The current turmoil the party has been thrust into by the NEC has already become one of the nastiest UKIP arguments I can remember that has been played out so publicly.
Senior party members including some on the NEC are conducting themselves in a thuggish and abusive way to the detriment of everybody concerned. It doesn’t add to one’s argument to ramp up rudeness and abuse as a mechanism to garner support. It is most unseemly.
The party clearly has a problem in the way it is structured. It has always been a problem but in the heady days and with Nigel Farage the organisational failings were too often overlooked. Without him (or perhaps even with) the party is essentially ungovernable as the NEC continues to make decisions that reflect negatively on the party and create constant conflicts between the party governance and the leadership.
To remind readers of a very serious lack of judgement, Jane Collins, entirely of her own volition, libelled three Labour councillors. For reasons not explained, or with the flimsiest of justifications the NEC spent £30,000 of your money on helping her defence. Because of that the NEC made UKIP party to the libel action and is currently being sued for the costs (£670,000). Of course, Jane Collins is unable to, or says she is unable to meet the libel settlement. It isn’t known if the action against UKIP will succeed, but to place the party in that position represents a degree of irresponsibility which is staggering.
Those who have already taken a partisan view of the EGM, and our leader, will simply not wish to acknowledge this potentially catastrophic action, but it is fact. Our NEC did that and it may have expensive repercussions. It may even bankrupt us.
So how can this happen? The principal reasons are:
- The NEC are a group of, generally, well-meaning people, but not necessarily qualified to be company directors. Their role is one of party management and oversight. In effect that means marking one’s own homework. The poor spending and management decisions are a direct consequence of the inbuilt limitations of the people and lack of formal supervision.
- They are elected via a mechanism that doesn’t require any form of qualification, nor does it provide enough information to members so that they can make an informed voting decision. Most members, when voting, choose a name they’ve heard of, or if it is an existing NEC member re-standing, are influenced by the incumbent factor. This allows for some members to remain on the NEC for very long periods. It also means that people with no track record of management, or running a business are suddenly faced with managerial and business decisions they are simply unqualified to make.
- When change does happen, the potential is there for the longer serving NEC members to overly influence the newer members.
- If you add to that a culture of the utmost secrecy, one then has all the ingredients for poor governance. In the last year alone two elected NEC members resigned as have many before them. They clearly found the culture impossible to work with.
- We have NEC members who are unqualified, unaccountable, have authority without responsibility, and exercise oversight of self. All this goes on in the most secretive and opaque way. That’s how we end up here.
It isn’t necessarily the people themselves but the impossible situation that hands all the party authority to unqualified and unsupervised people whilst removing all authority from the party leader who does have all the responsibility.
That restructure is needed isn’t generally doubted, but when a leader is intent on doing that the existing powerbase always finds a reason to oppose. The current unprecedented and deliberate campaign of abuse and misinformation about the leader is exactly what happens when the power base is threatened. In a short timescale there isn’t always time to correct all the allegations.
Quite simply, if Henry Bolton goes, so will any hope of reform. I expect we’ll be treated to endless platitudes about how the NEC understands, and that they have a plan, but as is the case with the laughable self-reform of the House of Lords, some reason will always be found as to why it can’t be done now. The evidence is, that it has never been attempted before so what’s changed? Well Henry Bolton came along, and they really don’t like that.
As a party we have been utterly dysfunctional in so many areas for a long time. We’ve survived on the relentless toil of local branches and activists who tramp the streets in rain and shine with no help at all from the party central. In days gone by most were driven and inspired by Nigel Farage, bypassing the party organisation. It was by that mechanism that we functioned.
Now, there is no Nigel, and won’t be. We do not have a conveyor belt of Nigels waiting to take the helm. Any new leader will be different, and certainly not like Nigel. We have one, now who is a planner and organiser, which is exactly what the party needs to properly function. It remains bizarre that Henry Bolton is now criticised for ‘doing nothing’ when into the first three months of a three-year rebuilding program and having done a great deal to steady the ship.
To function properly the management of the party must be in the hands of those qualified to discharge the responsibilities. They must be accountable by their results. We also need an elected oversight to whom the directors report on a monthly basis. The party structure is the campaigning engine of the party and should also have responsibility for enforcing the party’s codes of conduct.
The governance should look something like this.In this structure the party leader appoints functional directors and policy spokespeople. The board of trustees is elected on a regional basis. Their role is one of oversight and supervision. The directors are there to get things done.
The spokespeople are the political face of the party and develop policy through the advisory groups, which is how members can initiate policy and become involved in its development. No longer can we rely on one man to be everything. With radical, well thought out and supported policies, people will listen. If we don’t do that then the leader won’t matter because we’ll have nothing of interest to say.
The party organisation will get help and direction from the functional directorates to improve performance. In this structure the directors have specific responsibilities against which they will be held accountable.
I’m supporting Henry Bolton because I support these changes, I’m not a life long chum, nor do I have any ancillary reason to back him. I do think a personal life should be kept personal, so I’m not minded, to judge his leadership on irrelevant factors. It’s simple. This is what we need to do, Henry Bolton will do this (and some areas have already begun change) and if he goes, all the impetus for shaking the tree will evaporate.
We simply must survive and become a professionally organised party. The government is well under way to betray the referendum vote, yet we think the best thing to prevent that from happening is to embark upon another leadership election. The world must think us mad.
We could and should be in pole position to re-capture the lost ground since the referendum if we remain on the pitch and re-build for the future.
Think on that when you cast your vote on 17th.
Dave Allen, you make a great advert for Duracell batteries.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=duracell+advert+2010&&view=detail&mid=A4114E14B336D9880873A4114E14B336D9880873&rvsmid=C9DF797A497AEB90B75BC9DF797A497AEB90B75B&FORM=VDQVAP
Mr Allen.
What is your affinity, with a man who is proven liar, a man who has hurt his family , and is now being aided with cash from a woman who should be in the BNP .
The allegations have now been debunked.
On the article “IT MUST BE OVER FOR BOLTON!” (All-caps) the comments were closed down as I was accused of “abusing as private campaign for Bolton” to which I could not respond there. If anyone read all my comments they would notice that I am not supporting Bolton. I am unhappy with the way his family life has harmed UKIP. However, I think it was right to point out that almost all the accusations regarding Bolton’s CV and funding have been debunked. That kind of unjustified mudslinging is not helpful to the party. The only accusation that stood the test was his NVQ 6 which he described as a BA (which is essentially equivalent.) I am not happy about that because it got UKIP more bad press. Surely by now all UKIP officers should know how careful they need to be.
I am just a nobody UKIP member and I don’t know how to save the party. but some things are clear even to me. Firstly, if there had been a membership vote of confidence the day after the leadership election Bolton would have lost it. Most people who voted for other leaders have been against him all along. Secondly, those people all disagree with each other. Their leaders had many strongly opposing policies on topics such as Islam, direct democracy and LGBT rights. There will be no more agreement with any other leader in place. Thirdly, I have nothing against Gerard Batten but as an unelected interim leader he would not have the mandate to do the reforms he proposes. If Bolton is ditched a new leadership election will be needed, and UKIP probably can’t afford it either financially or in terms of credibility. It is not helpful to pretend that everything will be alright if only Bolton is gone.
1) Six of the ten comments you posted were posted on the day I closed the comments thread – you were the only one posting at that time, and you were following closely the script published by Bolton on his blog the day before.
2) There was no debate at that time any longer.
3) You have, as the saying has it, the right to your opinion, but you have busily overlooked the fact that the article posed questions which arose for Mr Bolton’s own CV, a CV he had published. As you have the right to your opinion, we have the right to question.
4) Nobody is pretending that ‘everything will be alright if only Bolton is gone’. Perhaps you might ask yourself if ‘everything will be alright’ if he stays. Perhaps you think that branches closing, members, councillors, MEPs leaving do not matter for the survival of the Party?
1) Three other people posted in that thread the same day including yourself. Bolton’s blog posting was not a script. It was photographic evidence that all the remaining accusations were wrong. I was responding by pointing this out because people were still insisting that there were issues.
2) The debate was continuing. Others might have responded further if you had let them.
3) The points being made were not polite questions. They were clearly implying serious wrong doing.
4) As I said, I do not claim to have solutions and am not urging anyone to support Bolton. I was just pointing out some important things that are not being said.
One last thing if I may be allowed. You said that nobody was reading that comment thread any longer. in fact the article is still at the top of the week’s popular posts by a big margin and the count is still going up almost continuously.
Mr Allen, candidate for Rochester and Strood. (I Saved my deposit)
I know Rochester very well and lived there for many years, I have family who still live in Rochester/Chatham/Medway towns,and many in the past have voted UKIP.
We both know, how racially diverse this constituency is,and by supporting
Bolton, who has been tainted by the racist (Marney), you are also tainted.
How do you explain your position to the many who voted for you .
I didn’t know one could be tainted by proxy, perhaps you also are tainted by responding to my post. What drivel.
The candidate I spent an enjoyable day doorknocking with? Good to see you here…
Hard as I tried, I could see no way forward for UKIP to recover in time to influence Brexit, nor can my branch. To be of any use we need to win elections and thus apply pressure. That’s what the vast majority of us joined for. Of course there are other areas where UKIP can help our country but they are not a priority right now.
I did my share in the pre and post referendum battles but since starting in local government about 5 years ago, I’ve come to understand there is more than one way to skin a rabbit. In elected office I can do far more for my community and even my country than as a UKIP member or branch chairman, which these days actually just makes life difficult. I don’t face an election this year, many UKIP councillors do and know that they will lose their seats. It will also be very hard to find new candidates to stand. UKIP will still be infighting come May, just read the comments here, there will be no new direction or settled leader whatever happens at the EGM and afterwards.
Sadly if Ukipers are in elected office and want to keep it, they have to leave, preferably by standing as independents, not under any circumstances as Tories, that will do nothing for breaking the Troika grip on power. That’s what Thannet have done, all 17 of them and I expect others to follow. No good continuing to ride a sick horse that may not recover. What matters is reaching the destination, in this case that’s a proper Brexit, with office comes a platform and media oppertunities.
I hope the party does recover and after whatever sort of Brexit we get, selects a small number of other worthwhile political battles to fight. Right now it’s about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
You have a point, but we were in this position in September last year also. remember the county council elections, the general election? That we need to re-build and regain relevance is paramount. There is currently disagreement on exactly how we do that or of we do it at all.
David,
What are your thoughts on Ms Marney giving Bolton £1500 of her own savings?
The publicity must have trashed her modelling career. Bolton is a bit like Dr Who. He fixes things with his screwdriver, meanwhile his loyal hangers on come to a sticky end.
David, we need to know whether you yourself have or are giving money to Bolton. This would be a rational explanation of why he is looking upon you so favourably.
Has he promised you a seniour position? Is this why you are so loyal to him? UKIP members need to know.
Mind you, if he has promised you a position, then do not expect such a promise to be honoured. Look at his shabby treatment of David Kurten. Have a read of David’s inspiring article. Could you write such an article? Could Bolton?
“Muscular conservatism is what we need to counter this cultural destruction”
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/muscular-conservatism-need-counter-cultural-destruction/
Dear Hugo,
You mention ““Muscular conservatism is what we need to counter this cultural destruction”.
Wow, that man Kurten knows how to provide political direction to the party.
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557
I don’t care, and as I’ve said before I don’t play the rumour game. As for DK’s article it is excellent and he has maintained a consistent position on this with which I think all Ukippers would agree. Family values are the backbone and foundation of a caring and cohesive society.
It’s just one of the many political visions we need to educate people about. There are more. I think David is a good and committed spokesperson.
David,
This is the most sensible comment you have made so far, you have redeemed yourself IMO.
We are all on the same side. I believe we need to professionalise our structure and create a more inclusive process for policy creation. Of course internal and membership communications have to be better also.
I think Henry has made some mistakes in not keeping members as well informed as he should have done and keeping rigidly to his promise to visit all areas personally. He also erred in not appointing a solid leader support team to deal with messaging directly to him and diarising the places he needed to be. I also know that others have let him down on occasion.
However, I still think our best way forward would be for him to continue the reform agenda, which does exist, as the party desperately needs to get into the 21st century smartish. For all his faults and errors I believe he will get this done if allowed, and he will improve as he grows into the job. It’s not an easy one. Sadly, the personal stuff really clouded the issue.
It is just my opinion, but based upon what’s best for the party in my view, after all nobody will remain leader forever and to pass on a professional organisation with clear lines of authority and responsibility is a real help. I support the agenda rather than the person. If Henry fails to get the necessary support then I will support the interim leader and the new leader in the same way but continue to argue for the reforms that are within grasp. That is why I am resilient, because a leadership election will have unforeseen results and we already have a change program running. The party must survive to combat Conservative self-interest and the horrors of a Marxist regime. It’s the party that counts. It will soon be time to heal the party and get back to winning hearts and minds.
I prefer your positive comments like this one.
David Kurten didn’t write the article, you gump!
Bolton in …. voters out
David Allen Puts in an enormous amount of work. He must not be wasted any more.
Does the nec control the use of the database by the leader.
This is really odd.
Full of misconceptions, misunderstandings and misdirection. I suppose that’s politics. Let’s make a few points.
Company Directors are just ordinary people. Their power is delegated by the MD ( or CEO nowadays ), the title directorship aspect is delegated by the Shareholders as a reward or to get more detailed and specialised info directly. But they are still underlings. The MD or CEO has all the power delegated by the shareholders ( It’s their business, not the Government, not the employees, not the unions, Theirs. As I said delegated.
The MD or CEO has the power solely by virtue of his abilities to use the assets for the owners purposes.
The owners if they choose, at a moments notice, can change the constitution ( Articles & Memorandumw ) within th Law.
Occasionally ( particularly within larger companies ) Someone wanting to demonstrate that he’s above the common herd of directors takes the title of Chairman. But only if the Shareholders let him.
Chairman of the board is normally held by a respcted person to control the idiocies of any committee, but has no real power. Any Accountant or lawyer can tell you this. You just have to listen and think.
You are referring to a different corporate construct. UKIP is limited by guarantee, No shareholders, and the constitution gives our directors (the NEC) total authority. Directors are appointed by the MD usually but ours are elected. Quite a difference. As to where the real power lies it depends upon the organisation. with trade unions its usually the general secretary, at Virgin it’s Branson (chairman), it varies, so you are quite wrong in assuming that every company (the right kind of company) does things the same way.
This Henry Bolton problem seems to be turning into a ugly battle between mostly DA and the rest of us, it is becoming quite unseemly and toxic and not pleasant to read quite honestly.
I suggest we stop it here as enough nastiness has been displayed and it is having a very negative affect in deed, this constant bickering back and forth is almost ‘playground like’ and annoying.
David, I think you have said enough in Henry’s defence and do not need to continue your defence for him any longer, I am sure that most people have already made their minds up on how they are going to vote. In fact, I would go so as to say you may damage his chances if you keep going on in this vein, so give it a rest and let’s try and concentrate on more positive things such as, (and I am about to use a dirty word here) Policies. Shock, horror now I have said it.
Plus, if you don’t mind me saying so you are beginning to look a bit desperate, just relax a bit and go with the flow, this is not your problem it was Henry that created it, so it is down to him to try and remedy it if at all possible. If he is as good as you say he is it should not be that difficult.
Rumour. Learn to spell.
Out of sync comment. Not aimed at Donald !
Hi DD
You speak sense here so I tend to agree with you. However, David Allen is so tenacious on Bolton’s behalf (and one might ask why Bolton can’t or won’t speak for himself) that he has rather set himself up as an ‘Aunt Sally’.
Kind regards.
Brenda,
I know, but he is soooo boring!
Regards.
By the rest of us you refer to the 15 or so who comment on this site.
Hardly overwhelming.
“By the rest of us you refer to the 15 or so who comment on this site.
Hardly overwhelming.”
Why do you bother to write articles then? For so small an audience, who are throwing rotten tomatoes and rancid cabbages in response to your pearls of wisdom!
And two of them are making quite a good impression of being Kippers or UKIP supporters, so it is not 15 but 13 anyway.
Many more read, but don’t comment.
I spent some time trawling through your leaden thesis Dave; I was intrigued and wondered whether you had put a different spin on that “NEC is bad, bad, bad; HB is good, good, good” beat you continue to drum, but no, just more of the same. Tedium.
I’m not sure that most members are too worried about reorganisations right now. Our immediate challenges, in my view, are threefold.
1. We need to somehow use whatever UKIP influence can be brought to bear to reinvigorate a Brexit that’s on the ropes.
2. To do that, we must dispatch a leader who clearly has to go.
3. Which means bringing in a new leader to steady the ship. That’ll do for now.
As Chief Foot Soldier of the Bolton Brigade I just wonder what’s in it for you, I notice you continue to deflect the question and no doubt your forthcoming pithy, blasé response – ‘cos you can’t resist it – will, I’m sure, bear no fruit. Tedium epitomised.
I agree with your first point, but that is difficult enough without a four month absence during a leadership campaign. Your second point just makes the first problem a reality, your third point is fanciful. who do you expect to do that? After all steadying the ship was Paul Nuttal’s pitch.
What’s in it for you I wonder, to defend a poor structure that has failed the party over the last 18 months? As I said I don’t play these games. Maybe you do. I find it most amusing that you are happy to bite at someone else’s bait. A bit naive I think.
C.Colam.
Yes, we are going to support the NEC vote of no confidence in
Henry Bolton as leader at the EGM.
(I hope no one’s in a MARDY on the way back to Lincs).
I am completely baffled at the “support” claimed for Mr Bolton. I have been in UKIP for less than three years, but was a branch officer for the last General Election (in a hard-fought constituency)and campaigned actively, and attended local meetings etc,both for the previous Election and for the Referendum. My activities (due to relocation) were in THREE different counties, mixing each time with long-standing UKIP officers. I had never heard of Henry Bolton before the long list of Leadership candidates was published. I have not heard of him, or from him, since, in any meaningful way. He has failed to give Members any evidence of stirring “Leadership” plans or even embryonic strategy. Instead he has brought UKIP’s name into disrepute by the apparent priority he has given to a chaotic private life. Bringing an employers’ name into disrepute is a cause for dismissal in many walks of life, however high the performance level otherwise. Such could perhaps be overlooked if his leadership skills had shown promise. They don’t. And finally it is a disgrace that he is further prolonging the pain by forcing an EGM — at an appalling total cost in time and money for UKIP and its members — instead of stepping away. His misjudgements have multiplied and action must be taken if UKIP is to have any hope of being taken seriously.
As overseas Regional Facilitator, I ccEd him on the Christmas Card and bulletin I sent to members, but never so much an a “erm, who are you”? ?
I was asked y the political reporter of Radio Suffolk (she had my contact details from the last two elections) what I thought.
First, I said that what people do with their wobbly bits is none of the MSM’s business. Second, I said that if he has an ounce of integrity, Mr Bolton will resign immediately as his position is untenable.
Either UKIP — the only possible defence of our country — is more important than his personal ambition, or it isn’t. If not then he is complicit in the failure of UKIP and the betrayal of our nations. I would have thought that the decision was an easy one.
JF
Dear David (Allen),
You have loyally persevered in trying to protect Henry’s leadership. Your loyalty is praise-worthy.
May I suggest however that your perseverance is in fact harming Henry’s long term interests?
I have personally done my best to help Henry before during and after the leadership campaign (check with ML).
Let me now try to help Henry a bit more, at the same time trying to help UKIP.
Henry is a fine man, a likeable man, a courageous man, a diplomat, and a good public speaker. Henry can do a lot of jobs. Indeed has done lots of jobs. But his talent and background is NOT suitable for the job of providing political direction to UKIP.
How do we know this?
The NEC are fine businessmen, lawyers etc. Some of the best people in the party, and chosen by us.
The NEC has unanimously determined that the role of UKIP political leader does not fit with Henry’s many and undisputed talents.
Let us assume Henry wins the vote in Birmingham. He will NOT thereafter find the job any easier. Because the job does not fit his talents.
It’s hard to see why Henry would want to continue with a job which is a constant struggle and highly disruptive to his professional and private life.
Would you agree that it would be in Henry’s best interests to seek a job more suited to his huge talents?
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557
Well said, Toby!
You, of course, as have I, have been previous members of the NEC, and know what we think of “Team Nigel” (I love Lucy ?) so may be biased ?
I’ve just discovered this article late in the day and well and good that I did. I fell about laughing so much that it might have affected digesting Sunday lunch if I had read it any earlier.
So, Henry Bolton has a done “a great deal to steady the ship”. I can barely type I’m still laughing at that one.
Nowhere does Mr Allen say what would qualify someone to be a company director in his view. There is just the repeated allusion to the current NEC being unqualified in some way.
Irrespective of that, we need, apparently, “elected oversight”. I thought the NEC were elected. Perhaps, Mr Allen means that elected from specially qualified people (but no details of what qualifications he is fantasing about). The leader and chairman are executive officers. They are overseen by the equivalent of non-executive directors. Mr Allen wants guardians guarding guardians but he does not say what qualifies a guardian of guardians. He appears to believe in an elite without saying who exactly would make up that elite. It can’t be elected members because we already have those – the NEC.
As to accountability Mr Allen must speak a variant of English unknown to many of us. Elected politicians or officials are already accountable. They are held to account in something called an election. We, the electorate, kick out anyone we feel who has done a bad job. But what do Bolton and Allen mean by accountable? It appears to be dictatorship, some means of forcing people (the NEC) to do what you want. That is an anti-democratic form of accountability. And Mr Allen has the temerity to call others thugs.
There is a guardian council already but it is in Iran. Ayatollahs Bolton and Allen might be happier in a theocratic state.
No doubt, as an unqualified to be nec member, I was also unqualified ro run the Milton Keynes website back in the day?
Rob,
Let’s face it we are all unqualified to be in UKIP apart from DA and HB who are doing a wonderful job and should be applauded, and no I have not been taking drugs!
You clearly don’t understand the structure of ltd companies.The NEC are the directors and hold all executive authority. They also have the role of oversight, hence overseeing themselves. Presumably you see no problem with that.
On the one hand, you say the nec have no responsibility, and on the other hand, admit they have executive responsibility. Square that! ?
Please re-read. I said executive authority, If you can’t tell the difference, it explains a lot of the confused thinking behind your comments.
The board of a company is usually structured as executive and non-executive directors. All are directors but nor all have executive authority. The elected NEC are akin to non-execs on a commercial company board. Still directors but non-executive. Katie Fanning, for example, cannot walk into Lexdrum House giving orders and making changes on her own authority. She does not have individual executive authority. The NEC function as a board not as individual executive officers.
Your are quite wrong, read the constitution. The NEC have all executive authority, collectively. Individuals hold no organisational responsibility, so aren’t accountable for anything. We don’t even see minutes, never seen a voting record,(except for one, the no confidence vote, so why not for all votes?) never seen management accounts. Our governance is wholly opaque. This is a perfect environment in which to make poor decisions. That’s simply the way things are.
Let’s be blunt – If Henry Bolton isn’t removed as UKIP then UKIP is toast. The NEC arguments are just smoke and mirrors to divert from that one single blunt fact.
Nothing can be done with Mr Bolton still in office.
The arguments represented here are for a competent leader who enjoys the confidence of the party they lead. The sooner we get one the better.
Completely agree. Allen is intent on becoming a parody of blind loyalty, and is using this increasingly transparent smokescreen of the NEC to defend an unsuitable nitwit. It is very easy to attack a body like the NEC, anonymous as a block, and stress the plucky individual on the other side. Problem is, it’s balls. None of the things that DA claims Bolton is working on and can deliver will be acceptable to most of our members, or virtually any of the electorate. Why? Because he is tarnished goods, a man of hopeless judgement and zero political nous. He is (another) Walter Mitty, and until he goes we are in a nose dive to oblivion.
How many more do you suggest we try? 4 and counting so far.
Go Gerard!??
Surely you mean blunt opinion?
David
The organisation chart looks peculiar.
Are you saying that the Chief of Staff and Chairman is at the same level as the leader?
Are you implying a biumvirate? Or a duumvirate?
Or biarchy / boika?
Questioning why all the directors and head of party report to COSAC whereas only one head reports to the leader directly. Why not have all directors and both heads reporting to COSAC, and COSAC reporting to the leader instead? It would be more symmetrical.
Does Mr Bolton have a particular individual in mind for the role of COSAC? Are you at liberty to say who? It would have a bearing on whether he survives the EGM.
Chief of staff, head of party, head of policy and directors report to the leader. And, I don’t know.
Everone at the top reports to Elcom. Period. ?
In relevance to Brexit, I heard more from Bill Everidge and Luke Nash Jones in Beeston recently,than I have heard from a Member of the NEC, or the Leader Mr Bolton, since the election. Its the Silence that is loosing Members. NOTHING, all the time, its like we have won the battle and all gone on holiday. The only voice that I have heard that has any spirit in it is Gerrard Batten. He could invigorate the members, but it is needed to be done out loud, not the odd e-mail. That alone has lost UKIP members. THEY CAN’T SEE OR HEAR YOU, unless you have done something amiss. So can the Senior Members put that right please. Cleethorpes Members will be at the EGM. We are open to discussion with fellow members.
The NEC doesn’t issue press releases on policy, such as Brexit. That’s the responsibility of the Leader and/or their appointed Brexit spokesperson i.e. Gerard Batten (resigned) in this case, who has released a number of press releases to do with Brexit.
Members and elected officials have been lost in great numbers since the referendum. Some may have been unavoidable but not all perhaps? To lay all of this on a newly elected leader and complain that in three months or so we aren’t top of the polls is a harsh judgement. To succeed we need to fix the party. The mess that Henry Bolton walked into was huge. everybody knows that you need sound foundations upon which to build. You can’t see foundations.
David
NOBODY is ‘laying it all ‘ on HB ~ the Party’s decline since June 2016.
First of all let me preface my remarks by saying that having heard HB at Conference in September I was quite hopeful for UKIP’s future.
So I certainly did not start off with any prejudice against him ~ not at all. And from his CV I thought, like Nigel, that he was ‘a man of substance’.
Unfortunately the next three months ~of total, absolute, utter SILENCE from HB in terms of establishing a presence in the public eye ~ forced me, very reluctantly, to conclude we had at the head of the Party someone who, whatever his managerial expertise might be, simply was not a ‘Leader’ of any description.
Not that one heard any inkling of party management reform either ( and if anyway that was his bag why did he not present the NEC / the Party with his proposals either during the summer or at latest in the week following his election ? And / or could he not have set out his proposals / suggestions in an edition of Independence Magazine or on the website ?? )
Then came what one might summarise as ‘The Shenanigans’ ~ which evidenced the man’s utter lack of judgment ( and I am not even going near the issue of the immorality of prioritizing his penis~needs over his moral duty to two x pre school age infants or their mother who had traveled to a foreign country on her own to bring in an income for the family . He gives up tiny children WHO NEED HIM in order to pork a woman younger than his daughter ? Where is the JUDGMENT ?? )
No one expected him to reverse the Party’s fortunes or ‘bring us to the top of the polls’ just like that…….
But one did expect him to make a START.
And I don’t mean a start with his reform of the Party’s internal functionings, I mean a start as to articulating forcefully and unapologetically the need for Real Brexit and a serious clampdown on the mass uncontrolled immigration which is destroying social cohesion and impoverishing the worst off.
After all, whatever the infelicities, real or imagined, of the NEC, they were in place during UKIP’s glory years of 2013 ~16 – and clearly did not prevent UKIP achieving that which it did achieve during those years. ( And by the way I also believe there need to be changes in the way the NEC is elected but it is ludicrous to paint this situation as ‘Plucky Revolutionary Hero with Ideas vs Ancien NEC Régime ‘Let Them Eat Cake~ers’.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/essential-policies-new-leader-adopt/
Unpalatable truth No 1 David: membership under HB’s leadership has fallen at a faster rate than seen for some time.
Let me remind you: the NEC (on behalf of the members) hasn’t seen any plans from the Leader, after four months no less.
David, you attended Mr Bolton’s first shadow cabinet meeting last year, as I did. I haven’t seen any minutes yet, which were promised before Christmas. The second shadow cabinet meeting, to be held in early January was cancelled, with no explanation, although I think we all know why it was cancelled.
Keep digging!!
Have you seen the catalogue of Tweets spewed out by Jo Marney in the last few hours?
She’s stating categorically that Farage is supporting Bolton ( seems true ) However the big point is that its obvious Bolton and her are full on and that she is utterly out of control.
Check it out
Nigel also supported Lord “they breed 10x faster than the rest of us” Pearson ?
So Rob,
How many times they do breed faster?
As I understand it there is some multiple which will lead to some form of ethnic superiority in 20/30 years and when allied to the Caliphate is curtains for this nations way of life.
Mr. Bav,
Let her carry on as it shows how stupid he must be to stick by her.
Roger, the figures I have seen vary, but indigenous European women are having 1.3-1.8 children each while Muslim women in Europe are having 3-3.5 children each.
Taking a 1.4 fertility rate, 90 indigenous Europeans become 63 in generation 1, 44 in generation 2 and 31 in generation 3.
Taking a 3.0 fertility rate, 10 Muslims become 15 become 22.5 become 34. A majority after 75 years. And that’s assuming mass immigration stops tomorrow. With the help of mass immigration, often for marriage to first cousins, Britain’s Muslims are doubling their numbers every 12 years.
In a sense it doesn’t matter which exact numbers you take. Muslims WILL become a majority across the whole of Western Europe well before the end of this century. This is a demographic inevitability unless policies change radically and soon. And only AMW and a handful of the bravest politicians in UKIP will even talk about it.
Well as I do not have access to membership records I cannot confirm your claim. I do know there was a strategy document drawn up by Chris Mendes, and I know he had begun construction on this. This was all at the behest of Henry Bolton and not you or the NEC as Chris was part of Henry’s team. It would have been nice had you credited him with this effort.
Liz Phillips sent out a first draft of the minutes. David Meakin offered some corrections/alterations. Since then I’ve not seen the revised version. Perhaps ask Liz, not me?
Chris was part of the Tec sub-committee, chaired by John, well BEFORE Henry came on the scene.
We’re still waiting for the strategy document, and still waiting for the finished kipperpress branch website rollout, due last year ?
David
Henry has made a mockery of the party and himself and shamelessly blames others for the situation he finds himself in (which tells me a lot about the character of a man). Conversely, the NEC has conducted itself honourably throughout. Henry will continue to be a figure of ridicule and untrustworthiness – a gift for the MSM. In response to a very important question at a hustings he inferred he had his own source of income which subsequently appears to have been untruthful. On this issue alone I would not trust a word he utters.
All Henry has presided over are closing branches and rapidly falling membership.
How much more of his destructive talent can we stand? No business could afford to retain the services of a manager who inflicted such damage on a company – UKIP is no different.
UKIP is not broke, all we need is a steady hand on the tiller until Brexit delivered. Bring on Batten as interim leader and lets go from there.
The membership collapsed before the leadership election, then stabilised a bit up until Christmas and since then we’ve lost some more, which is unsurprising as all we’re doing is fighting amongst ourselves. Don’t place any hope on Gerard as he’s only there for three months max. Hardly time to ditch the logo, let alone anything else. Where are you getting your financial information from, because it’s a revelation that we’re solvent?
Erm, pretty sure John Bickley reckons we’re solvent?
Easily resolved, let’s see some management accounts. Fat chance.
Accounts turn up annually, or you can get elected to the NEC ?
David,since Henry took over in Sept our branch has lost 27% of its members and branches have been shutting at the same rate and more on the way possibly. He has done zilch to stem this collapse, quite the opposite his irresponsible actions have hastened this and damaged the good name of UKIP and ruined UKIPs council election prospects in May to boot.
At the end of the day I have to have faith in my leader if I am to get out and sell the party on the streets. This is what its all about. Henry is damaged goods as far as I am concerned and I won’t turn out for him but I am willing to put my faith in Gerard Batten as an interim leader and go from there.
PS David, sorry to confuse,I didn’t mean ‘broke’ in the sense of finance in my previous posting.
To David Allen: for those of us that don’t know you can you set out your history with the party please.
You would, had you been paying attention.
How rude, David Allen, to treat a straight forward question from John Bickley in that way. It was your opportunity to refresh minds of those you importantly feel “should” know you; and to inform those like me who don’t have a clue. It calls to mind the old joke: “Don’t you know who I am?? reply: no, but I’ll fetch Nurse.
It wasn’t a question. I hold no executive office. Perhaps we should have that information about NEC members. I know zilch about any of them.
Reminds me of the story of a man who arrived at the check-in desk at an airport. He was very rude and not happy at the fact the check-in clerk wasn’t giving him priority.
He then shouted at the check-in clerk “Do you know who I am.”
The check-in clerk, very calmly, announced over the tannoy system….
“Your attention please. We have a gentleman at check-in X who doesn’t know who he is. Can someone please come and identify him”.
Kind regards.
Sue Benjamin, I heard another version of that joke:
“Do you know who I am?”
“No!”
“Phew! That’s a relief!”
Dear David,
Nice attempt at setting up a straw man by denigrating the current members of the NEC so you can create the usual ‘NEC is the bogeyman’ scare. Why don’t you do something useful such as setting out what you believe is wrong with the way the party is run, with evidence to back up any assertion you make.
Looking at your organogram I see you’ve replaced the NEC with a board of trustees. What’s the point of that, the elected NEC are the board of directors and in effect the trustees, acting on behalf of all the members, not a cabal controlled by an unaccountable elite.
You may wish to know that as far as the Electoral Commission is concerned a Party is governed by the Party Leader, Treasurer and National Nominating Officer. You cannot subvert those functions. As far as compliance and financial matters are concerned the buck stops with the Treasurer, who cannot be overruled. Of course the Party can always replace the Treasurer but the Party cannot devolve their primary responsibilities to other third parties.
In the end this comes down to whether members want the Party run/overseen by their elected reps (who come and go based on who stands for election) or what you’re setting out, which (i) isn’t compliant with Elcom & (ii) looks like a power grab for an unaccountable elite.
BTW the current NEC is made up of five lawyers/solicitors, two entrepreneurs including Alan Bown (who has given the party nearly £2m & without whom the party would have disappeared long ago, but hey David you keep denigrating Alan – most members who know Alan will just conclude you’re a nasty piece of work for doing so), a senior exec who ran an international publishing business for SONY (2,000 people and offices worldwide), before that MD of a Paramount Pictures & Universal Studios JV – me, NHS managers and private sector managers. Of course you can kick us all off the NEC by not voting for us should we stand for re-election.
If Mr Bolton wins the EGM the NEC is then re-elected, however the only people who decide whether they want to be governed by their own elected reps or an oligarchy (thereby disbanding the NEC) are the members, not you and not Mr Bolton.
Finally, in the four months since he became leader the NEC has not on any occasion stood in the way of Mr Bolton or his plans, for the simple reason he hasn’t presented any plans to the NEC. In fact he still has an Interim Chairman which IMO demonstrates vacillation and lack of any vision as to what his plans are for the Party.
John, your observations would make more sense if they were accurate.
The constitution is so written as to preclude the existing members from re-standing. Perhaps you need to give it another read? We’ll, no doubt need a ruling on that, so I’ve written to the chairman to provide one.
I’ve set out exactly what’s wrong and made the point that it’s not necessarily the members who are at fault, but the structure. You are right that Alan Bown has been a staunch supporter of the party, but I’m sure with all his experience he’s never worked in a business that elects its directors. They should be appropriately qualified people with functional or geographical responsibilities. Our NEC has no responsibility for any of its decisions. Once again, basic business stuff, of which you should be aware.
You are also wrong in that the structure I suggested replaces the NEC with a board of trustees, when it is clearly replaced by a board of directors. The trustees provide oversight and supervision, both functions that are currently within the remit of the NEC. Even you must realise that you cannot oversee yourselves. Unless you are deliberately misinterpreting my article, I’m surprised that you can get things so wrong. It’s also quite improper that the treasurer, who is appointed by the NEC, also sits on the NEC. Appointing yourself, nice job!
As far as NEC ‘support’ goes it clearly wasn’t seen as such by the last four leaders. The organisation needs structural change, it’s odd that you cannot see any benefit in that.
There is NOTHING that stops existing members – or leader – restanding, David – I studied it VERY carefully when it first came out. But we can agree to disagree on that, as I’m not currently serving.
Why are you asking the chairman, though? Shouldn’t it be the party secretary, who, erm, is actually a lawyer? ?
If they nec screw up, they’re legally liable for their bad decisions. Yet yiu PERSIST in repeating the canard that they’ve “no responsibility”. Get yiyrself elected, and find out how quickly youre wrong ?
The treaurer doesn’t need to be on the NEC; if John steps down from the voting nec (not that I think he should) would that satisfy you?
Rob, I’m surprised at your laxk of understanding about corporate structures such as ltd companies. What so you think the ltd stands for? In our case it is whatever the guarantee was, usually £1.00. Also the bit about NEC standing down after EGM defeat does preclude the same people from re-standing. As a matter of conflict of interest avoidance, an officer appointed by the NEC should not be a member. This is pretty basic stuff, corporate ethics lesson 1.
NEC can’t restand? Never stopped them in 2001, legal chapter and verse, please ?
John, thanks (again) for setting the record straight and for the time you give to the NEC.
I refuse to believe that the NEC is completely wrong given the combined experience and range of skills present on the NEC. UKIP is fortunate to have its current NEC members, who give a lot of time voluntarily.
Also, it has been noted that David Allen never answered your question the other day, about discussions around the chairman-chief of staff role.
I can spot a rumor mill a mile away and I don’t play.
Or deny…
You’re wasting yor time, but it’s interesting to see how easily you are played.
“The current turmoil the party has been thrust into by the NEC…………etc” [David Allen]
The reality seems more like:
The NEC responded to the turmoil the party had been placed in by the activities of its leader.
Not a good start to an article.
If HB wins the vote at the EGM would David Allen be somewhere at the top of the organisation chart: such as, Chief of Staff/Chairman.
These monologues are wearisome.
/// These monologues are wearisome.///
Just wait until he is Chairman.
Chairman is subject to NEC ratification, otherwise – wait for it – we get an EGM! ????????
Thank you for your confidence in me, clearly it’s really easy to start rumors. However I’m not minded to take too much notice of people who struggle to read more than a twitter feed without losing focus.
It’s very easy to on-the-record deny rumours, too, David ?
Actually, it’s impossible to deny a negative, hence I don’t play. I wasn’t born yesterday.
If I remember correctly, the question was “have you been offered…”. That’s a straightforward question, easy to deny. Of course you’re under no obligation to answer, but declining to answer is bound to lead us to draw the obvious conclusions. And protesting about rumour mills and “denying negatives” undermines your credibility. I’m afraid it makes you look foolish, and untrustworthy.
David,
Are you really an American?
You haven’t yet asked me if I’m an alien, bent on world domination. I wouldn’t respond to that either. It’s amazing how simple concepts elude you.
David,
I am just wondering why you spell rumours the American way, you are always so defensive and seem to lack a sense of humour, for God’s sake man ‘CHILL’ or take a pill. I will send you some if you like, I recognise the symptoms.
David, the Leader, MEPs, the Regional and County Organisers and the local Branch Committee Members are ALSO all chosen by a mechanism which does not require any particular experience or qualifications! When you have Branch Committees that dont even use the Internet or bank accounts, and are never given training or audits, why would you expect anyone higher up in the party to be professional?
I agree. Training would be very helpful, though the influence of branches is small, the NEC large.
Totall and utter rubbish Dave!
For starters, the Michael Holmes affair was MUCH nastier. One member was so stressed in 2001 he died of a heart attack, and three members of the then NEC, including Craig Mackinlay (whatever happened to him?) threatened to sue five party members, including the leader, for libel. Not good. The then party secretary (a very different role) was dragged off conference stage foaming and screaming “you can’t do this” at Nigel, who was chairing one of the meetings in question.
The current party secretary, now our legal adviser, thinks that we will not be liable for Jane’s debts. Are you saying that the NEC should ignore the advice of their qualified lawyer? Or the advice his predecessor gave then (2014)?
As for “any hope of reform” going with Henry, you refuse to state why – the NEC
were working, at Henry’s request, to review parts of the constitution and rule book – delaying NEC elections to do so – then HE imploded. No reason whatsoever why a compenet successor, e.g. Gerard Batten, couldn’t pick up the baton (pun indetended ?) and run with it…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eq5pzufCZuY
I’m puzzled as to why you do not understand. We also have a different legal view that states the opposite. Clearly the litigants feel that have a case and we are therefore vulnerable. I hope we are not found liable, but that isn’t my point. If I push you into the river, I might have thought, or hoped that you could swim, but it’s still a silly thing to do.
Just because people can be even nastier doesn’t mean that this isn’t also unpleasant. I find your argument lacking in logic.
Stop digging David. You have no idea of the circumstances surrounding the JC case. Both Rob & I were on the NEC at the time, as was Nigel. So, on the basis that in your eyes the NEC is ‘evil’ please diss Nigel (ex NEC member) on this forum – go on, I dare you.
She libelled, three Labour councillors, lost the case, can’t pay. UKIP gave money and got involved and is now defending a suit for costs. What am I missing? The NEC isn’t evil, just not competent. Authority without responsibility is never desirable. Pretty basic stuff this, I’m not sure what you don’t understand.
The NEC, as directors, have responsibility, pay attention, 007, and were acting with the advice of the party secretary.
“What are you missing”? Well, they say curiosity killed the cat, and I’d hate for THIS nec-leader dispute to produce another stress related heart attack.
Are you saying either the current or 2014 party secretary gave the NEC (including Nigel) bad advice? Then you could try for that NEC libel attempt AS WELL AS the heart attack. Double whammy!
Mr Bickley,
Regarding Jane Collins’ libel case, I have read the Party Secretary’s statement of 28 January 2018 in which he says that “…UKIP financially assisted Ms Collins MEP with her defamation case out of a moral obligation”.
I understand that the remarks in question were made by Ms Collins in a speech at a Party conference. Perhaps the “moral obligation” was decided upon because the speech had received the prior approval of the Party?
However, would you be good enough to explain if this was the case and, if so,
which personnel in UKIP gave this approval?
Let’s discuss this after the court has ruled later this week…
A good question. But, I would bet that no substantive and evidentially supported answer will be forthcoming. Maybe a few more should ask pointed questions?
Let’s remuse this AFTER the courts have ruled, later this week, IIRC?
That’s not the point. I hope we are not found to be liable, but that doesn’t excuse the irresponsibility and poor judgement that led to this huge risk being taken.
The question facing the membership is whether or not the motion of no confidence stands. This decision was made on leaked information to a hostile press by those with, let’s say, a less than generous attitude to the leader elected. What has transpired since, digging for any kind of dirt, should not be a consideration in the vote of no confidence. In a court of Law it would be deemed inadmissable. So we have to consider as to whether this vote should even go ahead, in legal terms,it may be subject to a Judicial review. The very fact that the majority of those qualified to vote on this matter are denied that very vote,by a decision of one who may have self interest in the result, means the whole matter is in question. It would seem more appropriate that all matters now being discussed are put to the membership as a whole, to determine the suitability of the elected leader to continue in that position. A postal or e mail voting system could then decide the matter for once and all,in a democratic process acceptable to all parties concerned.
Sadly, our out of date and poorly written constitution specifies an EGM. which disenfranchises 90% of our members, and as a result a leader elected by thousands can be deposed by a few hundred.
David, a suggestion, stop digging; you’re just showing how out of touch you are with the way the party is run and its member approved constitution.
Yet again, please tell us what you’ve done for the party and whether you have discussed with Henry taking on the chairman’s role should he win the EGM. You claim to want transparency so go on, answer a simple question.
I’ll happily respond to the first part of your question if you ask the same of every other contributor to this site to do the same including you. The question is irrelevant and a diversionary tactic as you well know.
Also I do not respond to slurs and rumor mills. If you have any evidence of note I will answer, but you do not. I know that as a fact. As it happens I have published much over the last couple of years. As I said, not paying attention.
Poorly written? It was checked by lawyers! And Nigel approved of it at the time!
You have NO idea how difficult it is to produce UKIP constitutions; I do.
If you are interested I’ll be happy to detail all the deficiencies, contradictions, fluff, and ambiguities. It just shows how rubbish some lawers are, particularly if they are off patch. Now that would be a sensible use of time and effort. But, I’m pretty sure you don’t really want to know.
Go for it – but watch Viv’s posting limit ?
When should we meet to go through it line by line?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G_Sy6oiJbEk
When the dust has settled…
BTW non-nec members are allowed on the constitution sub-committee; why don’t you apply? ?
Yet again, someone who fails to understand that our constitution, http://www.ukip.org/the_constitution, trumps everyone and everything else. ?
That is the reason there will be no postal or proxy voting, and it was adopted by the whole membership in 2012.
Ann unfortunate choice of words as barely 30% of members ever vote, even fewer would read it, fewer still understand the ramifications. Generally it goes like this, the ruling body suggest a change, the membership assume they know what they’re doing and vote for it. As a constitution, it is so poorly written that it makes one’s eyes bleed.
30%? Two thirds of members have to vote in favour!
AND, it WAS clearly explained at the time:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120206235233/http://ukip.org/page/guide-to-the-new-constitution
Two thirds of those who vote. Quite different.
It doesn’t say “who vote”…
So who would vote for/ratify the actions of the new structure?
How would it differ? What would/could the members ever vote for, except with their feet?
DAVID’s new structure? One the NEC, or 20 branch EGMs blessed, it would go to the membership (hopefully under BB rather than CC) ?
Rob, I was asking David how things would work AFTER his structure was implemented.
Mr Allen
Bolton has done nothing of value. The members are quite capable of making a decision on the basis of Bolton’s inertia and lack of any communication with us – except when he is after donations for his apparent champagne lifestyle. Bolton is even happy to accept money from his mistress if media reports are to be believed.
As a so called ‘leader’ Bolton is tiresome and, quite frankly, so are your monologue’s in support of him.
I’ve heard there are countries where the sun shines for most of the year. For crying out loud, buy yourself a one way ticket and take Bolton with you.
Incidentally, I read about one third of your lecture (above) before I got bored and gave up.
Jo Marney IS funding Bolton. It’s not a matter of interpretation.
She Tweeted the fact. The Sun captured the Tweet. £1500 .
Mr.Bav,
You don’t believe everything she says do you?
She must be ‘in love’.
Kind regards.
In the Sun eh, must be gospel.
The tweet is fake?
Marney is also tagging her Tweets #TeamNigel .
Its clear that not only is she still in a relationship with Bolton, but tat she is giving him money and that this is part of a ‘Team Nigel’ association.
She is perfectly entitled to do all of this of course, as she is not a person in a political office and its her business. Bolton and Farage though appear to be allied.
That’s a shame. If you could ever bring yourself to get to the end of it you might learn something. God knows where you pick up your misinformation. Just about everything you say is untrue, but of course truth isn’t what you are interested in.
There was a laughing policeman. Ha, ha, ha ha, ha ha ha. Used to be in a glass cabinet on Southend Pier and you put pennies in the slot to set him off. The ‘laughing policeman’ in Folkestone wants rather more than that though.
The laughing policeman, well worth a listen…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hI1nPd7hezM
It might help lighten the atmosphere and will not shock our E-in-C the way my pagan suggestion of ‘Henry’s credentials’ did on a previous post.
I am interested in truth – that’s why I want Bolton to go – and take his sycophants with him.
Bye, bye and good riddance to bad rubbish.
BTW Vivian – what happened to my comment about ‘Henry’s credentials’ only I can’t find it now. Surely you weren’t so shocked as to remove it!
I didn’t remove it – have checked the bin, it’s not in there so it hasn’t been removed.
It’s gotta be somewhere deep in the bowels of that comment thread.
Ah! Can you remind me of which comment thread it was please? I know…I’m a pain!
Kind regards.
I believe it was this one:
http://www.ukipdaily.com/it-must-be-over-for-bolton/
You’ve got to press the << on the left to get all comments as the comments are now closed and only the last two show when you first click on the link and scroll to the comments.
Check out Jo Marney’s Tweets and grab them. She must be on the Class A’s tonight
Hi it might be here,
http://www.ukipdaily.com/news-review-wednesday-31-january-2018/
Many thanks for your time on this Vivian. Thank you Chris, it was on the thread for the link you gave.
Kind regards.
Dear Brenda,
I agree with every word you say. I particularly liked your comment “As a so called ‘leader’ Bolton is tiresome and, quite frankly, so are your monologue’s in support of him”. Well said. I thought contibutions to ukipdaily were supposed to be 1,000 words maximum. Mr. Allen’s contribution ran to 1,262 words and was very dull. You did well to read a third of the lecture. I gave up long before that. Why is Mr. Allen so keen on Henry Bolton? It’s a mystery to me. Won’t someone enlighten me?
We did indeed bend the rules, allowing those 1,200+ words to go through. After all, we wouldn’t want to be accused of not allowing the voice of a Bolton defender heard in its entirety …
I’m guilty of writing long arricles, too ?
There’s a difference between’long’ and ‘boring’. Jo M would probably… actually I think I’ll leave it there!
Regards.
Here’s a suggestion. Rather than argue endlessly with a blinkered monomaniac like Allen, why don’t the rest of us extend our life expectancy by just ignoring him from now on. Tedious crashing bore doesn’t even scratch the surface…
You might do better by addressing the arguments, though I do understand how difficult that must be when a bit of name calling is so much mor satisfying.
Yay! Like it immensely. Ignore the old devil.
Regards.
Hello Beverley
I didn’t count the number of words – just got bored with him, as usual. Occurred to me that if I was walking down the street in a bubbly mood and bumped into D Allen then a ‘Good morning’ from him would be so tedious I’d probably be depressed for the rest of the day.
As to why he is so keen on Bolton – haven’t a bally clue. Suspect there is something in it somewhere for him though.
Best wishes.
At last, something you said I completely agree with.
‘havent a bally clue’. Spot on old girl, it shows with every word you type.
Mr Allen,
How cold and disinterested you sound. You call the comments attributed to Jane Collins “as based in the flimsiest of evidence”.
She spoke out against the Muslim rape gangs operating in South Yorkshire. She spoke out in defence of the young women whose lives had been shattered by abuse.
Her comments were based on the evidence of these young women and the events surrounding their abuse.
Personally i applaud politicians who take up the cause of people who find it difficult or impossible to defend themselves. Politicians of any party should be called out if they fail to help or assist people who cannot find the means to do so themselves.
What would your policy be in a similar situation Mr Allen, turn a blind eye? Or perhaps continue to work on updating computer programmes to get emails out quicker on behalf of an increasingly irrelevant political party, to an ever dwindling membership?
I would be interested in your thoughts.
John,
I think the party could ask for donations from the members to pay towards Jane’s legal costs, but I would like to know just out of interest whether she has ever donated any part of her wages from the EU to the party.
Let me know how that goes?
We, on the NEC, understood she had legal bills and were duly sympathetic ?
Not sympathetic, though, to all the candidates who lost their deposits.
Utterly self serving and quite disgraceful.
David,
No, I don’t think I will bother, you have a single track mind: yourself.
Hi DD
None of his ruddy business anyway. He’s looking for anything that might make his ‘good old pal, jolly old pal’ look good. Ah well, some people do like a futile challenge. Poor old thing that he is.
Kind regards.
Clearly, I’m very interested, but you misunderstand spectacularly.
Jane Collins wasn’t sued for libel because she was speaking out, it was because she alleged, without any evidence, that some Labour councillors knew the grooming was taking place.
It is in order to accuse these councillors of incompetence, insufficient interest, perhaps even allowing political correctness to influence their actions, but no, Jane Collins went that one step further into libel. By doing that she took the pressure of the Labour council and made the story about herself and no longer about the wicked actions of these grooming gangs.
By doing this and changing the focus away from the council, she showed a degree of political ineptness. By libelling the councillors, she showed an amazing degree of stupidity. Her actions have done little to bring the dilatory authorities to book.
UKIP then became involved at the direction, I believe, of John Bickley, the treasurer and entered a legal argument they had no right to do. A typically incompetent decision by people unqualified and unsuited to senior management roles.
As a candidate in the 2017 general election I fought a campaign with only a handful of helpers overall. It cost me between £2,500 and £3,000 which I paid for personally, because the party had no money. I. like many other candidates, were totally ignored by the party, with not even one communication from the leadership group. We were, left on our own. Whilst I was trying to do my bit the party was squandering cash on personal campaigns and getting involved in a legal action that may still bankrupt the party.
If you prefer to be led by the incompetent, the self-interested and the stupid, you would do well to keep the current regime in place. Hopefully, most will see this attack on a mandated leader for what it is, a power struggle with scant disregard for members, or the objectives of the party.
She was NOT talking about COUNCILLORS, she was talking about MPs (Current vs previous was a clear point of dispute). Dennis McShane has said, on the record, he chose not to,look under rocks in case it messed up the multikulti policy. Do you REALLY understand the issues/case, here? ?
Correction. Mps indeed, not councillors. However, the principle of my entire argument isn’t diminished by this.
You foget, she lost the case, therefore wrong.
If you feel so strongly about it perhaps you might care to repeat her allegations? You know, really stand up for people, in that really stupid kind of way.
amongst many other things, I ran her recent leadership campaign website. ?
Oops:
I should declare an interest: amongst many other things, I ran her recent leadership campaign website! ?
Let’s hope the GDPR brings editable comments ?
Wow, I would have kept quiet about that. She barely registered with numbers of votes, even with the transferred support of the effervescent Coburn, the anonymous Mason, and the hugely popular (in his universe), but intellectually challenged Walker. Thank goodness Aidan had long since booked last spot. You obviously confuse success with abject failure and have appalling judgement. I could have told you Collins was a no hoper weeks before and saved all that effort.
I wouldn’t.
John,
I agree Jane really put her neck on the line doing this,and I thought she had some evidence of a copy of a letter which they say did not exist or they got much later.
Unfortunately, I do not know all the facts about the case, but at least she had the guts to speak out, there is something seriously wrong with David’s thought processes if he thinks she was in the wrong.
I would quite happily donate something towards her court case if everyone else did. |I detect that DA may be a bit bitter about all the money he has spent on his campaign and not achieving any position, and may possibly been promised something by the very honourable Henry. All I can say is that he is foolish to believe he would honour any promise he has made to him, this man Henry is a user and abuser IMO.
I don’t think she was in the wrong, I know it. She lost the case. The court was quite clear that she was in the wrong. How do you not get that? I was so bitter about that I stumped up £5,500 for the leadership election in the knowledge that I wouldn’t win. I also stayed in the contest until after deposit returns were forfeit and that was all done quite deliberately. It’s called putting one’s money where one’s mouth is. However, it was a two off only, and my savings only allowed these two efforts. I would do the same again, in groundhog terms.
David,
I accept she lost the case, but what about the letter I was talking about which they said they had not seen? Who knows what the truth is? I said I did not know all the details about it, but I still admire her but would have admired her more if she had said something about a meeting having to be cancelled in her constituency because of threats from you know who.
Again, I ask why are you so angry and defensive? you are obviously miffed about losing your deposits and are lucky that you can afford to lose that sort of money. At the moment I struggle to pay my membership fee and certainly feel let down by your friend HB, plus having to buy a train ticket to go to Birmingham to vote.
A three year program for a completely new structure. If it looks anything like the one portrayed here it cannot be integrated/work alongside the present structure. Brexit will be done in whatever form by then.
Ah well…
UKIP have declined to a position of irrelevance and we are not in any position to influence the Brexit negotiations, whatever people might wish for. However, there will be extreme anger amongst those who voted for independence, at the Government’s watering down, so we must be strong enough to capture those disaffected votes when the time comes, which is likely to be 2022. We can do that, but not without change. Henry Bolton, is progressing this, even though there are vested interests at play who will say absolutely anything to get their way. Truth has long since left the building.
I enjoy Mr Bav’s comments and often agree but if Henry fought the Taliban or not is of little interest and whilst Mr Bav seems correct on fine detail, there are more important issues. The main one being is can he successfully lead UKIP or not, given the Marney affair. My own bet would be not and that Batten would be best, provided he is an interim leader without an election for at least say, 6 months.
if that’s not possible maybe you should stick with Henry.
Henry’s rejection at the EGM seems likely but is by no means a foregone conclusion. Either way there will have to be one election or another, for leader or NEC. ( just dump them). More delay, more division, as David says here, much of it very nasty. Remember there will be more media digging on whoever wins. It’s just endless.
Fair points Icini. You always talk sense. There are more important issues. The law of free-riding and sitting on the fence means that sitting leaders are seldom deposed. Especially with open shows of hands.
Bolton is likely to win.
However the point of this article is that its based on a false premiss and all the fussing in the world about structures make not a jot of difference.
Winning elections is about hearts and minds. And if Bolton isn’t gone by the 17th, EGM or no EGM, I’m going to back Mogg / Johnson /Gove , but only IF they depose May.
Because if Bolton does stay, UKIP is utterly finished.
How one organises an organisation is critical, and not an unimportant detail. Winning elections is what we are about, otherwise we are just a pressure group, so you are right in that respect. In case you hadn’t noticed we aren’t winning anything at the moment, and haven’t done for well over a year (before Henry Bolton). To get back to winning ways we need positive, supported and radical policy. In the last year (before Henry Bolton, again) zero in this column, not even from Gerard, who is currently pretending to be our saviour. It’s a pity he hasn’t been a bit more voluble about Brexit. We need a functioning party with directors that are accountable for the party’s fortunes, not part time amateurs calling the shots. It seems, from your understanding of business structures and organisational hierarchies, that you have little practical experience in this area.
Gerard not voluble about Brexit?
Falls on floor in amazement!!!
You know f**k all about me David. Or anything else it seems.
Run along now.
You irk me.
What you write reveals a great deal.
David Allen wrote on February 5, 2018 at 5:57 pm about Mr Bav:
“What you write reveals a great deal.”
That cuts both ways, David…
Mr Bav, “And if Bolton isn’t gone by the 17th, EGM or no EGM, I’m going to back Mogg / Johnson /Gove , but only IF they depose May.
I sympathise with how you feel, however, there is no guarantee May will be replaced by Mogg or Johnson or Gove. What if we get lumbered with Rudd, Hunt, or Hammond? Not to mention Mrs Sourberry! Perish the thought!
Lidian,
Mrs.Sourberry! Mrs.Sourpuss more like.
If the vote goes against Henry Bolton, there must be a leadership election within 90 days. Therefore, Gerard Batten cannot be interim leader for longer than 90 days. His plan for UKIP, of little real substance and is pretty much what all of us would want is purely window dressing. In reality, with an NEC election by the end of Feb and a leadership election by 17th April (or thereabouts) he will only have time to ditch the new logo. This is probably why Gerard wants to do this, he’s very upset about it.
There is NOTHING, besides impropriety, preventing an interim leader also running for the leadership, in the constitution.
I fully agree it would be improper, but what actually STOPS it?
Gerard doesn’t want to be leader, that’s blindingly obvious.
He told me that personally, but it doesn’t actually STOP him should he change his mind. What would legally stop him?
Those who don’t want to be leader often make the best leaders.
If Henry Bolton had the interests of Party at heart he would have resigned already,the MSM have made him a laughing stock. If he wins the vote on the 17th he will have no party to lead as the majority of us will resign so it will be mission accomplished as far as he is concerned.
It’s an odd outlook and quite wrong. Henry Bolton has a lot of support, whether it will be enough we’ll find out. If he prevails UKIP will be a real fighting force in a year or so, regaining support in two and bigger than we’ve ever been in three. Isn’t that what we all want?
Have you seen Jo Marney’s ‘I f*ck the hottest rock stars ‘ Tweet ?
?
Good grief is there no end to the list of stunning achievements on Henry’s CV?
Depend cwho gets (re-) elected to the NEC if he wins? I’d be standing, for one…
Keep off the grass, you’re in outer space.
As per Aiden Powlseland’s manifesto, outer space is GOOD ?
Changes to the constitution would be effected under the rules of the current constitution. Obviously.