Thursday, 30 April 2009

EU power grab and Farage

The City has woken up to realise the EU are out to grab their lucrative business and big bonuses. We can expect a few revisions of EU rhetoric from all British political parties in the next few months. Election time is but a year off and where is the biggest and best source of political donations? Why as throughout history, from the rich, now not so rich, merchants of the City of London. He who pays the piper calls the tune, well the EU reel anyway.

'EU directive seen as attack on London' is the second headline on the front of today's Business Telegraph with the Commission accused of launching a 'blatant attack' on London's financial services industry with proposals to regulate hedge funds and private equity. But hold on over 80% of this business is in the UK. It all reminds me of the great fish swindle of 1972 when we started out with 80% of the fish but now have around 10%. Where did the rest go? To the French, Spanish, Danes etc. However our fishermen lived largely where the chattering classes never reached, places like Peterhead, Great Yarmouth & Lytham. But our wealthy bankers live in Richmond, Kensington, Chelsea and the Home Counties and have the ear of even a Labour government in a pre-election year. Will this save them from the fate of our fishermen? We are in for an interesting time.

It is now becoming so obvious that our great leader has noticed the problem and is quoted on the forum by one of his sycophants thus:

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage stormed: "The latest proposals out of Brussels on financial regulation are just another power grab."

"The entire European Union system is paralysed by the fear that someone, somewhere, might be going unregulated, doing something, anything, without their permission.

"They're also refusing to let a good crisis go to waste. The Commissions' proposals centre on regulating hedge funds and private equity: neither of which has had anything at all to do with the current problems.

And just for good measure they've thrown in some financial protectionism. Only funds which are domiciled in Europe can be sold in Europe, that's just to make sure that you can't invest your money with anyone of who the Commissars disapprove.

"The entire set of proposals reek of an attempt to close down The City. Not for any rational or logical reason but simply because the bureaucrats in the Commission simply do not understand markets."

The link goes to an article in the FT which shows one does not have to go to Brussels to find out what the EU is up to. NF as we all know goes mainly for other more earthly pleasures. Alas NF is, as we City boys say, way behind the curve.

One of NF's bigger porkies is to claim to gullible TV interviewers that UKIP is by far the most democratic of all the British political parties. Well that's as long as you forget about kicking democratically representatives off the NEC, removing democratically elected representatives from MEP lists, parachuting dodgy Sri Lankan ex post office staff onto MEP lists bypassing all the checks that NF also likes to boast we have. And yes Marta was democratically voted into number 2 on the South East MEP list but no mention of her failing to supply things like CRB checks and electoral roll numbers that lesser mortals had to supply just to get on the short list in the first place.

Like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, democracy is what Nigel in Brussels says it is.

Wednesday, 29 April 2009

We need Constitutional Reform

It is nice to read in today's business DT that HMT is 'to fight for hedge funds against Europe'. Well with friends like that who needs enemies? One well placed source said: "HMT is being asked to intervene as this is emerging as a classic EU stitch up". Well you read it here first! Not surprisingly Barroso and Christine Lagarden are 'not happy' with the directive to regulate hedge funds which they think does not go far enough. Well nothing new there then but I know who will win this battle.

The hedge fund leaders in London are quoted as saying this reform of hedge fund regulation has been hijacked by 'opportunistic politicians'. It was ever thus. I don't know the answer to getting rid of opprtunistic politicians but it seems obvious you can reduce their effect and influence by reducing their numbers. As John Major once said he did not know the answer but it certainly was not to increase the number of politicians.

We already have far to many politicians, MPs, MEPs, Lords, County Councillors, District Councillors, MSPs, MWPs all with their snouts in the trough. I wrote once to the Labour MP Dennis Mc Shane about reducing the number of MPs to roughly the US level and in fact going for a US Senate type elected upper house. I got a reply, which in itself was a surprise, and which was not entirely negative. When I heard David Starkey saying much the same thing last week on Question Time I thought this idea has legs.

We could have an elected Senate on a county basis in England, roughly 70 English senators plus 14 from Scotland and 8 each from Wales and Northern Ireland. There should be around 300 MPs with constituency boundaries done mathematiacally to minimise the maximum difference between the smallest and the largest. There would be a fixed 4 year term in the lower house and a 6 year term in the upper house with one third of all senators elected every 2 years.

We should have an elected president for a 4 year term who would appoint his ministers on talent who would not be MPs but would be subject to US type confirmation hearings as would all quango jobs, even the Governor of the Bank of England. As in the USA the president and his executive would propose and the parliamentary chambers dispose. It would give our MPs something to do if nothing else.

Finally I would enshine the right to have a binding referendum nationally, or in any region county, constituency or parish where a petition is presented demanding one signed by 5% or the electorate. If we go on with the same old crooked system we will just change the crooks at the top.

The only problem with what I propose is where would the Queen fit in? Well where will she fit in too the new EU state with an elected president? Answer, she wont.

Sunday, 26 April 2009

EU & New Labour move to finish of the City of London

The parrot cry for more financial regulation as I predicted is now being exploited by the EU as a means of the Franco-Prussian axis getting the lucrative finance business out of London and across to Paris and Frankfurt. The first steps are in a leak from the Commission of proposals on hedge fund and private equity regulation. Two UK trade organisations, AIMA and BVCA, representing these two activities are quoted in Friday's DT as saying, "the Commission is being unduly influenced by French and German political groups who want to see regulation of these funds most of which are London based" These trade groups also say, "The volume of political rhetoric is baffling".

Its not bafffling to readers of my blog or those with any prior experience of the EU Commission. It is the EU way in all things! It has served them well for the last 50 years so why change? Darling Brown will of course support the EU, they both hate the City, and are even doing their bit to help by jacking up the top tax rate from 40% to 50% so making London less attractive to these funds.

Another liitle snippet from the Finance bill is that Darling Brown will be cutting the issuance of index linked gilts from around 25% of total issuance to 12% of issuance. These gilts are the only way a pension fund can hedge RPI index guaranteed pensions. It clearly shows that HMT realise that the Quantitative Easing programme will inevitably trigger much higher inflation and they are seeking to keep as much issuance in conventional gilts where the liability can be 'eased' down by inflation. This what HMT really think of our economic situation!

Even this might be difficult as sellers of government bonds increase and buyers diminish as reported by Liam Halligan and AEP in today's Sunday Telegraph. Commerzbank said, "every European bond auction is turning into an event risk". No wonder. Every government in the world is trying to sell its paper and as any fule do kno (Nigel Molesworth) that means bond prices, including Gordon's gilts, will fall and their inversely correlated yields will rise. But is it it better to be in the Euro or out of it?

The PIGS are looking more and more like Iceland. With debt denominated in Euros that they cannot print their only option is a default ie can't pay, won't pay. This will be very difficult for the Eurozone but provided it stops at Greece and Spain and Italy do not default then it will be manegeable. If it spreads to Italy then the EU could start to crack open.

Before we cheer to loudly however we should realise that the UK is in poor shape as well. Out of the Euro we can print and devalue our currency at will and our pigmy politicians will certainly do this. This means a falling standard of living for everyone in the UK but worse it makes Foreigners much warier of investing in UK bonds so we end up in a high inflation high interest rate economy like the 70s and 80s.

Of one thing I am sure the politicians of all parties do not have the answer. As LH points out all that Cameron came up with was cheap political point scoring and slogans. What we need is a new system and I will write of that next time.

Friday, 24 April 2009

Britain is broke

I was not surprised by anything in the Darling Brown budget on Wednesday. I have covered most of the problems in my blog over the last 3 months, the huge debts, the problems with gilt issuance, the possible effect on the UK credit rating etc. The only new thing on the debt scene is that terrified of the effect a series of failed gilt auctions would have on the UK's credit standing they propose to issue longer dated gilts using what is euphemistically called syndication. This means longer dated gilts will be drip fed to the markets by investment banks who are GEMs, gilt edged market makers. This will be a £100 mn bonanza for these banks and will lead to more government financed bonuses for yes, the bankers.

Gilt edged yields will anyway have to rise to attract buyers and of course the issue price, the amount the government receives, will therefore fall. Gilts are supported at their current price by the Bank of England printing money to buy these gilts on its own account, the so called quantitative easing. But if the UK credit rating were downgraded from AAA the results would be catastrophic. Foreign central banks are big holders of gilts but they are only allowed to hold AAA paper. So if gilts go to AA + say there will be a huge sell off of gilts, prices will fall and yields rise. This will immediately impact the swaps market and swap rates will rise. So what you say? Well mortgage rates are set directly by swap rates so Joe Public will have to start paying through the nose again for mortgages and there will be nothing Mervyn King, Darling Brown or anyone else can do about.

Darling Brown know if this happens they are electoral toast come May 2010. All the spending cuts have been carefully scheduled to kick in after this election date but no one can control the bond market. As things stand if the UK retains its triple A gilt rating then it is a foregone conclusion Labour will still lose the next election but this does not mean the Tories will win enough seats to have an overall majority! There would be a hung parliament.

This would be the best result possible for the UK. I watched Question Time last night and the brilliant David Starkey pointed out to the three party hacks that what the UK really needed was constitutional reform. The current parliamentary system is not fit for purpose. We need a US type constituion with many fewer MPs, say 300, a small elected second chamber like the US senate and a seperation of the executive from the legislature. Its not the British way you say but if we dont change we are doomed to more Darling Browns and their vile associates. Starkey detests Scotsmen like me, also the Welsh and the Irish but he has the sharpest mind currently in the media and he is dead right and a great Englishman in the Cromwell mold.

If we get a hung parliament the Lib Dems will hold the balance of power and their price for supporting a coalition will be electoral and constitutional reform. The Tories will never agree but Labour desperate to hang on to power and keep on the gravy train will agree and therein lies the best hope for the UK.

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

UKIP Exeter Rally & BNP's Churchill Poster

I did not attend this rally. I watched what has been posted on the Democracy Forum linked to YouTube. It may just be me but I did find the sound quality poor and the speeches difficult to hear. I have not seen a copy of the full speakers list but I do find it surprising that neither Trevor Colman or William Dartmouth have You Tube links on the forum or any where else. I cannot believe the two lead candidates in the South West were not speaking at this event.

I looked at the speeches by NF, Stuart Wheeler, Gawain Towler, Marta Andreasen and Deva. Of these Stuart Wheeler's was by far and away the best. It was witty and pertinent. NF's was his usual rant that we have all heard many times before. It clearly pleased the audience but will not resonate outside UKIP circles. Marta's effort was boring and dreadful, I do hope they do not push her on to Question Time. Gawain's was serious and factual but did not enthuse the faithful in the hall. Deva, the sacked bloke, the former LibDem looked out of his depth. All in all it will not do anything to persuade the uncommitted to vote UKIP.

UKIP is clearly worried about the BNP. Farage tried to steal their clothes on immigration in his speech. All the other parties particularly Labour are playing this me to game as well. People know full well that this is the BNP core policy and if they want to vote to stop immigration they will vote BNP. Worse the ridiculous Bannerman has tried to copy the Nick Griffin poster of NG with Churchill by appearing in a similar position either on a copied poster or photographed in front of such a poster. This is a bad move. The electorate detects phoneys very quickly and when you start doing a me too on opposition ideas it does look phoney. It could get worse if Bannerman is still trading under the Campbell Bannerman badge. The media will investigate and demolish Banerman.

I have carefully stayed away from the South West campaign so I cannot be accused of influencing ordinary UKIP members. I noted the part of Farage's speech about his ruthlessly getting rid of the bad apples. Well it looks to me like its the good apples that have been forced out, David Abbott, Petrina, Del Young to name but three and the bad apples are still there. Nigel has to have someone to blame for his incompetence as have dictators through the ages. In the last days of Hitler the true Nazis blamed their failure on the German people who were not worthy of the great leader. Sounds familiar.

Thursday, 16 April 2009

UKIP Supports EU Dreams

UKIP adopting Marta Andreasen as an MEP candidate is the culmination of the EU dream of a European state. An EU citizen, a non-national of the UK, resident in Spain, standing for a UK constituency is the ultimate fulfilment of Monnet's dream of a European nation. Farage will get the Charlemagne prize for furthering Monnet's vision by supporting Andreasen's candidacy and waiving the rules for her that apply to mere UK nationals.

Farage has been bought by the Danegeld of Jens Bonde and his IndDem group and either cannot see that he is now actively working to bring about the Monnet dream or worse no longer believes in UK withdrawal from the EU and has become a closet reformist. In either case UKIP is finished as a national withdrawal party while Farage remains as leader and his cabal dominate the UKIP NEC.

UKIP putting up Andreasen as a candidate gives legitimacy to the whole EU concept. Her publicly stated views are contrary to UKIP policy! I give a few of her public statements below:

"I have been called a Eurosceptic, but I am not one. I want to fight for a good EU project. To do that we must fight for transparency, for responsibility, for accountability. We need real reform of the EU; but the new constitution will do nothing to combat the Brussels culture of graft, secrecy and corruption that so tarnishes the European dream.

"And I asked myself, to whom was I not loyal? I wonder who can say that I'm not a true European, so to speak. I have been called eurosceptic and anti-European when I risked my job for defending the interests of the citizens of Europe"

It seems clear to me that Andreasen is a reformist who believes in "the European Dream" and therefore should not be a UKIP candidate

Further EU reformist statements from Andreasen can be found in her interview with the Times. Click link below to read:

If you want to see the sort of woman she is then click below and listen to full 30 minutes sorry tale:

Reading and listening to this long whinge you realise the EU did themselves a big favour getting rid. The EU's gain is UKIP's loss. Andreasen will claim she has changed her views. The question you have to ask is what is to stop her changing her mind again once her bottom is safely on a UKIP South East MEP seat.

Farage never learns that sticking to the rules is the only and best policy to follow. He is waiving the rules again in the case of the Sri Lankan immigrant newsagent Kumarasri in the East Midlands who according to Junius has been parachuted in by Farage onto the East Midlands MEP list without any of the checks that ordinary UKIP members had to make to get on the list. Worse, Junius reports that Mr Kumarasri, who owns two houses, will get his £800 deposit paid by UKIP and as he did not have to go through the hustings process presumably did not pay the £250 required for that either.

Junius reports that Mr Kumarasri was until a few weeks ago a fully paid up member and supporter of he LibDems. He like Ms Andreasen has presumably had a Pauline conversion at the prospect of the golden road to Brussels as experienced earlier by St Nigel of UKIP.

Junius also reports Mr Kumarasri will be a 'star' speaker at the UKIP Exeter conference on Saturday but won't appear unless UKIP pay his travel and hotel expenses!

David Abbott, Del Young and I never claimed a penny in expenses for attending UKIP NEC meetings or in my case SWCC meetings. But then we and the other UKIP rank and file had only worked our socks off for UKIP for many years.

See link below for the full Junius story

Wednesday, 15 April 2009

British Standards of Justice & Fair Play do not apply to UKIP NEC

Today I received a letter from Paul Nuttall saying the NEC on 6th April had rejected my appeal against my MEP deselection in my absence and that the matter was now closed. I do not accept this decision. Their procedure was illegal in every jurisdiction in the civilised world. An appeal cannot be heard by any of the same people who made the original decision. Worse, several of the NEC are on record as being completely prejudiced against me and yet Nuttall, knowing this prejudice, claimed I would get a fair hearing! Who can believe such a man?

The UKIP constitution states, "A de-selected candidate will have the right to an appeal according to rules that shall be made from time to time by the NEC." It does not state the appeal should be heard by the NEC. The authors of the UKIP constitution obviously believed the rules of natural justice and fair play would apply. Clearly this is a foreign concept to Farage and his cabal! They prefer the EU methods they have learned in Brussels. I suggested to Nuttall as it was a South West matter my appeal should be heard by our two South West MEPs who were not involved in the original decision. I am still content to do this.

Nuttall wrote on the 2nd March to two former UKIP Treasurers and one long-standing NEC member Delroy Young, that UKIP NEC, ie Farage's cabal, had decided to treat United Kingdom First members as PROSCRIBED, ie akin to BNP members. I believe Del is not even a member of UKF and even if he was what is wrong with supporting a withdrawalist party? Are similar letters being sent to those UKIPers who are also members of the Tory party. There are plenty of them and the Tories are of course are opposed to UKIP's core, withdrawal from the EU, policy.

The letter effectively asked Del and the ex-treasurers to leave the party after many years of work, service and financial donations. The fascist, undemocratic, nature of the UKIP NEC is clear for all to see.

It was the same Nuttall who in March tried to push through the constitutional change proposed to Rule 14 which would have given him ALONE the right to expel dissidents from the party without redress. Thank goodness this was defeated by 2,102 members voting against with 3,393 voting for. Nuttall therefore failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. The Fascist intent however was again clear.

Nuttall was elected by no one. He has no democratic mandate. He is merely Farage's nominee and placeman confirmed by the Farage NEC Cabal. As Gordon Brown's judgement is now being called into doubt over some of the people he has surrounded himself with so eventually will Nigel Farage's judgement be questioned by the rank and file of UKIP.

I did find Junius' piece on Gawain Towler very interesting, showing how the prospect of getting one's snout in the trough can alter one's views dramatically. I give the link to it below:

Farage's judgement is again called into question by his support for Gawain Towler given that other political parties and jounalists are allegedly in possession of very damaging material about Mr Towler that could potentially derail the UKIP campaign not just in the South West but nationally. Leadership is about judgement and choice of people. Farage seems lacking in both.

Thursday, 9 April 2009

UKIP & other more important matters

I have still not received an answer from Chairman Nuttall to my request to put my appeal against my de-selection on 18th April to an independent panel of our two current SW MEPs. Why are UKIP, ie Farage, so reluctant to grant members fair and transparent hearings? What have they to fear from ordinary members like me? Surely with great intellects like Denny and Duffy to brief him Farage can rebut my arguments with ease. I challenge Farage to take me on in open public debate on 18th April at the Exeter UKIP rally and let the membership judge my case.

Turning to more serious matters, two dates for your diary, 21st April the date of publication of the next UK inflation figures, also the anniversary of the founding of Rome in 753 BC, and 22nd April at 12:30 when Mr Darling will give his budget speech. The two current events are interlinked. CPI inflation, currently at 3.2%,has been over the 2% target target for the last 16 months. RPI is at 0 % only because it includes mortgage costs that have been falling rapidly as the BoE cut its policy rate to 0.5%. More money for those with some types of mortgage but I would guess that is only around 10% of the population. The rest of us are enduring inflation of at least 3%. If on 21st April inflation rises again things for Mr Darling the next day will become difficult.

The government deficit is running at £150 billion annually. It will require huge gilt issuance to fund this deficit but who will buy these gilts and thus lend their money to Gordon. Would you lend any money to Darling Brown? I won't.

In bond parlance the BoE can only control the short end of the yield curve, lending for one year or less roughly. As one moves out to longer maturities of 5, 10, 25 or 40 years inflation expectations increasingly dominate. If the market thinks quantitative easing, ie printing money, is a device to enable Darling Brown to buy the 2010 election then the market will refuse to buy gilts at current rates and may not even buy them at all except at very high rates. Gilts were issued before with 12% coupons and this can easily happen again. Mortgage rates are set off Swap rates and Swap rates are set by gilt rates. So there you have it. How do you fool people until after the next election, the perennial problem for a government party doing badly. Things look grim all round but we can always look to the experience of Mr Mugabe for guidance in these matters.

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

UKIP Appeals Procedure is Prejudiced

As this story has broken on the Junius & GLW blogs. Both are correct in the facts they state. I think it may be helpful to give the full context and the email I sent to Nuttall on the evening of Sunday 5th April saying why I was not going to participate in their carefully orchestrated kangaroo court. (I had only got back from a strenuous ski trip 18 hours when I sent this reply). I give all relevant emails and letters below as I believe all UKIP members, particularly those who voted for me as an NEC member and MEP candidate have a right to know what happened

I was deselected at an NEC meeting on 13th Feb 09. On 14th Feb Farage attended a meeting he thought was the SWCC in Devon. He wanted to get the SWCC to deselect me and then he would be able to say the NEC was upholding the local SWCC decision. The SWCC meeting of the 14th Feb had been improperly convened with insufficient notice given of the meeting so it could not transact any official business. Farage was furious especially when it was pointed out to him that the he himself had introduced the notice rule. Farage then had to confess to his subterfuge and that the NEC had already deselected me the day before.

As the original de-selection decision had thus been made by the NEC it obviously cannot hear my appeal under any proper appellant procedure.

On 30th March while I was on holiday Nuttall sent me an email stating "I can assure you that the hearing will be based solely on relevant considerations and that the appeal will fair." When he made this grossly misleading statement he was in possession of emails and letters below clearly showing that I would not get a fair hearing! Denny said on the 23rd March,

I do NOT think Dr. Edmond should be allowed to make an appeal now, as he clearly said he would have nothing to do with the "kangaroo court" i.e. meaning the NEC, the previous meeting at which he could have made representations, when he knew full well that it was to be discussed.

The matter is finished.

Douglas Denny"

Denny's statement I knew the date and timing of their discussions on me is totally untrue. I was never informed these discussions were taking place or what the charges against me were.

There was also an email sent by Duffy but seemingly via Denny (Denny's fingerprints appear often in this story.) on the 24th March stating

I have already said to Paul to allow him his moment. We all know how vile this man has behaved, but by allowing a small amount of time to hear him I believe it makes us look fair in the eyes of the Party members and once and for all a decision will be made in front of Mr E and hopefully prevent any further negativity at this crucial election time.
Lisa Duffy

Duffy does not appear to know when to use an adjective and when to use an adverb but her prejudiced view of me is clear.

Much worse, it displays the cynical purpose of mis-leading ordinary members that I found so repugnant when I was on the NEC. It shows the contempt in which the NEC holds the ordinary decent party members. It is something I hoped UKIP stood against but sadly I find UKIP is no different from other UK parties, dominated by a self serving, self perpetuating elite. Jacqui Smith would fit in well on UKIP's NEC.

What would I do about it? Look at my web site on which I stood and was elected onto the MEP list.

I have not changed a word and I stand by every word.

Then we have an an add on to Duffy's email, also forwarded by Denny, an email from somebody called Griffiths whom I have never met stating,

---- Phil Griffiths wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Although I know little about the matter I agree with Douglas Denny, if he is hostile to and against the NEC what is the point. It will open up old wounds again and become a time consuming distraction.
> Regards
> Phil

Griffiths is oblivious to the fact that a right of appeal is enshrined in the UKIP constitution but is obviously happy to blindly support the Farage line. The first thing I did when elected to the NEC was to read the constitution!

Nuttall clearly has no idea of fairness, natural justice or proper procedure.

Griffiths may get his views from Denny on constitutional proprieties but I was surprised that Zuckerman seemed also ignorant of this fact and wrote to me on 13th March stating,

"There is no provision for any right of appeal, since an appeal could only be to the National Executive Committee, which has already made its decision."

I wrote back to Zuckerman on 20th March pointing out his error and received the following reply on the 24th March,

I thank you for your letter of 20 March 2009. You will shortly be receiving an invitation from the Party Chairman to attend the NEC meeting on 6 April to appeal against your deselection

I did not know of the Denny, Duffy and Griffiths emails until I returned on the 4th April when I found them on my internet log.

I decided there was clearly no chance of my receiving a fair hearing on the 6th of April so I did not attend. Would anyone wish to be tried by a jury where 4 members had already found one guilty and the Judge's idea of a fairness is non-existent and the knowledge of the UKIP constitution seems so patchy?

I have offered to put my appeal to the two senior UKIP figures in the South West, Trevor Colman MEP and Roger Knapman MEP, a former party leader. Neither had any part in the previous de-selection decision and both have a wide experience of South West politics and both have read the UKIP constitution. Mr Knapman of course has wide experience of national politics as well. This appeal could be held wth minimum inconvenience at the Exeter rally on 18th April.

I was elected on to the South West list by South West UKIP members and this is where the decision on my de-selection should be

I append below the full text of my reply to Nuttall sent on the evening of Sunday 5th April. I have not had a reply.

Dear Mr Nuttall,

I returned in the early hours of this morning after a very tiring journey of 22 hours to find that prejudicial statements from Mr Denny, Ms Duffy circulated to all members of the NEC including yourself had been posted on the internet. It is as well they were posted as I would otherwise not have known how prejudiced against me these NEC members are. .

Mr Denny stated:

"Date: Monday, 23 March, 2009, 6:46 PM

Dear Paul,

I do NOT think Dr. Edmond should be allowed to make an appeal now, as he clearly said he would have nothing to do with the "kangaroo court" i.e. meaning the NEC, the previous meeting at which he could have made representations, when he knew full well that it was to be discussed.

The matter is finished.

Douglas Denny"

I did not know nor was I notified when and where the matter was being discussed. Mr Denny's statement is untrue. His statement is clearly prejudicial.

Ms Duffy states and a Mr Griffiths, presumably a NEC member, concurs:

--- On Tue, 24/3/09, wrote:

Subject: RE: Eric Edmond
To:,, "Paul Nuttall" ,,,,,, "Jonathan Arnott" ,,,,,, "Rachel Oxley" , "Phil Griffiths" , "Marta Andreasen" ,
Date: Tuesday, 24 March, 2009, 10:56 AM

I have already said to Paul to allow him his moment. We all know how vile this man has behaved, but by allowing a small amount of time to hear him I believe it makes us look fair in the eyes of the Party members and once and for all a decision will be made in front of Mr E and hopefully prevent any further negativity at this crucial election time.
Lisa Duffy
National Co-ordinator
Young Independence
U.K.Independence Party.

---- Phil Griffiths wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Although I know little about the matter I agree with Douglas Denny, if he is hostile to and against the NEC what is the point. It will open up old wounds again and become a time consuming distraction.
> Regards
> Phil
> Phil Griffiths

Ms Duffy abuses me by calling me vile and makes it clear that the appeal hearing is a sham and its only object is "it makes us ( ie the NEC) look fair in the eyes of the Party members".

How can you claim I will receive a fair hearing from this woman?

Mr Zuckerman's letter below to me of 13th March show also his prejudiced view of my appeal.

Party Secretary:

Michael Zuckerman Tel. 020 7486 8091

22 Bentinck Street Fax. 020 7935 8825

London W1U 2AB

13 March 2009

Mr Eric Edmond


Little Street

Norton Sub Hamdon

Somerset TA14 6SR

Dear Sir,

Re: EU Election

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 12 March 2009. There is no provision for any right of appeal, since an appeal could only be to the National Executive Committee, which has already made its decision.

I take this opportunity of making a small correction in that the NEC's resolution in your regard was passed on 13 February and not 2 March as stated in my letter of yesterday's date.

Yours faithfully,

M A Zuckerman

Party Secretary

Your claim I will receive a fair hearing is clearly bogus. You did not even inform me of these prejudicial emails you were receiving. You have not replied to my substantive questions in my email to you.

How can you expect me to participate in a hearing where at least four members of the jury have clearly already made their decision?

I will not participate in such a prejudiced hearing on 6th April and I am sure all ordinary UKIP members will understand and agree with my reasons.

Mr Zuckerman clearly had not even bothered to read the UKIP constitution where a right of appeal is clearly stated. He goes on to say the NEC has already made its decision!

It is a fundamental tenet of all appellant systems that any appeal cannot be judged by those who made the original decision. I suggest you organise an independent appeal hearing for me at the UKIP spring conference in Exeter on 18th April in front of our two local MEPs Trevor Colman and Roger Knapman, the senior UKIP figures in the South West region who have not been party to any of these matters. Are the charges attached to Mr Zuckerman's letter the only charges against me? I obviously need to know this to conduct my appeal.

Eric Edmond

----- Original Message -----

From: "Paul Nuttall" <>

To: "Eric Edmond" <>

Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 7:07 AM

Subject: Appeal April 6th 2009

Dear Dr. Edmond,

I can confirm that a decision was taken by the majority of NEC members to give you the right to appeal against your de-selection as a UK Independence Party European Election candidate for the South West.

You have asked for the full rules of the appeal pursuant to the Party Constitution. In fact, the situation of the de-selection of a candidate is unprecedented and rules have had to be made specifically to meet your case. These are as follows:-

(a) you are invited to address the NEC and make representations on your behalf as to why the decision to deselect you should be rescinded;

(b) the members of the NEC will be able to ask you questions; and

(c) you will be asked to leave the room while the NEC decides the question on a simple majority vote.

I can assure you that the hearing will be based solely on relevant considerations and that the appeal will fair.

I will circulate the link to the YouTube video as requested.


Paul Nuttall
Party Chairman

--- On Fri, 27/3/09, Eric Edmond <> wrote:

> From: Eric Edmond <>
> Subject: Fw: Appeal
> To: "Paul Nuttall" <>,, "Christopher Gill" <>, "David Abbott" <>, "Derek Clark" <>, "FARAGE Nigel" <>, "Jill Seymour" <>,, "Marta Andreasen" <>, "Michael Zuckerman" <>, "Rachel Oxley" <>
> Date: Friday, 27 March, 2009, 10:38 AM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eric
> Edmond
> To: Paul
> Nuttall
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:43 AM
> Subject: Appeal
> Dear Mr Nuttall
> I acknowledge receipt of a letter of
> 24th March re the
> above in your name, signed by Mr Challice. I
> assume this represents
> an official change of position from Mr
> Zuckerman's letter of 13th
> March which stated 'there is no provision for any
> right of appeal since
> any appeal could only be held to the
> National Executive
> Committee which has already made its
> decision' Can you please
> confirm and clarify this change.
> Can you please send me the full rules of
> the appeal process
> as provided for in the Party Constitution, as I
> previously
> requested.
> So that I can prepare my appeal, please can you
> also send me the full
> grounds for my deselection, bearing in mind that I
> had no notice that such
> a hearing was taking place, nor given an opportunity
> to peruse the
> charges against me, nor given any chance to defend
> myself at the meeting
> that took that decision.
> Please also can you give me an assurance that
> those hearing the
> appeal will judge on the basis of facts given and not
> on prior assumptions
> based on personal attitudes towards me or prejudice
> against me.
> You will understand my need for
> confirmation that the appeal
> will be fair, balanced and not subject to prejudiced
> positions.
> Please note that I will be out of the country on
> a pre-booked holiday
> between 27th March and 5th
> April and I would
> appreciate it if you would take this into account
> when communicating with
> me.
> Finally can you please circulate to the appeals
> committeethe URL
> below of an unscripted ad lib video I recorded at
> Lexdrum House just
> before Xmas urging support for UKIP and request
> they view it before
> the appeal.
> Yours sincerely
> Eric
> Edmond

Monday, 6 April 2009

Switzerland - a model for the UK

I returned early Sunday morning from a one week ski jaunt to Zermatt on the South side of the Matterhorn. It is a supremely well run country. Everything is clean, well staffed and efficient. The trains run to time, connect brilliantly and railway stations are spotless. There is no litter even although Zermatt has a MacDonalds! They have preserved their old farm buildings, all in wood and most over 300 years old. They have preserved their heritage and will pass on to their children what was passed on to them. They have superb engineering firms like Brown Boveri that build not only Swiss trains but trains and bridges worldwide. Their pharmaceutical firms like Ciba Geigy are world leaders. Nestle is a household name worldwide and the jewel in their crown is their banking sector which currently has its problems but they seem minor compared to ours.

The have a strong Catholic and Protestant tradition but none of our religious based social problems. I saw no one in Muslim garb although clearly there were many workers from Islamic countries. Nor did I see a mosque. They have four official languages but French and German dominate and everyone I met spoke both fluently. Their universities like the ETH at Zurich where Einstein, a Jew worked, are world class. Their children are well educated, well trained and have the prospect oft good well paid satisfying jobs.

How did they achieve such an excellent society for all ages where we have failed?

I believe the reason is their strong local democracy with few professional politicians and frequent referendums on anything and every thing. I remember the Lord of our village, Paddy Ashdown, laughing at this and saying how ridiculous it was to have a referendum on changes to a bus timetable. He missed the point in his usual arrogant LibDem way. Swiss services do what the Swiss people want not what the politicians and bureaucrats want because of the referendum system! Immigrant labour is used widely in the service sector but it is tied to a time limited residency permit. When the job finishes an immigrant worker has to return to his country of origin. Although the headquarters of the Red Cross and numerous other international agencies asylum seekers are not pandered to, or given state benefits as they are in the UK. They are mainly returned to their country of origin.

There is no PC correct worship of a multi-cultural society. It is a Swiss society and those that do not accept that are asked to leave.

Non-Swiss nationals cannot own property in most cantons. The Swiss want to keep their country not sell it! It takes around 20 years of self supporting crime free work before an immigrant can apply for Swiss citizenship. I wish the UK had such a system. We have given our country away and despite the claims that immigration is good for the false god of economic growth, which nations have the highest standard of living in Europe? Why the Swiss and the Norwegians by far.

It seems to me people's quality of life in a country is positively correlated with its number of referendums and negatively correlated with the number of politicians. The UK has near enough ten times the number of politicians as the USA. Nuff said.