The following gave their assent to this challenge: 5 Founder members, 2 Advisory Council members, 3 Councillors, 8 Branch Organisers, 20 Election candidates*.

Chris Jackson, is Chairman of the ‘Reform Group’ and is challenging for leadership of the British National Party. The ‘Reform Group’ came into being because many members, particularly established members, believed the Party was being run in an erratic way and some member were not renewing as a result. As a talking point, I believe, the current leader has, and the founder leader had, enormous talent in some directions but it seems none in others. This has meant the Party has not been developed in a balanced manner.

In particular, the Chairman authorises the spending of Party money. He also appoints the Treasurer and Auditor. This is I believe is quite contrary to established, prudent, practice. Further it should be noted that Nick Griffin was once declared bankrupt, though now discharged, no prudent organisation would allow someone with his history to be responsible for Party funds.

I also believe Nick Griffin appoints all Party officials and consequently, many are ‘yes’ men. As a result I believe, opinions, other than those of Nick Griffin, lead to dismissal from Party positions and even dismissal from the Party. Over the years Nick Griffin has held widely varying political views. This means, in my opinion, that his political judgement is very poor. It is my belief that he has made some serious errors in his appointment of personnel, most particularly the retaining of Tony Lecomber as a senior party official**.

I believe that the Party Constitution should be changed to one that is a recognisable as normal for a corporate body under English law.

In my view, the Party must have a proper structure. It must have a number of the key officials directly elected by the members, in particular, the offices of Vice Chairman and Party Treasurer must be directly elected. The Party Chairman would be bound to discuss and agree with the majority of the other elected officials, matters of policy and discipline.

The new Constitution will provide for a compulsory Annual General Meeting at which all paid up members are entitled to attend, propose resolutions and vote. We believe that the Party belongs to the members and that Party officials should be accountable to the members. This election gives members the chance to question the current leadership and management of the Party. However, we believe that the very short time allowed for this election is an attempt by the current Leader to stifle this process.

The Party must adopt a set of basic principles, for example the declaration that***:
1. Our homeland is the United Kingdom. No-one else can live permanently in our homeland.
2. We are an independent nation. We must leave the EU.
3. We want to live and be ruled by our traditional laws and customs.

“WE HOLD OUR LAND IN TRUST FROM OUR FOREFATHERS FOR OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDRENS’S CHILDREN.”

The Party should make an effort to unite all genuine nationalists into one party. Nick Griffin is unable to do this. He is an ex-chairman of the National Front and is now persona non-grata in that direction. Similarly, he is unacceptable to the Freedom Party, other nationalist groups and the many people who have left the Party either directly or indirectly because of him.

Lastly I would like to comment on the suggestion made by the current Leader that the Party is more successful than under the previous Leader. How can you compare starting a Party from scratch with taking over a Party already in existence? This is not like for like. Can having 50 councillors be regarded as a success for the current leadership bearing in mind the conditions in the country? I say no progress was made in the May elections – we lost 3 seats****. Is Nick Griffin offering more ‘success’ like this?

I pledge myself to see the reform of the Party on the above lines.

Chris Jackson,
Challenger

http://www.bnp.org.uk/leadershipelection/chris_jackson_statement.html