either my ear
trumpet is bashed or the dementia business the PM has been banging on about has become contagious. Drunk or sober
I would not have substituted the party name for something warm and woolly. Simple stupid is best. That’s how the
voters like it. Too many cooks comrades !!! David Coburn London Chairman
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
———-
From: UKIP <UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk <mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:11
For the Mayoral candidate and the GLA Constituency candidates the UKIP emblem with the party description “Fresh
Choice for London” will be shown. For the GLA List Candidate the UKIP emblem and the party description “UK
Independence Party” will be shown. This was the decision of the NEC, the party’s Nominating Officer and the Party
Chairman. I checked before putting it on the nomination papers.
Regards
Peter Staveley
Electoral Agent
for UKIP London 247 Davidson Road
Croydon CR0 6DQ
———-
From: Steven Woolfe [mailto:stevenwoolfe1@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 April 2012 07:32
To: UKIP
Peter
I don’t want to be pedantic, but the NEC only approved the phrase ” a Fresh Choice For London” could be included in
the Parties list of approved
ELCOM descriptors. As advised they should by the Parties Nominating Officer who had stated it was a request from the
London Campaign Team constituted at that time.
The NEC also approved that it was the London Campaign Team, as constituted at the time, choice whether to use it in
this election, how to use it best, whether it could be used under the rules of the London election. It was nit the decision
of the NEC to use the UKIP logo on the right of the ballet paper and descriptor under the name without the UKIP name.
Confidential
Page 14 of 19
This would have been the upto the London Campaign Team.
This is all documented in the minutes and discussions.
Steven
Sent from my iPhone
———-
From: UKIP <UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk <mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk
Date: Thu 19 Apr 2012 08:05
Steven
Obviously I have not seen the minutes of the NEC and the public summary is not clear enough to determine what was
agreed (and in any case arrived too late to be of effect in this case).
However, on 11/3 at 21:58 I asked Steve Crowther what party description had been agreed by the NEC to be used. The
reply came back on 11/3 22:59 that “the agreed slogan was ‘Fresh Choice for London’.”
I fully accept that the NEC might not have agreed to use the party description ‘Fresh Choice for London’ but that is not
how it was communicated to me by the Chairman. I was also communicating with the Nominating Officer and his view
of the NEC decision was the same. Therefore, I stand by what I said on 18 Apr 2012, at 23:11 (below).
By the way on the ballot paper UKIP does not have a logo, it is the party emblem.
Peter
———-
From: Steven Woolfe [mailto:stevenwoolfe1@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 April 2012 08:17
To: UKIP
Subject: Re: Last 72 hours thoughts please
Peter
Are you saying that the NEC said that on the ballet paper A Fresh Choice for
London under the name of the candidate with the Party Emblem ? And that is what
the Party Chairman communicated to you ?
Sent from my iPhone
———-
From: Steven Woolfe <stevenwoolfe1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 08:18:44
To: <clancoburn@hotmail.co.uk>; <mickjackmcgough@gmail.com>
Subject: Accusations of NEC control of Campaign
David and Mick
Please see below email correspondence between Peter and myself re the issues this morning. ( before your cease and
desist notice David)
The implication is clear that Peter believes he was told by SC and PR that the NEC decided to use the phrase in the
London campaign. As all three of us were on the committee that day and voted for the motion that would suggest we
part of the process that made the decision to use the descriptor on the ballot paper.
I know my recollection of events but is it your combined understanding that NEC decided to use it on the Ballot Paper
or left it for the London Campaign
Yours Steven
Sent from my iPhone
———-
From: UKIP <UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk <mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk> >
Date: 19 April 2012 08:36:10 GMT+01:00
To: Steven Woolfe <stevenwoolfe1@gmail.com <mailto:stevenwoolfe1@gmail.com> >
Subject: RE: Last 72 hours thoughts please
Steven
As I said, I am not allowed to see what the NEC said and, obviously, I was not at the NEC meeting. So my view of life has
to be how the NEC’s decisions were portrayed to me by the Steve Crowther and Pete Reeve. The “decision” was that
the party description for all of the London Election was “Fresh Choice for London”. Unfortunately they implied that it
was the NEC decision.
Peter
Confidential
Page 15 of 19
From: david coburn <clancoburn@hotmail.co.uk
Date: Thu 19 Apr 2012 10:14
CONFIDENTIAL.
The NEC approved the use of this ludicrous phrase with other things like “…and residents” etc. at the
behest of Pete Reeves. The general understanding was that they were to be used in conjunction with “UKIP” but not
EXCLUDING. “UKIP” no one is that daft !!! Pete Reeves seems to have misunderstood what could be put on the ballot
paper and did not check it properly. When I went through my nomination papers in detail with Bexley when I was
putting them in the returning officer pointed out how it would appear and that UKIP would not be included in the
descriptor.. I called Pete Reeves on my mobile in front of the returning officer and Pete told me that was nonsense. I
passed the phone to the returning officer who confirmed what I had said. Pete then said something like “Woops!”
and giggled nervously. He had obviously misunderstood the regulations. I phoned Stavely who confirmed his
instructions. As a matter of fact he had questioned both Messrs Crowther and Reeve twice by email and Reeve had
confirmed the descriptor. So unusually for UKip Stavely actually obeyed orders. It was too late to change the
descriptor for the superconstituences as most had gone in and there was insufficient time to change the rest. After
frantic calls between myself, Reeves, Crowther and Nigel it was decided to carry on with the rest of the supers as
they were for the sake of consistency and I immediately ordered Messrs Stavely and Webb to drop everything and re
do the papers for the list and replace the descriptor with “UK Indepedence Party” If I hadn’t discovered this nonsense
we would have had “a fresh start for London” on the list too !!! I further suggested we should market the “fresh start
for London” as a cunning plan by our press and marketing wonks. Funnily enough they belived it as no one could be
that stupid. YOU COULDN’T MAKE IT UP !!! Yours aye David CONFIDENTlAL
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
———-
Confidential
Page 16 of 19
11. Appendix 3
From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 15 February 2012 18:51
To: Lisa Duffy; Peter Staveley; Steven Woolfe; David Coburn; Lawrence Webb
Subject: P&C – Manifesto
Dear All
We need an eye-catching idea on crime. Paddick is trusted to look after it, just because he’s a copper, but his policy is
incoherent EXCEPT for one thing, which he’s nicked from us – neighbourhood watch patrols (like Pete’s Police in
Ramsey) “armed with torches and fluorescent jackets”.
How about: some revision of Police procedure in London that enables more citizen action, eg bringing back Citizen’s
Arrests. These (a long cherished imaginary ‘right’ of the freeborn Englishman) could trump Paddick’s hi-vis militia. I
don’t think he’d be able psychologically to match it.
We say that the Met Police will actively support and promote Citizens’ Arrests, through a well-publicised code of
practice and set of rules, plus active neighbourhood liaison – rather than, as they tend to do now, arresting the citizen
and charging them with assault/false imprisonment to get their numbers up.
As long as our plan is thought-through and coherent, it could look good to the Londoner who’s concerned about crime
and thinks the police don’t do squat about it except arrest innocent householders trying to protect their property.
Downsides? Okay, one or two, but we’ll deal with them when we’re in City Hall.
Whaddya think?
Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther
Eastacombe House, Heanton, Barnstaple, N. Devon EX31 4DG
——–
From: Lawrence Webb [mailto:lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com]
Sent: 26 March 2012 15:01
To: ‘J SMALL’
Cc: ‘DamianWilson’; ‘UKIP’
Subject: S-C leaflet
Janice,
I have just spoken to Damian and all comms. is to come through you
Page one of this is fine although I would suggest changing the ‘UKIP’ in the first line with the party Logo
as this and “a fresh choice for London” are what will appear on the ballot paper
Of the three red circles the bottom one is meaningless without greater explanation for which there is no room.
Let’s change it to. Parking fines ‘a tax on small business’ or ‘crippling small business’
Of the three message points
Stronger on jobs OK
Safer on crime change to Tougher on Crime
Fairer on transport
• Introduce a flexible off-peak travel card
• 70 minute bus ticket allowing multiple changes within the time limit
Stop penalising the motorist
1. Scrap the congestion charge
2. 20 free parking across London
3. Free Saturday night and all-day Sunday parking
Also as on the op of page one change the word UKIP with the logo
NB on mine the printers address was not visible.
Lawrence J Webb
——-
Confidential
Page 17 of 19
From: J SMALL [mailto:smalljan@btinternet.com]
Sent: 26 March 2012 15:27
To: lawrenceWebb
Subject: Fw: super leaflet again.
You OK with this? We made some of the changes, logo is the approved one.
Regards
Janice
Janice Atkinson
020 8694 7587/07889 927430
——-
From: Lawrence Webb [mailto:lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com]
Sent: 26 March 2012 16:44
To: ‘J SMALL’
Cc: ‘DamianWilson’; ‘UKIP’
Subject: RE: super leaflet again.
Janice,
Save £10m in parking admin by putting one central authority in charge, instead of 33 local councils.
Unless this is going to be explained it is not going to float anyone’s boat £10m in the greater scheme of things is nothing
and admin… really!
If this is going to be used it must be bold..
Take parking enforcement away from greedy councils — save motorists £millions in wrongly issued parking charges
Lawrence J Webb
UKIP London
Tel. 020 7403 7175
Confidential
Page 18 of 19
12. Appendix 4
From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 01 April 2012 21:54
To: Steven Woolfe; Lawrence Webb
Subject: FW: Draft
Dear Lawrence, Steven
First draft PEB idea for your delectation. Your feedback appreciated.
Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party
——
From: Lawrence Webb <lawrencejwebb@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 15:58:59 +0100
To: Stephen Crowther <sjcrowther@btinternet.com>, ‘Steven Woolfe’ <stevenwoolfe1@gmail.com>
Cc: Janice Atkinson-Small <smalljan@btinternet.com>, David Coburn <clancoburn@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Draft
Dear All,
I have only just had time to look at this in any detail and without wishing to put a downer on things it doesn’t give me a
warm fuzzy feeling.
Can we not use some of the graphics from the save the city DVD to avoid the talking heads.
I understand DC is moving into Wiffen territory and has come up with a script.
Lawrence J Webb
UKIP London
Tel. 020 7403 7175
——-
From: Steve Crowther [mailto:sjcrowther@btinternet.com]
Sent: 03 April 2012 16:27
To: Lawrence Webb; ‘Steven Woolfe’
Cc: Janice Atkinson-Small; David Coburn
Subject: Re: Draft
Dear Lawrence
Why would you want to avoid the ‘talking heads’? The ‘talking heads’ are the candidates we want them to vote for. You
are the star of this show. People mostly don’t watch PEBs if they can avoid them, especially if they’re made of
‘graphics’. If they are being spoken to by a nice bloke who seems to be making sense and is saying something
interesting, we have some chance to taking them with us.
We’re following a deliberate strategy here – talk about a very big and controversial issue (which hopefully will act as a
multiplier by getting us talked about in the media), but in a very personable, human, ordinary-folk-like-us way (which
hopefully will counteract any negative perceptions and win us support).
If we want people to engage with this, we need to do that: engage with them, person to person. If we want them to
take on board our message, we have to put it in such a way that they can feel reassured that we are nice, trustworthy,
next-door-neighbour people giving it to them – not some political machine.
And we’re asking them to vote for you. To get to the end of the film and go: I’m going to vote for them, they seem
alright and they make a lot of sense. This whole script is about playing to your strengths.
Regards, Steve
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party
——–
Confidential
Page 19 of 19
13. Appendix 5
From: UKIP [mailto:UKIP@PeterStaveley.co.uk]
Sent: 30 May 2012 16:25
To: J SMALL
Subject: RE: Public Meeting at Hillingdon
Janice
Firstly, why did you not tell me about the invoice at the time?
Secondly, why did you not ask me to authorise the expenditure as required by legislation? The situation of
unauthorised expenditure ‘appearing’ has arisen many times both during and after the election in spite of me
reminding you several times that ALL campaign expenditure needs to be authorised by the agent.
Thirdly, why did you state that I have received all the information when that was obviously not true? You, presumably,
kept detailed expenditure records and compared them with the information I supplied you. Obviously it is was true
then I presume that you will be challenging the invoice.
Fourthly, why was the media company having to Google information? They should have been given detailed
information as to where the invoice was to be sent and to whom the invoice was to be made out to.
Fifthly, as a matter of interest, who authorised that expenditure? Was it you, Annabelle or someone else? If it was not
you then why did that people not have the courtesy to tell me about it? I made strong efforts to respond to emails and
telephone calls promptly, so they could not claim that I was impossible to contact.
In any case since I received the invoice today it is now too late. I was required to have received all the invoices by last
Thursday. Now that all those invoices have been paid I have sent off the election returns and Helen has certified them
as being correct. So they cannot be changed.
Therefore, the invoice is not a campaign expense and nothing to do with me. I suggest that you direct the invoice to
head office for them to pay. Please let me know to whom, if anyone, I should send the invoice to?
Regards
Peter Staveley
———-
From: J SMALL [mailto:smalljan@btinternet.com]
Sent: 30 May 2012 15:55
To: Annabelle Fuller
Cc: UKIP
Subject: Re: Public Meeting at Hillingdon
It’s just like Jaws, just when you think it was safe to go back in the water …. [cue Jaws music]
Yes, we organised a public meeting, that’s what you do in campaigns and the hall was packed – coincidence? It should
be paid from the London campaign. It was probably sent to Queen Anne’s Gate because the media co Googled the
wrong address and all correspondence is being forwarded to Robin.
Regards
Janice Atkinson
020 8694 7587/07889 927430
—————–.
I’m trying to find time to improve the formatting and include the various graphics – in the interim I have included a photo or two to break it up and make this turgid squabbling and amateur hour UKIP farce more readable!
No facts have or will be altered and any comment to the report will be clearly shown as comment or additions.
FOR MORE FACTS:
For additional material regarding this ‘Farce’ and the cast of clowns do see
CLICK HERE and/or enter the names of those you want more information about in The Search box at the top of the Right Sidebar on this web site.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
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)
Reply With Quote
(
Originally Posted by Dustbin Lid 
It is always very well mouthing off on the internet about breaking the law and stating that ‘you will see them in court’ but when it catches up with you it is rather a different story.
Ukip-vs-EUkip 
0 #1 Ron 2013-02-25 22:29
Quote