On 23rd March, a few days after his appointment as treasurer, Sebastian Fairweather incorporated “UKIP Patrons Ltd” of which he has been sole director for over five months. The company is completely independent of UKIP unlike the Sovereign Draw Ltd in which UKIP is the majority shareholder. UKIP Patrons Ltd – nothing turns on the company name as it could be called “Me and my friends Ltd” for all the difference it makes – is not just independent of UKIP’s control but also independent in objectives. The company’s objects, as set out in its certification of incorporation, make no mention of UKIP at all. By article 2.1 the company exists to “support …political parties and organisations actively campaigning to secure and maintain the full independence of the United Kingdom.” That can include UKIP, obviously, but could also include the Labour and Conservative parties as each committed to Brexit in last year’s manifestos. It would be lawful for Fairweather to write a cheque to Labour Leave and there would be nothing UKIP could do about it. When Gerard Batten said (letter, 12 April) the Patrons Club was now “completely independent” of UKIP he was not kidding.
Fairweather was busy on 23rd March because he also set up the UK Sovereign Party Ltd, an avowedly political party according to its articles, of which he is also sole director. This political party is for campaigning to leave the EU. There are many such organisations – Labour Leave is one as is, of course, UKIP itself. It is not known why Fairweather thought another political party is needed. UKIP’s rules preclude membership of another political party and that includes, surely, incorporating one. It would be entirely lawful for Fairweather to transfer patrons’ money to his new political party given both companies’ objects. I am not suggesting that is his devious plan. I merely point out that the new arrangements allow for it. Both companies have registered offices in Cardiff.
If Fairweather had become incapacitated, then UKIP had no title to or mechanism for retrieving donations that patrons may mistakenly think had been to support UKIP itself. By article 10, control would pass to Fairweather’s personal representative. At no point have patrons been advised that their money has been at such a completely unnecessary and negligent risk. Indeed, until the new website appeared in July, UKIP was soliciting patron donations to UKIP without informing them that the money was going into a completely independent company outside of NEC control. (The party might like to peruse section 15 of the Fraud Act 2006 on obtaining money by deception.)
Patrons have been converted into single-issue supporters without their knowledge or consent. Getting out of the EU was merely a necessary step in pursuit of UKIP’s wider mission as set out in its constitution at article 2.5. Now, for those patrons who have allowed their money to go into the new company, they support leaving the EU only. This reduction in the scope of their support has been imposed without consultation or consent.
The letter of 12 April that first announced these changes went out under a UKIP Patrons Ltd office address. It was sent to patrons and former patrons using data from UKIP Ltd. The problem is that the Data Protection Act (now GDPR 2018) forbids passing member details to a “completely independent company” for use without their consent.
UKIP Patrons Ltd is merely a corporate veil over a bank account. It does not need several directors – Batten’s letter said four people had agreed to be directors – as there is nothing to manage beyond taking deposits and writing cheques. Incorporation is to limit liability but there is none unless UKIP Patrons Ltd incurs debts. How is that envisaged exactly? Incorporation looks more like the wasted cost of a status symbol for cronies.
One of the proposed directors, Liz Phillips, was a determined opponent of Anne Marie Waters and an ardent supporter of Henry Bolton (organising some patrons to that end), If the membership democratically elect a leader she and other directors dislike then under the new club it is entirely possible for them to withhold funds from the party and subvert the membership’s democratic choices. I am not saying they definitely will so act but I do say it is possible when it should not be. The new club can also defy the NEC and refuse funds, funds that patrons will have thought were going to support the party.
The new patrons’ club will spend its money on “political activities as decided by its directors” and not on UKIP as decided by the NEC. It is said that during the year meetings will enable Patrons to make spending suggestions and a right to present motions to the NEC.
Why should patrons have special rights over spending decisions and be able to force issues before the NEC? One patron’s membership equates to 33 ordinary member fees. Can ordinary members band together in groups of 33 or more and have the same rights as a patron? Why is there now this two-tier class system? I gave a talk to my branch about the patrons club in which I was at pains to emphasise that no patron bought influence or could expect to buy influence. Evidently, the talk needs updating because patrons now have a new influence over spending and the NEC’s agenda.
In his Leader’s Update of 29th August Gerard Batten claimed the Patron’s Club had been “rescued from oblivion”. This is pure propaganda. The Patrons’ Club had over four hundred members in its heyday before the general election of 2015. After the referendum the number dropped to around 220 as many were former Tories who went back to the Conservative Party believing the referendum result meant job done. By the time of the Torquay conference the number of patrons left was around 150. Failures to renew continued so that there was just over a hundred patrons at the start of this year. It has increased slightly to 120 after a recent appeal to lapsed patrons. Adding fifteen or so late renewals is not rescue from “oblivion”. In fact, the invitation to the inaugural meeting said “I am so pleased that so many of you have remained with the Party and the Club”. The club had not fallen into oblivion so much as be available still for hijacking.
The Patrons Club was never really a club at all. For £1000 minimum you got a tie and a free coffee at conferences. From time to time patrons would be invited to lunches with the party leader accompanied usually by the treasurer and chairman. Often there would be a charge of £1000 a plate. Essentially the club was just a way of donating to the party by way of expensive lunches. A patron donates more than his or her membership fee.
The flannel, bad faith, and lies by omission about the new club is now of Orwellian newspeak proportions with words like protection, transparency and spending decisions being used to as cover for profound change to the scope of what patrons support and to wresting control away from the NEC. The latest update email says UKIP is the party where “members matter.” What they mean is “members’ money matters and under the new class system it matters more to the extent of buying influence if you can afford it – and too bad to all the foot soldiers upon whom the party really depends.” Perhaps, in the interests of `transparency’ ordinary members’ cards could have “second-class” written on them. The old club was never elitist. The new one is.
I could say a lot more (and may yet) but I am up against UKIP Daily’s word count. I hope I have said enough to indicate how deeply flawed and fundamentally unconstitutional UKIP Patrons Ltd is and enough to warn patrons and potential patrons. Fairweather should not have been allowed to hijack the club, almost his first act as Treasurer, and it is weak of Batten and the NEC to allow this flawed arrangement to continue. I want nothing to do with the new degraded Patrons Club. So, I am now a lapsed patron and I will stay that way as will at least three others I have spoken to, two of them donating around £15K a year. The alleged gains to the new club are offset by losses, therefore. But that will not stop those seeking to be company directors wanting to get their hands on patron money. Not a penny more from me for the party.
Four final points for now. Joining the old club conferred membership of the party (if wanted) and assigning to a branch. That cannot be done by a “completely independent” company. If it does happen nonetheless then there are two types of member. Those who have paid a fee to UKIP and those who have not. The 120 patrons now said to exist will not all have paid into the new company, but many will have paid into UKIP Ltd. If their money has been transferred to the new “completely independent company” that will almost certainly have been a breach of the Trustee Act. And finally, in 2010, Fairweather produced a campaign video complaining about being ruled by the unelected. How ironic that one of his first acts as an unelected appointee is to destroy UKIP’s Patrons Club and wrest it away from the party. The NEC have been asleep at the wheel. Maybe they are `not fit for purpose’ after all.
I am guessing the patrons as a separate financial entity means that anybody trying to sue UKIP cannot get their paws on the loot
Sorry if this has been said already (….skimmed some comments).
Rightly this article highlights potential problems of misrepresentation or mis-allocation of funds that could arise from a separate company with “UKIP” in the name – and legal separation.
But is author sure that the motives are suspect – rather than providing an “insurance ” against another attack on UKIP’s core funds ?
If UKIP Patrons Ltd included in its Articles a requirement that some of its Directors were appointed by UKIP (whether NEC or Leader for discussion) – would that provide reassurance ?
The only problem might be if too much of a formal UKIP link made UKIP a “connected party” and countered a genuine intent of “insurance policy”.
(Shall I ask my Corporate Tax Adviser …???)
Motive or intentions do not determine outcomes. I meant well is the excuse of Tony Blair.
A small group of people hijacked the name of the old patrons club, closed it down, and used the name for their independent entity open to non-UKIP people by the way. If such non-members become a majority one day what then?
They should not have a right to mandate agenda items on the NEC.
The company’s name should be changed and the right over the NEC rescinded.
On 5th March ordinary members were asked to save the party and did with generosity and faith that exceeded expectations. A small group of people, with a sense of elitist entitlement, said no we are not putting our money to save the party – leave that to the little people – but we’ll keep out plaything.
What `insurance’ do ordinary members have?
With Gerard and Tony Mc deciding that Tommy Robinson’s membership can be on the agenda for a motion for conference (although the NEC makes the actual decision) hopefully all this will become moot. What this shows me is that party is sufferring from being run by a small group of old people. As Kim says below, this kind of behaviour is anathema to young people. Obviously Tommy Robinson will bring in a huge number of supporters who will make him leader in the next election. And maybe this is what UKIP needs. Judging from the below, and UKIPs constant inability to govern itself regardless of who is the leader, it needs a revolution, and this seems to be coming. Obviously Tommy and AMW are close, so for those people who were terrified of AMW, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Perhaps keeping your money separate was a good idea after all!
We have to consider whether we need young people badly enough to accept Tommy Robinson into the party.
The calculation is whether the hoped for influx exceeds the possible exodus. No-one actually knows what the arithmetic would be or will prove to be.
Membership is said to be 24,000 now. That is only a little more than the audited figure last December (23, 280 down from 34, 292 in 2016). The great influx of veterans, Football Lads Alliance, TR supporters, Tories rebelling over Chequers, YouTube followers of PJW etc, has not happened. Some former kippers may have returned to the fold and some may be completely new members from the groups just listed. Membership is increasing but slowly.
Ageism,subservience and class prejudice all in one small comment.
You do a superb job on here but Colin from Kent and Debbie from Devizes won’t stop middle class social misfits disrupting UKIP electioneering.
If UKIP cannot accept “our enemy’s enemy is our friend” and turn down future members and supporters you (because it won’t be me) deserve to be unelectable also rans on 5%-7% or equal For Britain on 1.5%.
Would Douglas Murray be accepted ?
Not entirely sure I understand your point but I am in favour of amending the proscribed list. As it stands, ex BNP etc., who do change or mature are banned (but not by the other parties) but former members of Sinn Fein and various communist parties are not banned. The emphasis ought to be on ex surely. Perhaps an oath of allegiance to our constitution is required. Or we could just abandon the fear of the media which has driven this – how’s that worked out anyway – and be a truly populist party open to all who are not terrorists or known to be unsavoury in some way inimical to our interests. We should not be accepting the media’s definition of who is an acceptable member of UKIP. We have our own definition: renounce other party memberships, support our policies, abide by party rules, and you are a kipper.
You’re not the only who is at a loss to understand the latest twaddle from Bryan. I have read this post over and again and cannot get my head around it.
Seen the quotes from Batten in the Daily Mail? He says an 80:20 would be clear but 50:50 not so clear. I wonder if 52 v 48 would be clear enough.
There was no statement that the NEC will implement the conference decision. There are MEPs implacably opposed to TR -and we do not know how the NEC will vote or whether they would overrule Batten (whatever his true position turns out to be),. I predict speakers lined up to espouse
project fear' to dissuade members from voting thewrong way’. In any case, conference motions are usually at the end when people are going home etc. A result based on a few hundred people will be argued as unrepresentative of 24,000 members.It does not need to be a conference motion for the NEC to decide on whether TR can be a member. They could have decided the matter today if they wanted to.
TR is a bit of a hot potato like AMW was. Expect further smoke an mirrors.
Stout Yeoman, I gather from your letter above, that under the previous patrons club, in which there was little transparency as to how the patrons club money was being spent, you were happy for the very substantial money raised from patrons to be spent by “the party” in such an irresponsible manner that the party was heading for insolvency. Well I for one strongly prefer the new entity.
According to Gerard the new entity is “completely independent” of UKIP. That may change if the articles change but for now the legal position is that it has nothing to do with UKIP.
The party has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy ever since the £850K overspend on the 2015 GE. The generosity of members and patrons prevented that. The irresponsibility occurred n 2015 and cannot be a justification for events now. Gerard say the party is now on sound with good financial controls. What justification is there today for abolishing the old club?
No doubt some members withheld their membership fees because of `irresponsible’ spending but fortunately for he party not all did and it was helped to survive as a result. You seem to be saying you are not one of the people who contributed to the party’s survival and will not contribute to it now except for projects you, rather than the party, approve of. Fine. I have no issue with that. My problem is that the old club was abolished – used it would seem according to Stephen Lee to defeat creditors in a bankruptcy – and the new independent entity uses a name that belonged to UKIP.
I attended the inaugural meeting of the Patrons Club Ltd. It was agreed that article 2.1 would be amended removing “political parties” and replacing the expression with “UKIP”.
Glad to see my correspondence has some effect.
I had not seen your letter prior to attending the meeting.
The Treasurer, Gerard and Liz Phillips had (in several emails)as had Alan Bown.
‘Nothing is ever Black or White’ we are told. If one considers cronyism, elitism and snobbishness on one hand and democracy, honesty and openness on the other, everything else rolls out in between as shades of grey.
I like this article, but there is one part I disagree with.
‘The old club was never elitist. The new one is.’
I’d like to think I sat at the latter end of the spectrum described above. Regardless of what a lot of you learned Ladies and Gentlemen may think, ‘A Patrons Club’ is always going to be based in elitism and cronyism.
I know you may cringe, and find ways of telling me how wrong, and how naïve I am, and that is how the world works. Well what rubbish! Find another way to make things work!
A number of very wealthy individuals have donated to the cause and that is admirable and needed. How UKIP is run should be above reproach at all times. One should not sell ones integrity, ever.
Unless members in UKIP understand, fully, this very, very, simple point they will always be a bunch of disillusioned ex-Tories.
I have mentioned before about ‘Patrons Only’ rooms at Conferences and the decision making done at ‘Chairmen’s’ Meetings’. If anyone thinks this kind of behaviour has got anything to do with Democracy then you get what you deserve! I did not join a ‘club’ and a club within a party will be divisive.
I don’t think anyone is accusing fraud but this is not looking good. Yes the threat of legal action and bankruptcy may have demanded extraordinary measures, but have those threats passed? I am sorry but this is indicative of an elitist culture that gave you the likes of Henry, allows MEPs to duck their responsibilities and creates mistrust among ordinary members.
Good business, clever accounting, shrewd strategies? The best answer and the correct behaviour is usually the simple one, it may not be as clever or it may not be as sophisticated but it will be the honest answer. ‘Be honest’, should be rule number one.
Some people seem to be missing the point here. The Patrons Club is a club where people will pay a subscription in return for interesting special events. The subscription is very modest compared to the other political party similar clubs and is often within the budget of people with a modest income. We do have several pensioners as patrons. It is also a good platform to collectively listen to requests for particular projects and generate enthusiasm for members to donate beyond their annual subscription. It is intended to be a way to encourage those with a bit of disposable income to support UKIP. It is not an elitist club. The reason Seb formulated the revised club the way he did was partly in haste and partly to protect the interests of any members and/or donors. He did it democratically via the NEC despite accusations to the contrary. It was to get funds in to rescue UKIP, pure and simple. It worked so why all the sour grapes by the author ? I know the answer once I have checked some facts and hopefully tomorrow I will reveal why the author is misleading you as well as hiding behind a pseudonym.
There is no record of any NEC vote in the minutes available to members. One thing you can say about Henry Bolton, he got the NEC minutes out on time, but since he left, there has been one set of – I hesitate to use the word ‘minutes’ because they have regressed into the old ‘record of meeting’ format where nothing is attributed and summaries are given rather than quotes. Anyway there is no record of any NEC vote on the new patrons club in that document, there is a mention of a ‘newly structured’ patrons club, but apart from that, nothing. So how are ordinary members supposed to know what is going on, and what has and hasn’t been approved? One set of minutes in 8 months, and they aren’t even minutes! With at least 4 lawyers on the NEC perfectly able to take a good set of minutes, just what the hell is going on? I might also add this is the same NEC that gave a full confidence vote in Paul Oakden. When acting as a body they seem unable to get much right.
Please provide some evidence of the new company being democratically via the NEC (twice you say in another post). Tacitus is not convinced.
Fairweather incorporated UKIP Patrons Ltd and his new political party (the UK Sovereign Party Ltd) within days of his appointment. There is at least reasonable doubt about the NEC’s role particularly if did not meet before he acted.
There are now 24,000 members. How will they use this “good platform” to make requests? And how will it generate enthusiasm? The patrons club has disappeared from the party’s website.
What happened to the patrons paying by d/d or s/o to UKIP Ltd? Did Prof Congon only pay £50K because it did not go directly to UKIP. But is going to UKIP anyway! What is the point of this middleman if all funds go to UKIP?
By the way, the only motive I have attested to is frustration at not getting my queries addressed over two months. What additional motive do you imagine (for it can only be in your imagination) I have?
What facts do you plan to check and where? Membership information is confidential. Viv knows who pseudonyms relate and knows nothing nefarious is behind them. As already explained to you people have explained that they fear loss of business customers if they use their real name or they fear being googled by their employers. Nom de plumes have a venerable history but you would seek access to the member ship database, or knowledge from people who may already have use it, to satisfy your obsession with finding out a real name?
Do you have any respect for party rules at all? To debate collegiately and with mutual respect. Any sense of dignity? Or is your self-righteous indignation that your new club could be questioned too much for you? You have already indulged in ad hominem attack (Corbynite Momentum style). You might usefully pause and wonder if the desperation it implies reflects well on you.
The ‘meeting records’ available to members are a shambles, and I doubt that is an accident. Two have been published for 2018, one when HB was still leader in January, and one for a meeting on 13 May. The ‘meeting record’ for the 13 May meeting includes a reference to the previous minutes for a meeting held on 25 March 2018 being approved unanimously. But these “minutes” are not available. Has anyone ever been involved in an organisation that selectively publishes such critical documents as minutes? If you are going to selectively publish then in fact there is no point publishing at all. Perhaps these NEC votes were in these minutes, but clearly we aren’t viewed as being worthy to see them. This is odd because they were unanimously approved and hence can’t be too controversial. Or perhaps there are matters discussed in those minutes that someone is afraid could have legal consequences…. mushrooms again.
Fairweather was appointed on 14th March and set up his dubious companies on 23rd March. A meeting on 25th March accords with rumour that the NEC were presented with a fait accompli.
> Good business, clever accounting, shrewd strategies? The best answer and the correct behaviour is usually the simple one
Insolvency administrators seeking to widen the net as far as they can possibly get away with will rub their hands in glee when they hear this…
My comment was righteous and self-indulgent as you can see. Your reply is equally pragmatic. But the crunch comes with perception. New young supporters will see through the façade. They will have no respect for authority, perceived importance or seniority, they will be put off from enrolling into a crony organisation. Either you are above reproach or you are not! The choice is yours!
I would add that there are a lot of good people in UKIP including yourself and I do not intend my comment to be derogatory.
Back in March the arrears, based on the MEPs Charter criteria was well north of £200,000 Stuart has the numbers as do all the MEPs including the Leader.
I think those MePs who have not paid their tithe should be publicly identified.
It will take up less space to list the ones that have.
When my branch, which I chaired, closed following the BOLTON “affair” we had about £1000 in our bank account. The branch, before it voted to close at an EGM, voted to donate this sum this sum to local charities. HQ demanded we passed it to them and to avoid further dispute we did so. As it happens most of that cash came from me, it was part of my councillors allowance and intended specifically to fund campaigns for any less well off or young candidates we may have found for local elections. Do remember that apparently Branch Funds do not after all belong to branches.
There seems to be a case for branches to operate parallel independent accounts “Friends of UKIP” or something to keep funds donated specifically for local use.
As for the party, I regret to say I think it’s over, a shame since the country badly needs an alternative to the usual 3 but perhaps just as well, since it no longer focuses on leaving the EU, the most important issue right now and has little chance of making significant further progress to be able to tackle other issues post Brexit. I now do my own thing as an independent.
According to the Rules of Procedure, “B.3.11 Upon disbandment of any Branch, the financial reserves and other assets shall
be transferred to the national party via the national Party Treasurer.”
So a UKIP Branch presided over by its Officers held a vote at an EGM to defraud the Party by a flagrant breach of Party rules.
Possibly misguided, or through ignorance, or mistake. “Defraud” is a big word. The onus is on you to prove intent to deceive.
forthurst, icini wrote the decision or commitment to use the money elsewhere was made “before it voted to close at an EGM”.
So I suspect the breach is of the spirit, and spirits aren’t enforceable.
Thought for the day.
Internal shenanigans received 153 comments, including a couple of mine, while our new Welsh Wizard, Gareth Bennett, didn’t even get a well done.
Something wrong there.
Thought for the rest of the day
(Alleged) scandal attracts attention, and then pour in those trying to explain it probably isn’t what it’s being painted out to be, and then that increase in comment count will attract more comments from the curious and the confused.
We’ve both contributed to this. Poor Mr Bennett.
Right now, the press are talking up the chances of the “Far Right” in Swedish elections. My take on it is that they are doing so only to be able to run headlines like “Far Right Parties crash” once the election’s done.
It’s what sells papers.
I spent about £1,500 of my own money and a lot of time last year standing at the General Election. I got ZERO thanks except for an email from Paul Oakden that went straight into the bin. There is not even any attempt by the party to add up how much candidates have spent on their campaigns, you (and your money) are expendable. You can donate all you want to your own campaign and your own branch, but it means nothing to those bigwigs in the party unless you are donating to them at the centre. Then you will be a hero and will be given special priveleges. So don’t waste your time EVER donating money locally, join this patron’s group, you can donate less money than if you were running for parliament but you will get far more credit and face time! Ask yourself why do they e.g. pay for Nutall’s GE battle bus? It was to get attention from Nuttall, which will turn into a position. Liz Philips seems to be the perfect example of this form of social climbing. Whereas we candidates on the coal face got NOTHING despite putting in the same amount of money. The priorities of this party are a complete mess. It just blunders from anarchy to chaos with only one thing remaining constant, complete disrespect for ordinary members.
What a shock.
Not.
And all the time that shower (no reference to the underpaid, overworked saints at Lexdrum House) were raking in an annualised £200,000 (cost to their employer, including ers’ NIC) plus “”””expenses””””.
Careful they don’t slip back in, under the radar, or have their familiars do so. Vigilance is needed.
By the way, I have asked Liz Phillips several times what happens to patrons who do not want to transfer to a completely independent company. No answer at all. The conclusion appears to be that they can go hang.
The small group of people using the name of the patrons club for their new company appear so tickled by playing company directors that they appear not to care about the patrons who do not wish to transfer. Meanwhile, the party issues updates headed `members matter’ (well, the ones that do as they are told and don’t ask questions perhaps).
There were slightly over 100 patrons in the UKIP’s club at the time it was abolished. The appeal to lapsed patrons has added a few more and it is claimed that there are now 120 patrons.
So have all patrons been handed over to an independent company irrespective of their individual wishes? It is said that ALL current patrons were written to about the new company’s AGM. Patrons of what exactly? Only company members can vote at an AGM.
How many actively agreed to transfer? Not one of the patrons I have been in touch with has been asked or seen a form or been given any kind of opportunity to express or withhold agreement.
I think the author and the Editor in Chief have been extremely brave in deciding to air this issue.
I would expect no less from patriots who had the interests of their country at heart.
This needs to be addressed and not swept under the carpet. It’s no good pretending to drain the swamp when in reality only a little water has been siphoned off the top.
If UKIP the party really was swept clean, not just given a new look by the additional membership of a few u tubers, their followers and possibly Tommy Robinson, then I believe we really could unite as one patriotic party working for the cause dear to all our hearts, the rescuing of the country we all love. As it is, we ex-Kippers know that there are still major problems within UKIP and it cannot be trusted to deliver what we so desperately need, and worse than that, members of the general public who donate and vote may well be let down again in the same way as they were after the referendum vote itself.
So let’s hope not just this, but all outstanding issues are addressed – unless people are brave enough to speak out they never will be. Thank you both.
Batten has said no to Tommy joining. That will not sit well with his supporters or the YouTubers probably. Meanwhile, Nigel is at the first Leave Means Leave event timed to coincide with UKIP’s conference. Unity is some way off.
It’s a bit like the Republicans in the US. Seek orthodox respectability or go full on Trump? Pursuit of respectability has failed UKIP massively but too many MEPs (Batten’s peer group) cannot see that. Hookem resigned the UKIP whip last August, a protest at Anne Marie being allowed to stand in the leadership contest, but is somehow now deputy leader.
I am waiting to see how the party handles Tommy’s request to join (see the video on Kipper Central) – badly is my guess – and what the new policies are (due in two weeks).
Good to hear from you again by the way. Glad you popped back to see us for a quick comment.
From a conversation I had with Elcom last March (which I conveyed to the NEC) it’s a political party that’s registered with Elcom, not any vehicle e.g. a limited company that said political party might set up to run its operations (UKIP didn’t have a Ltd company for many years).
In other words UKIP the political party could survive UKIP Ltd going bust*. Given this information was supplied to the NEC around the time I resigned as treasurer I’m not sure why a newco was set up. I can guess and have already commented, stating my concerns.
My advice to the directors of UKIP is to close down the company (UKIP Patron’s Ltd). If third parties wish to set up their own fundraising vehicle outside of UKIP that’s OK as long at it doesn’t use UKIP’s name, or if it does UKIP refuses to engage with it. UKIP could also set up a subsidiary in which it has a majority shareholding for one or more purposes e.g. fundraising, such as it has done with Sovereign Draw.
* unless the law has changed if UKIP Ltd goes bust then another company/trading entity called UKIP cannot be set up & trade for X years. I believe a political party isn’t a company or trading entity from Elcom’s perspective though.
> if UKIP Ltd goes bust then another company/trading entity called UKIP cannot be set up & trade for X years
then X = 0.
See https://www.rapidformations.co.uk/blog/company-name-rules-and-restrictions/
While a company is still in administration it still exists and the normal name protection applies. The instant it is dissolved, solvent or not, its name becomes available. “The names of dissolved limited companies can be used by a new company. There are no legal restrictions when choosing such a name.”
My own first company had a spotless – nay, superb – reputation. When, after a long period of successful trading, it fell into disuse, I wound it up, wholly solvent, with zero creditors and zero accruals.
I was taken aback that one of my former competitors set up a new company the very next day with identical name (of course, a different company number, 4 million or so, while my company’s number was 1833989). He’d been using a tracking service with Companies House for when it became available. I monitored its use (for passing off rules still applied) but it appeared to be dormant, a vanity company.
Dear Freddy, if the company is insolvent when it’s wound up I believe directors of said company cannot set up another company or do a pre pack with insolvency practitioner & use the same company name. This is to protect creditors from charlatan directors. Ergo setting up a newco to receive funds from third parties in lieu of those monies going into an existing company that is technically insolvent or is trading ‘close to the edge’ is not a very smart move. Should the worse happen the directors would be easy meat for any creditor’s lawyer.
Dear John,
Thanks – I shall check about the specific circumstances you mention (pre-pack, essentially same business), and revert.
I have happily managed to keep myself and all my former clients far from insolvent liquidations, so I’ve no experience. It would certainly seem provocative and silly to do it, but you’re going further and saying you think it’s prohibited.
It’s a question of my cracking open law books unless one of the other accountants (or one of the lawyers) around chimes in. I’ve a dormant though paid subscription to LexisNexis etc. which should settle this if I get to the PCs with the password.
Stephen Lee has been prolific in attacking the article’s author personally but has ducked most of the main points rasied. That is typical of left wingers in trying to shut down debate: attack the person not the argument. Disappointing to see it here on UKIP Daily.
If the author could get no sensible reply for two months then they can hardly complian if the issues are pursued in UKIP Daily.
Some patrons are clearly unhappy that their club was abolished and replaced by some people who feel they should be outside NEC control – that’s for plebs perhaps – but claim a right to force the NEC agenda. Extraordinary.
I agree that the company should have a non UKIP name.
Odd that Fairweather can incorporate a new political party. What happened to the rule book? Is that just for plebs but not the pary elite?
He didn’t incororporate a new party, that was a typo in the original article.
OK, with this precedent in place, the next logical step is for other people to do the same thing. For example, it may well be that this new UKIP Patrons Club Ltd. wants UKIP to go in a more libertarian direction, and they decide to fund activities to make that happen. If I believe it should be in a more populist direction, then nothing to stop me and like-minded members (or non-members) forming a similar ‘super PAC’ and only funding activities that we want to see happen. Ad infinitum.
Although is this really different to the situation we have now? There are now 3 tiers of membership; top tier is large individual donors of say >£300k each, they get to determine policy, tell leader what to do, etc. Second tier is these ‘patrons’, by pooling their money they effectively get the same priveliges as large individual donors. Then there are ordinary members……
@Tacitus,
I have done a thousand hours of leafletting, street stalls, blogs and social media ‘work’ for UKIP as have many others.
I’m ordinary despite devoting a lot of time to UKIP but a lazy £1,000 donor can receive higher privileges.
The more I read of this the more inequality I see.
Bryan , I am a patron. I am not a patron because I want influence within the party over and above the influence I have as an ordinary member. We are all on the same side Bryan. We give according to what we can.
Bryan, I am glad you have the good sense to write under your own name as opposed to hiding behind a pseudonym.
Last year people explained their reasons for choosing a pseudonym. One chap feared losing customers from his business. Another knew his employer googled employee names. They feared losing their livelihoods and being able to support their families. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where people’s political choices can have consequences they should not by that is the real world. The Editor-in-Chief knows who the various people are and often their reasons. Instead of claiming to know what good sense is you might reflect that people have good not bad reasons for a pseudonym. In any case how do you know what appears to be real names actually are? Some of those too may be pseudonyms. It i swhat is said that matters not who said it unless it is a party official.
Point taken. I accept that contributors may have sound reasons for not revealing their identity.
Ye gods. The old patrons club is abolished without consultation and an independent company is set up using its name. This is extraordinary. And there is now a two tier system in which this independent company can insist on motions before the NEC. Why on earth does anyone think this is acceptable?
I liked the point about 33 ordinary members. Highlights the new elitism.
Yes people can band together in their own company and decide what, and what not, to spend their money on. But that is not UKIP. We are a party with a constitution and we elect an NEC who decide. If that is not good enough for some people then we have remain type middle class elitists in our ranks who want to be special. They are not.
I am not a patron and I am unlikely ever to be one. But I know some patrons in my branch and I will urge them not to support this
There are 120 current patrons, not 33. We want there to be hundreds. How elitist is that ?
I pointed out the the patron membership fee equates to 33 ordinary membership feesand so could they band together in 33’s to get the same rights as patrons.. Paul is saying he liked that point.
Sensationalising possibilities and scenarios is about as helpful as the MNM news reports on all things UKIP.
Why shoot ourselves in the foot twice at such a crucial time?
Flawed possibly, but there is nothing to indicate that this was not done with the best intentions to keep UKIP financially viable at a survival point.
So why not end it now the crisis is over?
> with the best intentions to keep UKIP financially viable at a survival point.
IANAL.
Newco was set up in March, after the true scale of the financial carnage wrought by the idiotic handling of the libel matter, harking back to September 2014, had become clear to the (horrified) new administration.
Tomaz Slivnik and I (reasoning separately, and acting separately) had been nearly lone voices crying out for what now is years that those people who were claiming the final bill for UKIP was going to be nil, or £30,000 at most, were talking tripe…. codswallop.
The actual bill, in the hundreds of thousands, was exactly at the bottom end of my estimate. IMO UKIP were very lucky the learned judge (Mr Justice Warby) did not go further and hold UKIP jointly and severally liable for damages too.
I demolished their half-a-dozen arguments – so nonsensical and logicfrei that I am honestly embarrassed to reproduce them – so they cut me out of discussions anyway, as it was “none of my business”.
In the case of the innocent, I was saying things they didn’t want to hear. For the others, I was saying them before they’d got away.
I never put my name in for the NEC because if the party had gone belly-up while I was an NEC member (and therefore director), or within a year of my having been so, I had exactly the profile to make me a prime target for the administrator and perhaps even a prosecutor (given what UKIP was, we’d be the 1 in a 100 where insolvent liquidation led to criminal action).
I put what needed to be urgently done (including getting shot of ‘enery) in writing in January in a private letter to the NEC. The letter was co-signed by Stuart Agnew MEP, the (since then) Eastern Regional Chair Catherine Blaiklock and two former leadership candidates. It did not evoke a good response.
And then “they” scarpered, so others – the innocent – would have to carry the can, in what they may have considered was a near certainty UKIP would go under.
A short while later, I was vindicated. My analyses had been spot-on, and theirs (if you can dignify them by calling them “analyses”) had been a load of fragrant manure.
Now that Gerard & Co., against have near-miraculously got us out of the awful mess, those most responsible for the utter shambles and fiasco have the audacity to try to crawl back, perhaps using their usual methods (prevarication, flattery of fools, exploiting the gullible or uninformed, intimidation, crony-appointment, assorted corrupt practices) thinking we won’t notice.
It is my view that any indemnity given to them is invalid as it was provided without actual authority and also without adequate knowledge of the facts.
Let them have no doubts that if not for my being asked by people I respect to hold back as UKIP would inevitably be damaged in such an action as a result of what else might spill out, I would have given them good cause to consult with their lawyers about the exception to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843).
I’d have done it on behalf of all the little old ladies who’d trustingly skimped and saved to give money to a good cause.
. . .
Freddy, whilst ‘they’ – in this context you can only mean Crowther and Oakden as they are the only people who resigned as directors of the company and legged it – are gone, the question I have is why did the other lawyers on the NEC (there are several) not realise the most simple legal point, that in any action the plaintiff will always seek to identify the deepest pockets and drag them in to the action, and in this case there is the added bonus of causing your political enemy damage. Is it really possible that barristers and solicitors on the NEC did not realise this? Were they also asleep at the wheel?
“I know naathing”.
Reference – The words of Manuel (played by the late beloved Andrew Sachs, a victim of the odious Russell Brand) in Fawlty Towers, series 2 episode 1, “Communication Problems”, first aired in 1979.
The horse’s name was, appropriately enough, ‘Dragonfly’.
Your surmises, guesses and conclusions are your own.
I prefer keep my powder dry, trust in the Lord but have (plentiful) ammunition handy.
Gerard & Co? There was a legacy to the party of around £145K – probate concluded in April I believe – and it was members who stumped up adding to that. It is true (probably) that an appeal from Bolton for money, if he had stayed leader, might not have succeeded. I’d like to know how much each member of team Batten donated. David Kurten, for example, only stood as a candidate in Lewisham if the party paid his deposit. So not even £500 from him (and he is on more than the average wage unlike many kippers).
The reward for ordinary members is now this more explicitly tiered party. The new Patrons Club will spend money on “political activities” (no mention of UKIP itself) and are allowed to force an NEC agenda item. People are free to band together in a company and decide how their money is spent. But they should not be allowed to call themselves the UKIP Patrons Club. They are outside NEC control so outside UKIP. Giving them NEC agenda rights and conference agenda rights, when everyone else is subject to NEC approval, is offensive elitism. So funny that we object to it in the EU.
Thank you for the extra information re sources, of which I was unaware. I heard of a bequest but thought it was only a small part of the pot.
Irreverently, I wonder if it is wise for those intending to leave money to Labour in their wills to declare this in advance. Labour’s fine, “law-abiding”, official (Momentum), semi-official (HateNotHope) and denied (Antifa) enforcement wings might decide to accelerate probate by …. enough said.
Dear Freddy,
Those, including you, who make sweeping statements about the ‘collins’ case and from there set out to tar many people with the same brush are, frankly ignorant of the ‘full story’. Had the allegations, made in public against the three Labour MPs been verifiable in court then the whole issue would have gone away. It didn’t, because the litigant couldn’t substantiate their allegations in court, didn’t make ‘amends’ and didn’t pay any due fines or damages. It was at that point that UKIP became a target. And don’t forget that allegedly a well known MEP ‘approved’ the speech that contained the accusations.
The circumstances around why the NEC supported Collins in late 2014 were very different than they are today. Once the case has run its course some of us might tell the full story at which point some people might realise that hindsight is a wonderful thing and anyone can be a smart@rs% in hindsight.
As for saying x, y, z has saved the party, many people over many years have saved the party from time to time, not least on a number of occasions between June 2014 and March 2018
Why did none of the solicitors, barristers and chartered accountants on the NEC stop UKIP becoming attached to the proceedings? Its the most obvious thing, when there is an action in progress, you keep it isolated and don’t let it spread to other parties. The MEP, O’FLynn, was not part of the chain of command, not a member of the NEC. What you mean to say is the party had no process to vet speeches being given, as obviously the in-house lawyer should be doing that, not a random MEP. Anyway, I would like those solicitors and barristers on the NEC to account for themselves as they get elected on the basis that they have this expertise, but then don’t actually use it. Perhaps they were not given a full account of the situation, if so that is another failure of governance.
For the avoidance of doubt, JB was one of the good ones.
Who’s claiming the ones you mention did not have prime responsibility? I’m not.
That doesn’t detract from what happened later.
I’d have given the main protagonist 48 hrs to produce not just evidence but proof that all three Labour MPs knew. Failure to do that, insulate UKIP from all consequences. The 2015GE was still 7+ months into the future. Coming clean and washing our hands of it was the wisest thing, especially if we’d added “we accept they didn’t know, but… bl**dy well shouldn’t they have known what was happening under their noses in their own constituencies.
But, John, you were used. I’m shocked you still don’t get it.
I was not just wise in hindsight. I was saying hundreds of thousands of pounds since 2015, when my misgivings were sufficient for me to tear up my signed nomination papers for the NEC. Louder and louder, within the party. To be greeted with claims I was scaremongering, wrong, etc by those either too silly or too complicit.
I was right.
My reasoning was spot on, too.
The only thing I was wrong about was that I thought we’d be held J&S for damages too, not only for costs during the key period. We were very very fortunate this happened and the judge saw it our way.
Those evidently less well-endowed as I am noddle-wise then started bleating that we should appeal !! That’s when I let loose. I’ve had my time with suffering fools and seeing UKIP harmed by their folly.
Why do you think Labour’s ace lawyers let in drag on for so long? If the penny hasn’t dropped yet – it is because they wanted another pot to dry up, so it would in effect leave ours as the only one. Full marks to them for how they played it, given they seek our destruction.
End of.
@Freddy,
Please name them so the rest of us can catch up.
Intentions are not outcomes.
I dislike this navel gazing and different groups chipping away at each other.
It’s a waste of time and effort when we should all be facing one way, towards our rather substantial enemy.
I suppose that cronyism and cliques appear wherever funding occurs, especially when the sums are in the tens of thousands.
Many a ‘good man’ has ‘accidentally’ run off after bleeding their funds dry.
Humanity, eh. It’s never happy unless it’s breaking something.
Reading the comments I did see that members of an independent club could be persuaded by vocal leaders to jump ship whenever they choose.
You could give £1,000 to the club on a Monday believing you are helping UKIP but on Tuesday the club’s board could vote to fund someone else, even a competing political party.
Bryan, while in general I agree, being able to freely discuss such things allows steam to be let off. The navels gazed at serve also as release valves on a pressure cooker. 🙂
I invite you to read my reply to ‘The Pier’ above; it has “financial carnage” at its start.
That represents a danger far greater than any which might be posed by this Newco mechanism. Swamps re-establish themselves very quickly…
Bryan, the new Patrons Club will be allowing people to define the purpose of a given donation thus ring fencing any donations. This was an important reason to make the the club independent.
Ring fencing' happened with old club. Any donor can make the gift conditional and ask the party if it accepts on those terms. In the past donations have beenring fenced’ for production of the in-house magazine, Lexdrum House rent, Lexdrum House staff salaries, and conference costs.The `reason’ for independence does not stand up to scrutiny.
“You could give £1,000 to the club on a Monday believing you are helping UKIP but on Tuesday the club’s board could vote to fund someone else, even a competing political party.”
Which is why the Articles are being modified to benefit UKIP or it’s successor. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun and making false assumptions based on boilerplate Articles used to set up the company quickly. This type of thing has already been identified in the Articles which will be modified. Please everyone urgently download them from Companies House and if you have any constructive suggestions (even if you will never be a member) please do suggest them here. Despite claims to the contrary here, this is not all predetermined and constructive suggestions will be appreciated.
This article is both interesting and detailed. But it is also, in my opinion, aggressively polemic and lacks balance. It adopts a very accusatory interpretation of any actions taken. It fails to give any credit to possible alternative, perhaps even wise and prudent, motives.
I note the objective and proportionate words of caution in the comments of Freddy Vaccha, Forthurst and Stephen Lee. It would be unfair not to consider that there may well be ethically and professionally sound reasons for the decisions taken. And equally, it might be politically naïve to publicise and discuss some of those reasons in an open forum.
I think members might benefit from waiting to hear both sides of the story before arriving at a judgment in these matters.
For two months I have been fobbed off. I tried to get my concerns answered in private but no-one would answer any questions. The Editor in Chief agreed it was appropriate to go public.
The PTB have had ample opportunity to dispel any
interpretations' that they feel are unwarranted, every change to providebalance’, and to offer `alternatives’Once little factions appear people can’t help themselves. Money brings out the worst in people.
Might have been better to keep this in-house as anyone popping in to check us out has just popped out again thinking UKIP are just like all the others.
I agree. I tied to keep it in house but the after two months of filibuster and nothing remotely like taking the issues raised seriously Viv and I agreed an article was now appropriate.
Well said, more of the same old same old sniping, tiresome and not helpful for the greater cause.
“same old sniping”? People cannot raise issues that matter to them? If the PTB ignore them then they must shut up? The “greater good” is what you decide it is?
The old club has been abolished. This was a club in UKIP for people donating at least £1000 a year to UKIP. It conferred no special privileges such as forcing anything onto the NEC’s agenda. It was not elitist. Just good UKIP people who lunched together sometimes and gave more money. No influence sought or expected.
Now it is people keeping their money from UKIP but using the clubs name. That should not be allowed. And expecting to force an agenda item on the members’s democratically elected NEC. Whether the new club will support NEC decisions is now a matter of the prejudices of a small coterie of people.
This shameful episode needs to be brought to an end. Bleating about good intentions is no justification.
“Now it is people keeping their money from UKIP but using the clubs name. ” Not true. All the intended funds will go to UKIP projects.
“And expecting to force an agenda item on the members’s democratically elected NEC”. It is something that is / was being considered but if enough people give good reasoned arguments why this should not happen then maybe it will not. I think this was just one of many ideas about a possible reformation of the NEC on the table. Nothing more.
The NEC agenda item is stated definitively in Batten’s letter of 12 April.
The dilemma here is:
– Is the newish entity under the control of the NEC, or not?
“Control” has a clear meaning. Likely to acquiesce to the demands of the NEC is not the same thing.
If it IS under the control of the NEC, it is my opinion that it would NOT be safe from a hypothetical future insolvency administrator of UKIP.
If it is not under the control of the NEC, then some degree of trust will be required, else people won’t give.
It sounds like there is absolutely no connection as (i) there is no ownership connection, (ii) there are no common directors, (iii) there are no voting rights for UK Independence Company in UKIP Patrons Ltd. I don’t understand Stephen Lee’s comment that ‘the organisation has been set up as a political party’ because that simply isn’t correct, it is set up as something like a US-style Super PAC to raise funds and contribute to other political parties. The articles have no mention of it being a political party or having a constitution like a political party.
He suggested that the company’s articles were amended yesterday – but no details of course notwithstanding Batten’s claim to promote `transparency’.
I would have no objection if the company was called something else – “Smug Gits Ltd” or something. The name UKIP Patrons Club has been UKIP’s for many years. If the NEC had any gumption they should sue the new company for the offence of passing off.
They have been negligent for four months allowing donations from the old website to be made in the explicit belief the money was going to UKIP for the control of its democratically elected NEC. Instead UKIP’s Patrons Club was abolished and money has gone to this “completely independent” company under the control of a small unelected cabal.
Defence has been the claim of benign motive. But intentions do not determine outcomes. I can believe there was panic in March but that critical period has passed.
What has happened is that UKIP’s club has been abolished and a third party allowed to use the club name.
1. Discussions amongst members led to the decision to modify the articles of association. That takes time and will appear on Companies House when done.
2. Yes good idea. Sue the organisation that is set up to provide a large amount of the funding for UKIP.
3. No money anyone has donated – not a penny – has gone to the new company.
4. It is not a third party but an officer of the party restructuring in a way that does not risk any funding if the United Kingdom Independence Party Ltd were to be bankrupted – as was a distinct possibility when this was all set up. if that did happen then a new Phoenix company could be formed and the political party brushed down and injected with unscathed funds from UKIP Patrons Club Ltd. Now what is wrong with that ?
Have you not followed any of the comments on here about defeating creditors?
It is most unwise to admit in public that there was a deliberate intention to circumvent the laws on bankruptcy.
Batten himself said it is a “completely independent” company.
Were those funds solicited with an explanation that they may fund an entirely different party?
> It is most unwise to admit in public
Yes – it would certainly not be helpful.
While *purposive* considerations are in themselves insufficient to establish liability (of Newco), as part of a body of other evidence they could be persuasive.
Which is also why no negative inference should be drawn from Gerard, Dr Fairweather or any NEC member not openly posting here…
If the PTB are confident their actions have been entirely lawful then there is no reason for not coming on here and saying so.
If they are confident that ending the patrons club within UKIP itself is a good thing then come on here and explain.
There is no reason why there cannot be a patrons club within UKIP and a separate company, independent of UKIP, that may or not donate to UKIP from time to time.
It is the abolition of the old long standing club, the purloining of its name by a third party company with objects unaligned to UKIP, that needs explaining. No need to go into their artifice about trying to circumvent bankruptcy law which Stephen Lee announced.
There is nothing to stop the party keeping a patrons club still under NEC control. A separate company can still exist for people for whom that does not appeal. They just have to call it something else. `Primadonnas Ltd’ or whatever is appropriate. They should not have rights over the NEC’s agenda.
> there are no common directors
Sez who?
UNITED KINGDOM INDEPENDENCE PARTY LIMITED
Company number 05090691
Directors
…
FAIRWEATHER, David Sebastian, Dr
Appointed on 15 March 2018
…
=====================
UKIP PATRONS LTD
Company number 11272168
Director
FAIRWEATHER, David Sebastian, Dr
Appointed on 23 March 2018
Not set up as a political party – I may have entered that in my original draft that I accidentally published. If so I should have used the words “registered with the Electoral Commission” which of course is not the same thing. Please see the revised posting.
I now have some clarification regarding the formation of the UKIP Patrons Club Ltd which is contrary to the impression given at the meeting.
This company for now has NOT been registered with the Electoral Commission. We may do so in the future as that will enable larger donations to be given during the election process. Meanwhile we shall do all the paperwork that would be required if registered anyway to get into the habit and for transparency.
The Articles of Association will be modified in a way that will satisfy the Electoral Commission for when we do register and and also for general fairness and common sense
Trust? Thanks for the laugh. As remarked to Tacitus, what has happened is that UKIP’s club has been abolished and a third party allowed to use the club name. And without consultation or agreement of patrons. Trust indeed.
It is under the control of the Patrons which is far more relevant as it is their money being used. There is a theoretical potential for insolvency. Say the Patrons Club spent money on an event for members which made a loss. That theoretically could cause insolvency. From memory it was agreed that the Articles of Association will be changed such that if the company were to be wound up, any left over funds would go to UKIP.
No it isn’t. There are no patrons in UKIP anymore. There are members of entirely independent company using the former patrons club name.
But if it has directors that are directors of UKIP Ltd and/or is seen to be a way of ‘hiding’ money that might be needed to pay UKIP’s creditors or its funds not directed for the party’s benefit by its elected party officers then that could lead to all sorts of legal issues and conflicts of interest.
John, as the former treasurer you know it makes sense that the separate company was set up to protect Patrons donations and fees from UKIP if UKIP were to go bust – as could have happened. No money was transferred out of UKIP to the Patrons Club as implied by Stout Yeoman. In fact the opposite is about to happen.
Also you are in a position to confirm the claims I made about the Special Projects Group being able to sponsor specific projects. We met in London with you and Paul Nuttall on a Thursday and by Monday morning his tour bus was ready and fully vinyled up and ready to roll. By then the official Patrons Club was effectively defunct.
Dear Stephen, if UKIP via it’s directors has authorised the setting up of a newco, with one or more of its directors as directors of the newco & there is any whiff that this vehicle is to be used to protect ‘donor’ money from creditors then that is most likely illegal.
The current leader, chairman, treasurer and many NEC members have had nothing to do with previous administrations so why not donate directly to the party they currently run?
BTW, I fully acknowledge and appreciate your generosity to the party over the last few years. I’m just worried that the party could be veering close to or over the legal red line, nevermind that many of the issues with the Patron’s club were personality clashes between two people I know well, rather than anything fundamental – controls to stop profligate spending were put in place in early 2016
Hi John,
Just to make clear, I am fully aware that you were stuck with trying to clear up the mess you inherited as well as the Jane Collins case. You also resigned from a spokesman position in UKIP as a matter of principle which I applaud.
The decision to set up an independent Patrons Club entity was made by Gerard Batten, Tony McIntyre and Sebastian Fairweather. I do not know if it was presented to the NEC.
There has been full disclosure to the Electoral Commission at all stages. At no time was this intended to be a vehicle to divert money from creditors but a device for wary patrons to feel confident in which to donate. Even if one agrees with your sentiment that the current administration is sound, it is crucial to give patrons the confidence many were genuinely seeking by providing that glass wall between “their” business club and UKIP. We have now bolted on a democratic involvement to the process such that the director’s can be expelled or voted out if needed. This should be clarified in the revised Articles in due course.
Hmmm! If some directors have set up a newco without the approval of the other directors i.e. the NEC that’s not smart (and maybe unconstitutional & in breach of company law) regardless of whether setting up this newco was a good idea anyway.
NEC members are elected by the membership to represent all members equally, therefore no group (especially one containing non members) should be able to exert any leverage or have undue influence over the party and its activities.
The NEC approved the formation of the newco.
You know that isn’t true, UKIP HQ does overrule branches in favour of the wishes of donors, such as in Richmond at the last GE when the branch did not want to run a candidate but a donor did, and so the donor got his way. I am sure that isn’t the only occassion. So when other people see things like that happen, they realise ‘what really counts in this party is money’, and think ‘how do we get the same level of influence’, and then ‘I know, let’s pool our money and keep it outside UKIP so we decide how and if it gets spent’. Its a natural progression of thought.
Not under the control of the NEC but I now know that twice the NEC approved the formation of the newco (I did not know that for sure until today).
Thanks for this very useful article. I will keep the 1000 pounds and use it elsewhere. What a shambles! Mr Fairweather needs to nip this in the bud asap if there is another side to the story.
Gerard Batten in a video the other day stated that Liz Phillips is now a full time employee as he had enough money in the coffers to employ her.
Does anyone know where the money came from ( subs ? Patrons ? )
Isn’t Vince Cable helping in some way or other?
Poor Vince, not long for this world, about to step down. When he was talking about getting a successor from outside the Libdems, was he talking about Our ‘Enry?
Mr Bav may have a direct line to him, which is why I asked…
(saintly emoticon)
Tim Congdon donated £50K. She can be employed for a year at least.
From the fantastic efforts of the currently maligned Sebastian Fairweather there are now sufficient funds to pay the court fees and leave a healthy balance to pay for the administration of UKIP. That is why I am so annoyed by this posting knocking the fantastic work Seb Fairweather has done.
I haven’t knocked his work. I have asked, inter alia, about an entirely new political party he has set up.
Did he donate the money that has led to the healthy balance? Or was that members?
Graham, I was replying to another person in the thread when referring to knocking Seb’s work, not to your original posting.
he has not created a new political party. I wrote that in error in an earlier posting when I should have said the UKIP Patrons Club Ltd had registered with the Electoral Commission. I did not realise I had the opportunity to correct an existing posting for a while and reposted it correctly but as it was over 400 words the moderator removed it.
Steve
I’m not knocking Seb. The party should be very grateful that people volunteer their time to help it, often picking up what’s perceived as a poisoned chalice.
What I find unacceptable is the way new managers come in & set about denigrating previous incumbents. It’s a cheap, intellectually corrupt trick. The fact of the matter is that after the debacle of the 2015 GE overspend a small number of people, myself included as treasurer (but more importantly our generous members and donors) kept this party alive. If we hadn’t done so there would be no party around today for the current officers to run!
John, as a bystander I have never heard your name mentioned in a negative manner. The complaints were often about certain highly paid incumbents in the London office who did not appear to be pulling their weight. There were also complaints about Peter Jewell and they way he was running the Patrons Club – mainly from patrons. That is very relevant to the reason the Patrons Club is organised the way it is now. Steve
By the hard work and imagination of Sebastian Fairweather supported by Lexdrum House. The party funds are now in a great state. The Patrons Club has promised £100,000 spread over the next 12 months to cover Liz Phillips and various other expenses (rent, press officer, etc). Hopefully after the 12 months period the party will be able to support the Leader’s office.
May I please provide some background information on this whole affair? Liz Phillips did a fantastic job in the Patrons Club but was ousted. Many members became disillusioned because there were hardly any events subsequently organised and the money went into a black hole. Prior to the referendum, Liz Phillips approached many of the active patrons and we formed an unofficial independent group cal The Patrons Club Special Projects Group. This group was quite successful and members were able to donate in a ring fenced manner for specific projects. Those projects included support for the Wlsh Assembly (we would not have had 7 people elected otherwise), printing machines for Thurrock, the Referendum UK touring coach (no Nigel’s open top bus) , Paul Nuttal’s general election touring coach, and various minor projects. We considered our group to be a success but then things went wrong.
You “accuse” Liz Phillips of supporng Henry Bolton. According to his CV Henry Bolon appeared ot be a great organiser and we were all taken in. I too was an enthusiastic supporter at first and introduced him to a US Representaitve recently appointed by Trump to handle UK/US trade talks. Henry Bolton just talked about hhiself unfortunately. Then it went downhill and all realised our mistake. Liz then supported Gerard Batten who along with Tony McIntyre and Sebastian Fearweather have l been working flat out to restore the administration and finances of the party – which they have done despite the huge sum that needed to be paid to the court as a result of mismanagement by an earlier administration.
Seb Fairweather has been working (for free) flat out to get funds in. He set up the Patrons Club UK Ltd to enable any donations to be ring fenced in a great hurry and this has been able to already find over £100,000 which has been earmarked for the Leader’s office to support rent, a press officer, etc. (The Leader has also providing his time for free). This was a more professional version of the aforementioned Special Projects Group. Seb has not rushed things in order to do the job properly, hence the delays. Yesterday afternoon a meeting was held in London. All current Patrons were invited to attend. There were discussions on the puerpose of the group and to ammend the existing well drafted constitution. A “board” of 5 members who will be directors were voted in for what will probably be a 12 month period. There will be board meetings every 2 months and an AGM (annually) where directors will resign and new ones voted in. The organisation has been set up as a political party to avoid any issues with the Electoral Commission. That is the correct way of doing things.
Your writer asks “why should Patrons have special rights over spending decisions”. The answer is because it is their money, not UKIP’s money, and they can decide individually (with extra donations) or as a group what it can be spent on. The Patron’s Club member will still have to pay UKIP for UKIP membership if they wish to be a UKIP member. They do not have to be a UKIP member to join the Patron’s Club.
The Patron’s Club lost members as described not because people left UKIP (I am sure some did) but because they felt dissilusioned with the Patron’s Club or has migrated to our Special Projects Group or maybe because the incompetent management at the time failed to write to them to renew their membership. Most of the Patrons I know were never reminded, let alone chased to renew.
Maybe anyone responding to the incredibly misinformed and negative post of “Stour Yeoman” will realise that there is no justification for such conspiracy theories and that a lot of individuals are working extremely hard on no pay to try and rescue UKIP of which the funds already provided to the new Patrons Club are a major factor and have literally rescued what was a dying organisation whereas now we are all tremendously excited about the future.
Note to moderator. I accidentally posted before spell and grammar checking. Please do any corrections. Steve
Diverting money from creditors (ring fencing as you call it) when you know the company may go bankrupt is a criminal offence. Thank you for clarifying that was the intention.
Patrons donated to UKIP and the money ceases to be theirs and becomes UKIP’s. This was on the website.
If the Patrons Club is now an independent party with non UKIP members in it as you claim then using UKIP’s name in it is the offence of passing off.
We have always been able to pay for or donate to `special projects’ such as branches, the Welsh Assembly. This is not a justification for hijacking UKIP’s Patrons Club. No one stopped the special projects group. Why not just continue with that. No-one is stopped from donating to particular projects. The new company is not necessary for any that.
Existing patrons were not asked if they approved of this fundamental change nor were they asked if money given to UKIP Ltd in good faith could be diverted to a “completely independent” company. There would be no objection to the new company if it had not hijacked the former club which was a part of UKIP.
Fairweather is unremunerated. So what? So was his predecessor.
An independent company can indeed spend its money as it wishes. That’s the point. It is nothing to with UKIP which is run by an elected NEC. In my view this independent company should have no right to insert motions on the NEC’s agenda. Why not other companies also?
I have not accused Liz Phillips of anything. She announced her support for Bolton, and her opposition to Anne Marie Waters at a meeting on 28th June. How is reporting something factual an “accusation”?
Do you know if any patron’s money was transferred from UKIP to the new company?
I was in the patrons club before Liz was ousted, and before her successor was ousted back. Don’t recall anything fantastic compared to what came next. Please provide some details of this fantastic job.
Your post is written like someone seeking to curry favour with your team. The article is about facts of which you have disregarded.
Once gain you seem to be stirring it without the facts. No money from UKIP has been diverted to UKIP Patrons Club Ltd. On the contrary. £100,000 has been donated from UKIP Patrons Club Limited to UKIP. The reference to ring fencing was to address the complaint of many patrons that their fees or donations to the Patrons Club were going into a black hole. That is what I meant by ring fencing The new organisation can also receive donations for very specific projects and ring fence that money for just those agreed projects. An example is that some money in the SPG was donated only if used for printing machines. we even returned donations where we did not need all the ring fenced funds.
Liz and Batten have said that all patrons money has gone into the new club after it was set up. Yet the website invited patron donations as though going to UKIP itself.
This is not “stirring” with or without facts but the reporting of them.
I realise after your extensive commenting that you find it difficult to cope with facts inimical to your position. Kindly explain why Fairweather can set up another political party but members are warned that they fact disciplinary action if they are members of two parties.
Whilst I can fully understand that people giving decent wedges of cash might not want it disappearing into a black hole, surely that was in response to the poor management of the time. But now you have the same set of people administering both the party and this ‘organisation’ (shall we call it ‘the Commission’ run by the 5 families?), so why is that necessary? Surely the new managers of the party, Seb included, should now trust the party to be run better under their control, this negating the need for this parallel organisation? It seems it has morphed from being an understandable workaround a dysfunctional party management into being a parallel decision making and control structure. For example, in any future leadership contest, what is to stop this commission from throwing its money behind another Henry Bolton-like character, who you already fell for once before (actually not everyone fell for him which is why 70.1% of people didn’t vote for him)? From a purely financial perspective, if the UK Independence Party company ever goes bust (its still in a negative net assets situation) then how does a treasurer setting up a parallel organisation to draw funds away from it work? And have you all considered the impact of this on ordinary members – it doesn’t look good and it does give the sense, as Stout says, of a two-tier system. Wow.
Not sure I can add much to reply. You concede that there was a lack of accountability before. The new structure was set up to counter that situation arising again. In the past Patrons money went to UKIP and was wasted on overpaid hangers-on and other general waste. At least that is what I was told by people in the know. If you run the accounts today that you will find that it is still in a negative asset situation even with the outstanding loans. The bank statement is in a good state now (I was told the actual amount in confidence). I understand the UKIP and Patrons Club management accounts will be published on a regular basis. I think monthly was mentioned for most transparency. You may be right that now there is no need to have a separate company for the patrons but neither will it cause any harm and will add a level of democracy where people can vote for how the company is run. I dispute the 2-tier claim. If run by UKIP central office it will still cost £1,000 pa to join but with no voting rights.
What you are talking about is a plutocracy. The rich get to join a special club and get special priveleges that ordinary members don’t get. UKIP is already very donor-driven, this is basically just a way for those people who aren’t in the Stuart Wheeler / Chris Mills / Hargreaves / Banks levels of wealth to pool their money and then enjoy similar priveleges, such as getting items on the NEC agenda, telling party what to do, etc.
Pleased read the phrase “The organisation has been set up as a political party to avoid any issues with the Electoral Commission. ” instead as “The organisation has been registered with the Electoral Commission. “
I’d be fascinated to know what kind of Damascene conversion Liz Philipps went through to start off cheerleading for Henry Bolton, going through the whole kick AMW out of the race, get Nazis out of the party, etc. line, and then to suddenly become GBs most loyal lieutenant, even though he shares exactly the same policy agenda as AMW. Did she go from being a LibDem to a Nazi (Henry and Nigel’s words, not mine) overnight? Remarkable. Great intellectual flexibility.
There is a world of different between Anne Marie Waters and Gerard Batten. Leadership qualities are not just about views as we see so clearly with Trump. Jeff Wyatt has just resigned from deputy leader of For Britain and has left the party.
AMW is not Gerard except on Islam. On many issues she is an unformed Labour Social Justice Warrior and extreme feminist who dislikes Islam.
And it was for the members to choose whether they wanted that. They rejected her. At two London hustings she was exposed as economically illiterate. Asked about the national debt (interest payments this year around 50 billion!) she answered “not my area”. Interviewed by Andrew Neil she would have lasted about 30 seconds.
What the brouhaha around her showed, as with the Patrons Club, now, is the same syndrome of elitism. Ordinary members cannot be trusted to exercise their own choice. Within Leave and Remain there are mirror image conceited elitists. They are in our party as well.
You as a kipper know that. To the outside world, both are defined by one issue, their anti-islamism, and that’s all people care about. If you ever go to any national press conference where Gerard is even just in the room, the first question that will come from reporters will be about Islam. I was there at the GE17 press conferences when Nuttall was asked by the Sun ‘do you share the views of GB who describes Islam as a cult” and Nuttall just gave a look of exasperation and said ‘ask him yourself, he’s sitting in the seat behind you’. Sorry, if Gerard does stand for anything else (and from what I can see the things he stands for are basically socialist, such as supporting the NHS, and ‘taking care’ of people, which is basically a code word for socialism) those things will always be overshadowed by the Islam question. Hence to the outside world, he and AMW are basically one and the same thing and differ only in style, although I agree that nobody knows who she is outside a small circle. I didn’t quite understand your point about Trump but Gerard’s refusal to endorse Trump is puzzling in the extreme, surely UKIP needs all the friends it can get but he seems to want to keep a distance. Anyway the point was, how can you go from being a cheerleader for an obvious phony infiltrator like Henry Bolton who refused to take on the Islam question and attacked the candidate that did, to suddenly being the best pal of the new leader who is defined by his long standing opposition to Islam? It makes no logical sense.
Some of what goes on reflects factionalism at MEP level. Hookem resigned the whip last August in protest at AMW being allowed to stand and Agnew’s support for her (giving a statement to the press naturally – that’s how significant these people think they are) and he is now somehow deputy leader. Phillips was replaced by Jewell – exact date unknown as these things are often a matter of discovery rather than information sent out – and at a meeting at the HoL on 28th June she triumphantly announced that she and Batten had been to see Jewell two weeks previously to tell him where to go. Revenge appeared to be being enjoyed.
The cabal that have hijacked the UKIP’s Patrons Club and shut down the old club that was within the party will control sending not in accordance with priorities set by the NEC, chosen by ordinary members, but according to their personal prejudices. When I heard Phillips on AMW and Bolton I had no doubt that the had no regard for the democratic choices of members.
If the NEC really did approve this travesty, rather than be presented with a fait accompli too late to overturn, then they are like Westminster handing over powers to the EU. Beggars belief really. .
I believe at the time these companies were set up, UKIP was facing undefined legal costs and a shortfall of funds. Seb Fairweather was appointed Treasurer on March 16th. Setting up companies separate from UKIP to accept donations which otherwise could have absorbed by a failed company was an excellent strategic move. I suggest would-be patrons should contact Seb Fairweather if they have any further concerns.
“donations which otherwise could have absorbed by a failed company” is a potentially criminal offence. The law protects a company’s creditors. Had UKIP gone bust an administrator could have pursued the diverted money as well as referred the directors to the police. Excellent strategic move it was not.
We are talking, I believe, of donations which had not been made to UKIP which therefore could hardly been construed as income which had been due to UKIP and therefore to creditors of UKIP.
Yes, forthurst.
However, the argument would be if this was diverting a future stream of income away from the party.
I do not see how a putative future stream of voluntary donations can possibly be construed as belonging to creditors.
We paid to UKIP. some were continuing to pay to UKIP by s/o and d/d. and the website falsely allowed patrons to believe money was going into UKIP when in fact it went to a third party company. That problem has been solved now by removing all mention of patrons.
Whatever the intention behind this, which may have been “good”, that does not determine outcomes.
forthurst:
> I do not see how a putative future stream of voluntary donations can possibly be construed as belonging to creditors.
Of course I agree that could not be so construed.
But an *existing* (note emphasis) pot of money that had arguably been accumulated for the good of UKIP, Party and/or Ltd, could become a target for a creative administrator.
My former employers, Ernst & Whinney (who then rescued Arthur Young International from likely insolvency itself in a coup that created Ernst & Young), were foremost among the international firms, then the Big 8, now the Big 4, of accountants in terms of insolvency practice. I am not a specialist at all, since as a young trainee sticking labels on large passenger jets (cash-flow killed Freddie Laker’s airlines, not profitability) didn’t teach me much, but exam prep covered the elementary aspects.
Elsewhere in this burgeoning comment-fest I’ve pointed out that you and I aren’t far apart on this.
UKIP considered putting money in another entity before (this year’s bankruptcy risk was not the first). The legal advice was don’t do it. Too risky. Part of the problem is that when you clean out the whole kennel you can lose corporate memory.
Sorry not true. The website solicited patron money on the basis it made you a patron of and within UKIP itself.
> The website solicited patron money on the basis it made you a patron of and within UKIP itself.
If that’s accurate, tweaking may be needed.
I believe the clear intention was that UKIP would be the exclusive beneficiary of donations. I believe Seb Fairweather was trying to protect the interests of very generous donors such as yourself such that should UKIP fail, the cash could either be returned or put toward starting a new party as the donor would indicate.
Where is the intention clear?
Not sure the creditors of UK Independence Party would see it that way.
Interesting and definitely fishy.
Go local. Every time I see an advert for a national charity it always reminds me to donate locally. Patrons could support their local branch until this situation is clearer about where the funds can be used. I want to know and see where my limited money is going.
Good idea, especially if you are active in the branch. The Patrons Club is not to the taste of everyone, even if they are comfortable paying the subscription. No argument there. Local branch level would be fantastic as many branches need funds to cover meeting halls, posters, billboards, etc. which are crucial to the party. At another level the Patrons Club Special projects Group which the new Patrons Club is based on did contribute to local elections when requested. A branch member would be invited to attend to make their case, the members present agreed the same way you would at branch level, and Liz went off and nagged people to send in the money needed and it happened. Everything helps. It is the knocking of the new organisation and the people responsible for setting it up who had the best wishes of the party that is disgraceful.
Good intention are irrelevant. The disgrace is to disregard the interests and wishes of patrons – I am from alone – and the conceit of not answering questions.
> I am from alone
“I am far from alone”, I surmise.
Taking the article’s claims at face value this makes for disturbing reading. As the party’s treasurer for over two years up to March this year I would never have allowed what’s claimed in this article to be set up, especially if it involved UKIP or any of its directors.
IMHO there are numerous legal and conflict of issue problems surrounding the claims made in this article. UKIP’s directors need to ensure they are not exposing either UKIP Ltd or themselves to litigation in the event of the materialisation of certain creditor/insolvency issues, or as the article has claimed breached data protection, company and trustee laws.
A search of Companies House will turn up Fairweather’s companies from where you can download the certificates of incorporation.
I believe the NEC were prevented with a fait accompli. Leader and Treasurer in honeymoon period etc. What they failed to spot, but should have spotted, was the potential exposure to criminal law consequences. It looks like a clumsy and naive attempt to divert money from creditors in a bankruptcy. Except any half -decent administrator would have spotted it and the law allows him (or her) to pursue the money and the people responsible.
What is no less disturbing is that for two months I have been pointing this out to the leadership which appears to be in stubborn denial, hoping no doubt that I would just go away, give up etc.
The NEC needs to get a grip. Fairweather should be ordered to wind up his second company and UKIP Patrons Ltd made a subsidiary of UKIP Ltd (like the Sovereign Draw) at the very least and its articles modified to mirror UKIP’s objects.
Isn’t it merely an attempt to ring-fence and safeguard the money, so that UKIP Ltd is less attractive to those seeking to sue the party? (Jane Collins case)
The assets of a subsidiary company are virtually as accessible as the assets of the party, because the subsidiary itself is an asset of its holding company.
The problem is that at the same time we were told the party faced bankruptcy and so creditor’s interests became paramount. UKIP was under a duty to do all it can to safeguard creditors’ interests.
We used to be patrons of and within UKIP itself. That has now taken away from us without our consent. I and a growing number of patrons and former patrons do not want to contribute to an independent company whose objects are single issue and not aligned with UKIP’s constitution, and which is under the control of a clique.
Just donate directly to the party instead if you do not wish to rejoin the Patrons Club. No-one is forcing you. I wonder if you will though. All talk I suspect.
Why do you suspect all talk? You have no basis for suggesting that so no justification for making putative personal remarks again.
This is becoming like remoaners. Someone disagrees with you? Must be something wrong with them. Such arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.
The critical period is over. What is the justification now for a company that uses UKIP’s name without obligation to the party at all and for ending the patrons club of and within UKIP itself?
@Stout,
I reckon Stephen Lee has the answer.
No need to pay money to an affiliate club that will use your funds to pressurise the NEC to push policy in their favour.
It also seems that the membership fee offered minimal rewards. (Pride and satisfaction excepted).
Just donate your £1,000 straight to UKIP HQ and if enough people agree, the Patrons Club will fold and HQ funding will increase.
Absolutely. Just reinstate the name that belonged to UKIP Ltd and change the name of the new company to make it clear that it is a completely independent company. More honest surely.
This new UKIP Patrons Ltd is not a subsidiary of UK Independence Party Limited, that’s the problem. UKIP Patrons Ltd has one shareholder, Mr S Fairweather.
> This new UKIP Patrons Ltd is not a subsidiary of UK Independence Party Limited, that’s the problem
Tacitus, yes. Were it a subsidiary, the exercise would be pointless ab initio…
That was another issue being considered I now remember. If it was a separate company, the funds could be ring fenced. i forgot that was one reason it was formed.
> That was another issue being considered
I thought that was almost the only reason, Stephen!
Ring-fencing within the company itself *is* technically possible, but the only ways I can think of are messy and complex (think, expensive) and more subject to judicial interpretation.
Were what the patrons gave loans, it would be easy (e.g., debentures to create a preferred class of creditor). But that’s the whole point.
So, I understand the usage of a separate company that is NOT a subsidiary and is NOT under the control of UKIP or its directors/NEC (having a few directors in common would not be fatal – here, there’s one).
Honestly, I’d be more concerned about what might happen if Mr Fairweather encountered bad weather.
As he is the sole director of Newco, I would recommend that he signed (but did not execute) undated company officer appointment forms etc., and had them discreetly deposited at Lexdrum House. Else it might be costly to untangle things (it would involve a Court) should he unfortunately be incapacitated.
I am confident this must have been covered, as he has a reputation for thoroughness. Perhaps SY could enquire *constructively*…
Hi Freddie,
Seb is going to resign as a director once the new directors are in place. Only 2 directors can have a significant position within a political party. 3 of us had such positions. One is an MEP, one is a branch Chairman, I am a mere treasurer so I will be resigning my two treasurer positions tomorrow. A professional accountant will be the new Treasurer (on a voluntary basis) and an auditor will be appointed despite turnover being below £3m
Steve
Tried for two months to do that in private and under the radar. TPB did not want to play.
I am not suggesting, and did not suggest, there was deliberate skulduggery. It is Stephen Lee who said the purpose was definitely to keep funds protected from bankruptcy proceedings. Not a smart thing to say and not just because it precludes other explanations.
The bare facts without explanation leave adverse conclusions a possibility and some other commentators have raised potentially serious issues. If that is wrong then the PTB could provide explanations. They have chosen not to.
If all you leave people is their imagination then they tend to exercise it. I do not think there was genuine business case for what happened but it was a panicky reaction. The party did not go bankrupt and according to Batten there is no prospect of that now. So the party is left with a structure that is peculiar and they are not very good at spinning it. But hey blame the guy asking questions.
By the way, I ran some of then by Tomasz Slivnik. He could not explain the new set up but wrote back to say my questions were “reasonable”.
I was considering joining the Patrons’ Club. This has put me right off.
Likewise
I’ve started up The Real Patrons Club.
Cash only please Debbie.
I’ve set up the Democratic Real Patrons Club Alliance, a Facebook site and a link to Patreon . It’s only £900 a year to join and it guarantees you a lunch and me a £100,000 a year salary……
@Kev,
Splitter !!!
Top shop won’t like that. They abolished the actual, real one.
If ordinary members – and past patrons – knew what their hard-earned money had been spent on in UKIP, especially what a handful of “senior” party officers have taken in pay and “”expenses””, a lynch mob might form…
… especially if they figured what we got in return.
Join our new business club Freddy. You can rely on SECOM to be transparent.
The swamp has been cleared. We now need to move on.
What you say makes no sense. If the swamp has been cleared, then why do you still need this separate organisation? If the party is now under the management of the new team, then there should be no problems in routing everything through the party.
If ordinary members – and past patrons – knew how much money our elected reps, e.g. MEPs had earned (and what they’ll receive when we leave the EU, including pension) vs what most of them have given to the party, a lynch mob might form…
… especially if they figured what we got in return.
They know, £2million a year. But that wasn’t coming from my membership subs so whilst I don’t like it, at least it wasn’t my UKIP money. Plus some of those MEPs gave some back to the party. But they are useless, its true. Whatever happened to Louise Bours? She spoke well, was good on Question Time and then she disappeared, but still coining it I suppose.
Yes.
With noteworthy exceptions, including Gerard, UKIP’s externally elected, paid representatives. e.g. MEPS, AMs, Local Councillors (OK, they don’t get much individually, but there were, and still are, many of them) have given awfully little.
@John,
That would make a good story.
One of the reasons I gave up trudging the streets was the belief that plenty of people were earning well out of being UKIP reps but branches were doing all the unpaid legwork.
I’d like to see which UKIP reps share their winnings with the people that got them elected.
And now a self-appointed group have a right to force the NEC’s agenda. I very much doubt that many of them have been in the trenches with ordinary members, the ones that get threatened and spat at on the streets but persevere delivering leaflets, manning stalls etc.
Estimate £1m?
Stuart Agnew is one of the few MEP’s has paid all contributions in full. Well done Stuart . Stuart has been very vocal about MEP’s and London Assembly members not paying the contributions they signed up too.
The outstanding amount was so large that there should have been no funding crisis if all the dues owed had been paid, even with the Jane Collins legal fees.
Stuart has also been unbelievably generous to local branches and to the Eastern Regional funds. He has paid far far more than he was committed too.
My husband and I (no we are not related!) joined the Patrons Club under the couples offer, we still have not joined the new set up – hubby has a STO for the old fee I think, so I will have to warn him to cancel. I emailed Seb when we got the blurb to ask if the couples membership was still offered and got no reply. Just as well, we would have automatically rejoined. Haven’t got round to it under the new scheme (one payment each) I’m a bit strapped to pay for myself at the moment due to other expenses to be honest.
Just to keep you all in the loop, SECOM are setting up a business club to fundraise, it is open to non members (see Toby Micklethwait’s progress report today), we consulted the party chairman & treasurer and a quite different structure was advised for our club – which keeps it firmly tied to UKIP. At our meeting last week we agreed to take the advice!
I wish you the best of luck with the business club. If that works better for you it has to be good. The reason you probably got no reply from Seb Fairweather is was because he (along with Tony McIntyre and Gerard Batten) received phenomenal amounts of emails such that they (the last 2 anyway) wondered about carrying on at one stage. Fortunately things have calmed down and the party is now on a good financial footing as a direct result of Seb’s work and we can concentrate now on the political stuff.
Hello Stephen.
What do you do within our party and how well do you know Seb ?
Hi Bryan,
I am merely someone who hangs around and tries to help where I can. I do not have your track record of local action though. I am more into the administration side of things. I have met but do not know Seb.
Steve
@Stephen,
From earlier;
“I am a mere treasurer so I will be resigning my two treasurer positions tomorrow.”
That’s a bit more than just hanging around.
This is outrageous. Batten and Fairweather had no mandate for this. Why do our leaders think they own the party rather then serve it? And when oh when will ordinary members be genuinely respected?
This certainly demands an explanation from Batten and Fairweather
Mr King you seem to be the only one who considers that a political party is run for and by its membership. Although much of the technical stuff is beyond my limited knowledge, it would seem to me , and perhaps other grassroots members that what we are witnessing is something setup with a likeness to the EU. The upcoming AGM seems a waste of time for the foot soldiers of a sham political party.
You miss a key fact, which is this company UKIP Patrons Ltd. has only one owner, that being Mr Fairweather (he’s not just a director, he owns it). My guess is that some patrons got a shock when it looked like AMW could win the leadership and so they asked for their money to be kept separate, that way they can withdraw their funds again in case someone they don’t like takes over. I say don’t like because in policy terms she and GB are identical, it is literally because they don’t like her (loud Irish ex-Labour lesbian!) whereas at least GB is a known quantity and proven to be loyal. And this is only putting a legal structure around what has always been the case in UKIP, that there are two entirely parallel structures, the one in the constitution and then the actual power structure which depends on money. Bigger patrons always told the party how they wanted their money to be spent, now medium and smaller ones also want that same right, and so have put their money in a pool outside the party to be used as and when THEY say so. It is a source of never ending fascination for me how often UKIP is able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and miss open goals, here’s another example.
This is different. It is a smash and grab raid in broad daylight. Ordinary little patrons’ money has been taken, not just the money from the few big donors. There was an AGM yesterday in which additional directors – a few trusted cronies – were appointed to provide a veneer of cover.
This has been implemented against the wishes of the medium and smaller patrons. We did not ask for this nor were we consulted. There will now be fewer smaller patrons so another consequence is to make control even more top heavy.
There are several other mechanisms open to the very few big donors. Hijacking the patrons club was unnecessary. At least the nature of second class party membership has been exposed. What fools.
The NEC have been utterly negligent.
Why do you think this was done? What’s behind it? I don’t see the new team being any more transparent than before, in fact the only improvement in transparency came under Bolton when at least proper, complete, attributed minutes of NEC meetings were published, for the first time ever! Although I’m aware this is akin to saying at least Mussolini made the trains run on time.
It is pure speculation by me, but it look as if it was a combination of several things. 1) an attempt to evade bankruptcy law by siphoning off funds ready to pass to Fairweather’s other company which would become UKIP 2.0. The problem with that is that it is a criminal offence to divert money from creditors (and naive to think a bankruptcy administrator, a forensic accountant, would not notice) 2) to appease Alan Bown 3) incompetence (never rule that out with UKIP).
Oh, so a bust-up between the big donors, because I’m sure the guys who have the loans outstanding with UKIP wouldn’t be happy to see one revenue stream diverted somewhere else, reducing their chance of ever getting their loan repaid. Or maybe they never expect to be repaid. Members can only watch helpless as our bald gods battle over a comb.
The “siphoning” can be argued to be a valid direction of funds to another independent entity, set up and used long before any hypothetical future potentially-bankrupting event took place.
It is true a liquidator/receiver would have such an entity high on the list for a raid, but such raids are complex and simply purposive (as in, why was it set up in the first place, if not to protect funds) challenges are usually insufficient to invalidate the ring-fencing.
Clients of my former employer for whom I provided many audit, forensic and investigative services owned large fleets of nearly a hundred enormous ships, including several of the biggest ones in the world. Without exception, each ship was owned by a separate company, preventing financial contagion either from ship to ship or to the holding company.
Its not a particularly good analogy but it illustrates the principle.
Freddy (forensic accountant)
Did your former employer announce to the world that it faced bankruptcy and then form the ship holding companies? I’m guessing not.
My former employer pushed pens and calculator buttons, not ships. The mega-shipping groups were its audit (etc.) clients.
You are quite correct that the clients did not announce to the world they faced bankruptcy and then set up such contagion-limiting companies.
But as I’ve stated before, purposive (i.e., intention-based) evidence is rarely sufficient in itself to allow the non-subsidiary’s assets to be plundered in an administration.
Freddy, I don
t find it surprising that ships are still "owned" separately, the traditional method of financing ship voyages was 1/64th shares.ll bet the company you worked for didn`t go to the wall! (taken over -yes, but bust No).I
Regarding this imputed funds “heist”, as far as I can see whatever scheme was implemented “saved” a situation where the company was sinking/foundering, it was all hands to the pumps and I would have thought in that situation one should not cavil too much at the solution, particularly where it was incumbent on those responsible for putting things to rights being negligent in their duties.
One final thought I have always said a large political party wishing to be a proper force cannot hope to do it on members subscriptions alone and any large/small donors pays their money and takes their chance. It has to be understood that large donors cannot use their input to embroider private enterprises.
Roger, I’ll be more explicit only because I have one or two stalkers on UKIPDaily who for some reason have a penchant for twisting my words in their quest for (non-existent) contradictions. They quote me inaccurately. If I fail to correct you, I’ll be taken to be agreeing with you.
My employer neither went to the wall nor got taken over. Instead, it, a Big Eight firm, took over another, failing Big Eight accountancy firm (Arthur Young) to become the megalithic (as in, “massive”) Ernst & Young.
I ceased to be an employee 34 years ago, while it was still Ernst & Whinney, because as I was running more businesses than there were hours in the day and night for me to run. I continued to provide them services as a technical, taxation and computing “expert” consultant for many years thereafter.
I have not served as an employee for anyone since 1984, except as a sole (and therefore controlling) Director of other companies.
🙂
Freddie (and everyone). No funds from UKIP have ever been passed form UKIP to the Patrons Club company. It is the other way round.
Stephen Lee wrote:
> Freddie (and everyone). No funds from UKIP have ever been passed form UKIP to the Patrons Club company. It is the other way round.
Of course.
At first struggling to see why you should feel the need to write such an obvious truth, I observe my own words above were ambiguous.
“a valid direction of funds to another independent entity” meant exactly and only that patrons’ contributions that earlier would probably gone to Oldco (a company under the control/ownership, in the senses relevant to corporate insolvency law, of UKIP Ltd), would now instead be directed to Newco (a company not under such control/ownership).
Since I knew what I meant, I used shorthand.
You wrote “This has been implemented against the wishes of the medium and smaller patrons. We did not ask for this nor were we consulted.” In case you are not aware, we have the GDPR rules and the Information Commissioner hanging over our heads. Many people have ignored the emails sent out asking for permission to contact them about this, that, and the other which have been ignored so UKIP dare not contact them further or risk heavy fines. One person has already threatened to report UKIP when Liz Phillips wrote to them about the Patrons Club. Also the database of Patrons was not correctly maintained by the previous incumbents. It even included at least one dead person. All the people who are “signed up” were contacted and notified of the meeting yesterday. Many turned up and a democratic process ensued. You write under a pseudonym. Why not show your face so we know who you are. You seem to be very bitter about something and maybe with good cause but many of your “facts” appear to be very biased and you seem very bitter about people who are really trying hard to do the right thing and in their own unpaid time. What have you done for the organisation ?
Sue Griffiths, one of the hard working people at Lexdrum House (praised by Batten actually maintained the patrons database. If there was a dead person on the books it may be that the deceased’s executor failed to notify UKIP. Why assume that it was not correct maintenance? THe old team were no good therefore the new can only better and so should be immune from questions. Is that your position.
When I joined the patrons club it took several weeks because Liz did not even know of the bank account on the joining form and only checked an out of date one.
I get that you are enthusiastic about the new club and give no care for patrons who were and want to be patron of UKIP itself, but try not to let that blinker you too much. My teamn good, your team bad belongs to cults like that of Corbyn though I notice the tendencies in UKIP too sadly.
As to names, this was argued through last year. Not a few contributors worked for employers who google employees at intervals and one had a business that relied on being apolitical. There are several good reason why contributors use nom de plumes but you like to imply that it is not showing your face. It seems you opt for pejorative interpretations on insufficient evidence whenever someone disagrees with you. When this issue of nom de lume was debated last year the more intelligent contributors accepted no inference could be drawn. After all, a person could write under the name John Brown and you would have no idea if it was a real name.
As to GDPR this came into effect in May. In March, there was no letter, email, or post on the website saying “we are ending being a patron of and within UKIP itself. You may if you wish donate to a completely independent company that may or may not spend its money on UKIP.” That would have been `transparent’ and honest of course.
You have a certain arrogance of someone who enjoys knocking the very people who are desperately trying to get the party back on track – faults and all – yet do nothing proactive and positive yoursself. It is very easy to knock. Much harder to actually DO. Knocking Sebastian Fairweather for hurriedly putting a temporarily flawed infrastructure in place to get money in to support UKIP’s very survival is disgraceful. If you do not wish to be associated with the newly formed Patrons Club then keep away. Do not insult those patrons who DO wish to support UKIP via this path and to date have donated over £100k since the new company was formed. Tell me now, bearing in mind that we are talking about the financial side of supporting UKIP, what have you done in this direction in the last few months other than perhaps renew your membership and purchased some fruit cake ? You are like a troll on Facebook. Someone who shouts to feel important but is otherwise a nobody ? Just seeking the LIKE count? Or are you someone who has done good work for UKIP and feels that everyone who is trying to do positive things now is letting the side down. I suggest you bid for the leadership next April and see how far you get. Angry? Too right.
Do you really think that ad hominem argument is the best way to discuss and debate? You have called me, directly or by implication and word association, a troll, a nobody, negative, maligning and suggest that because I have not done enough for the party (even though you have no knowledge of what I have done for the party) I have no right to comment.
For two months I tried to get answers behind the scenes and in private. For two months I was fobbed off in quite extensive correspondence. Thus an article in the hope others may have explanations. Articles on UKIP Daily have several purposes – are you new? – ranging from neutral information to provocative topics. We all debate and discuss with good humour and mutual respect. There are a few exceptions of course and you seem to be one. Run out of arguments and attack the person. Very persuasive that. You are a model new `patron’ helping set the tone of the new club.
You are not a mind reader and are in no position to impute motive to me which is exasperation at getting answers to questions which, judging by other comments, are shared. I plead guilty to frustration. The Editor in Chief waved the word limit for me agreeing that the issues I raise should be discussed. Will you attack her personally? Or the other commentors on here? You’ll be very busy.
Where have I insulted patrons? There is more of a case that the imposed change without consultation and agreement was an insult.
I have already said – did you read all the article? – that I want nothing to do with the new patrons club.
Incidentally, nowhere do you explain what you have done that you feel entitles you to be so rude. Unlike most patrons I have campaigned on the streets of London and endured insult, threats, been threatened with assault, spat at, and persisted in support of the party. Funny then that I feel as a loyal kipper throughout I believe I have the right to comment and ask questions. What is you would have me do? What should I have done that would allow me to comment in your view?
UKIP used to be a libertarian party of free speech. I note that the new patrons club isn’t and like the Labour party seeks to attack the messenger. I will definitely not be joining the nee company.
Adding up those on here who will not join and the private emails I have received from patrons and former patrons. the new club is so wonderful that the total is now 25. By abolishing the club within UKIP the party is down at least £25K. Well done.
It was Gerard himself who knew the dead person and identified him on the listing. The point he was making was that it was very much out of date. Sue could only work on information received even regarding the live members. Peter Jewell and friends were not good administrators it seems.
Neither are Liz Phillips and friends. When I joined she was completely unaware of the bank account on the website and patron joining form and took over two weeks to trace the money. Peter Jewell may have been no better but I did not find him to be worse.
Two of the party’s longest standing patrons have had no communications about the new patrons club at all.
Rubbishing predecessors is a weak form of management.
This is getting silly. Stephen, I am guessing you don’t have a business background. A database with one dead person is fantastic, congratulations, most databases are full of them. How exactly do you think dead people extract themselves from databases, through psychics?
Liz Phillips wrote an article on here recently about how she and Gerard met with someone who tried to convince them to put the party into bankruptcy, but he was outvoted two to one by her and Gerard. Has anyone told her she doesn’t get a vote because she isn’t the leader and she isn’t on the NEC? Management don’t get a vote. Now we find that this champion of Henry Bolton used his victory to take over the patrons club from Peter Jewell I assume, and now she has converted it into a parallel organisation out of the control of the party? And suddently she became a fan of Gerard, although Gerard has the same views as AMW who Henry tried to expel from the race (presumably he would have done the same against Gerard). And you say the swamp is being drained?
Well done Stout, excellent. I always read your articles and comments carefully. I trust GB is taking steps already . The easiest way to attack most organisations is through Headquarters sloppy paperwork. It never seems important at the time. If you buy from the internet you only have yourself to blame.
Well spotted; this is very wrong and needs to be reported to Batten for clarification. Public domain details of UKIP Patrons Ltd are here: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11272168/officers
Sebastian is keen to resign in favour of the 5 new directors. He has no personal ambitions of power or whatever despite the claims or insinuations made in this article. The directors will change every year subject to a member vote. It is called democracy.
Thanks, Stephen, for that clarification, which hopefully should put at ease some commentators who have become unduly exercised by this.
Off balance sheet finance isn’t something exactly recently invented. That it can be used for evil ends as well as for sound business purposes is neither here nor there…
That’s a strange version of democracy, in fact what you are describing is a plutocracy.
What a group of people who want to be outside the party do is irrelevant. In my view, you should not be allowed to use the party’s name. If you did not then I would have no issue with you.
The Patrons Club did not get a vote on its abolition within the party – so much for `democracy’. I think you mean you re an advocate of selective democracy, invoked it if serves your interests but not otherwise.