It’s time to remove the addicted dark arts manipulators, says Nadine Dorries.
Former Minister Nadine Dorries has lifted the lid on who could be running Kami Badenoch’s leadership bid.
In a tweet on Sunday morning, Nadine wrote:
“Lots of speculation flying about today that the person bank rolling Kemi Badenoch leadership campaign is one David Meller, who won £164m worth of Covid contracts following his referral to the VIP fast lane by his long term ally, Michael Gove, who I have been told is conveniently acting as Badenoch’s treasurer/speech writer etc.
“(If you saw Badenoch’s speech last week, you can hear a familiar cadence) Meller has donated £1000s in the past to Gove and last year was conveniently officially appointed by Badenoch to the U.K. board of trade as a government adviser. Very cosy.”
The former minister continues:
“I have no idea if it’s true or not, but given that Badenoch has already got a team together working on her campaign and given the link between Meller / Gove / Badenoch I’m very sure MPs will want to take this seriously, do their jobs properly and quite rightly want to ask leadership candidates the question, ‘who is funding your campaign?’ They have a right to know and it’s a dereliction of office if they don’t insist on being told and given documented proof. Who, how much etc.
I’m also told the people behind Badenoch campaign along with Gove are the former sex party organiser, Dougie Smith, his wife Munira Mirza, amongst a number of others (I can only assume Cummings who is never far from Gove but will lay low) who are almost wholly responsible for the state the party is in today and its catastrophic defeat.
“MPs need assurances and a list of names, who is working in each team, paid or otherwise, officially or unofficially. It is a reasonable request. It’s time for a new era of transparency.
“Time to remove the addicted dark arts manipulators. This is also a job for members. Now is the time for each man (and woman) to come to the aid of the party. If you’ve read The Plot – you will know that all of this was predicted. More soon on the leadership campaigns and some of the more unsavoury characters becoming involved.”
Watch this space!
MEMBERS PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION: Rules for choosing our new party leader need to be fair
Dear Reader, If you’re still a Conservative Party member, please sign our petition so we get a fair choice of new leader and your rights to choose are enshrined.
Members across the country have been telling us if they’re given the final choice of ‘two Wets’ or any candidates who are being orchestrated by the same dark forces that forced Boris out (read The Plot by Nadine Dorries), they will leave the party forever.
If 10,000 members sign our petition, we can force a National Convention on the subject and together we can stop any stitch-up.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN TO ADD YOUR NAME TO THE PETITION (Takes 1 minute)
Many of the Conservative ‘Wets’ have already told us they want to stop members voting on a new leader altogether. Their rationale for this requires a contempt for democracy. Apparently it’s all our fault because we chose Liz Truss, and the MPs knew better.
But hang on… MPs kicked out our democratically elected leader Boris. Then they gave us the choice between Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. We do not know whether Liz would have recovered; MPs and ‘the blob’ didn’t give her the chance. But MPs then, in breach of the constitution and with nearly 360 alternatives, unanimously selected Rishi Sunak with no membership approval whatsoever. This was not democratic.
So now let’s stand strong and make our voices heard. We are seeking to add a nomination requirement that leadership candidates have support from ordinary members at the start of the process, and also at the end for members to have the final say. We don’t just want two ‘Wets’ or MP choices that the members and grassroots won’t get behind.
We want to discuss a change to the party constitution so that any MP putting themselves up for leadership must have the support of:
- 10 per cent of Conservative MPs
- 10 per cent of Peers
- 10 per cent of Association Chairmen
It is hoped this will give members a greater say on future leaders – and prevent the parliamentary from ruling without a mandate from the wider membership.
There is plenty of time to argue for exact changes, but we can only do that if we get 10,000 signatures to give us the opportunity to have the debate.
