One of the first decisions of Henry Bolton in his position as new leader was to state in the media (e.g. Daily Politics on 12 October) that our policy baseline is now the 2015 General Election Manifesto. The objective of this decision is to discard the Integration Agenda and the 2017 General Election Manifesto, which he also said had not been properly adopted in the first place and hence were not official UKIP policy. Apparently neither the Integration Agenda nor the 2017 Manifesto were agreed by the NEC, which is in breach of the rule book. Did the party go into the election with its key defining policy and entire Manifesto effectively null and void?
This reveals and represents a stunning failure of policy making and governance within the Party for which heads should roll. As the 2017 General Election candidates were undergoing the vetting and selection processes during mid- to late-April, nobody knew they would be standing on the more radical Integration Agenda, which was announced by Paul Nuttall, Peter Whittle, David Kurten and Margot Parker on 24 April. It was separate to the Manifesto which was launched one month later on 27 May. The Integration Agenda was highly divisive within the party, for example in our branch it was the reason our chairman decided to resign. Yet we are now told it was launched without the required agreement of the NEC and therefore, even though it still appears on the ukip.org website, we are now told it never existed as an official policy. Furthermore, the entire election Manifesto appears to be illegitimate!
But where were the watchdogs of the NEC to protect us from these acts of the leadership? This is probably the most divisive policy UKIP has ever introduced, and yet the chief control mechanism, requiring NEC agreement for any policy, was by-passed without a squeak. Where was the Chairman, Paul Oakden, as the leadership team rode roughshod over the rulebook? Why has nobody since been punished, with Whittle and Kurten even being allowed to run for leader? Where was the whistle blowing from NEC members on social media? If they aren’t going to defend their own roles and the rule book, then what is the point of an NEC in the first place? Does this confirm Nigel Farage’s view of the most recent crop of NEC members as being unfit for purpose, part-time sandwich-munching amateurs unfit to be in governing roles?
Following Henry Bolton’s announcement that the policy baseline would be rolled back to the 2015 manifesto, other party luminaries such as John Bickley have spoken out to argue that no, there have been no changes to policy such as the zero net migration policy. Having set policy illegitimately, senior members of the party are now trying to defend it and contradict Henry’s position.
How to sort out this mess? Firstly, if the Chairman as spokesperson for the NEC did not challenge this misappropriation of power by the leadership team at the time, then he should step down. Why did he not raise the alarm at the time? Second, why did nobody else on the NEC blow the whistle? This is such a fundamental duty of NEC members that they have demonstrated they are not fit to be NEC members. They should each issue a statement on why they decided not to say anything at the time. and consider their positions accordingly.
But is Henry right to roll back to 2015? It is hard for me, as a candidate who defended the 2017 Manifesto and the Integration Agenda, who lost friends and was publicly abused on social media because of it, not to feel like I have been thrown under a bus. I spent a lot of my own time and money to promote something that, it turns out, had not been properly approved, and indeed if it had been put to a vote perhaps it would not have been approved. But defend it I did, and now four months later I am being asked to disown it. Henry should explain this decision more clearly, the party should come clean on how it managed to go into a general election without properly adopting such a key policy and an entire manifesto, and there must be consequences. In exchange, candidates can promise not to attempt to claim our time and money back for being asked to represent the party under false pretences. Prior to Henry raising this issue there had been no public attempt by the leadership, management or NEC to correct this situation, and it appeared to have been brushed under the carpet with everybody happily continuing to go about their business.
This was a complete failure of governance and heads should roll!
Could the rule book,the constitution, articles and memorandum and other devices be too complicated ? A&M’s Normally allow almost anything. So, since the words “rule book ” invite derision the problem must lie with the NEC itself or the constitution or both. I’m not a lawyer so I’d take no notice of any of them, particularly not a committee. Until they’d precised pruned and deleted untill common sense prevailed. I think the person who wrote these must be a refugee from the labour party nec.
For heavens sake Henry organise us I gave you a month to do something ( anything ) worthwhile. you’ve got 3 days .
Since you mention the NEC and Rules, and as you ask Henry to ‘do something’, perhaps it should be pointed out that the key position(s) to be filled/changed (e.g. Party Chairman) must be ratified by the NEC. Funnily enough, the NEC meets on Saturday Oct 28th. Announcements, one assumes, will be made then – thus your demand that Henry ‘do something’ would be met.
This is one of the reasons for my resignation.
All the problems of UKIP were explained by Tomax Slivnik in his resignation letter months ago. Nothing has changed.
Having had the silly thought to go through the 2017 manifesto to identify specific policy pledges, I soon came to the conclusion that they were too numerous to bother with and I would disappear up my own **** if I tried to make anything of it. Quite simply it was obviously not thought through, they just slung in specific pledges for the sake of it. A manifesto should indeed have pledges but not more than 9 major ones and zero minor ones – we need to lodge the big ones firmly in the public mind and cut the detail, which simply fogs up the big issues and gives the MSM ammunition to use against us later.
Keep the next manifesto simple for heaven’s sake.
I, along with many others , have been saying the NEC is not fit for purpose for months
Dear Kenneth (James Ogilvie),
You say “the NEC is not fit for purpose”.
Most of the people who get elected to the NEC seem to be fine people and good businessmen or lawyers.
What seems “not fit for purpose” is the way the NEC operates.
The NEC does not elect its own chairman, does not set its own agenda and is often faced with urgent decisions, namely (a) agree or (b) bring the campaign to a halt.
The question arises: who designs the method of operation of the NEC? Who will redesign it?
Regards, Toby, 01932-87557
I was also a parliamentary candidate who was not entirely comfortable with the integration agenda. I think I understood the reasons behind it, and sympathised with them, but was not fully in agreement with the manifesto policies. But I think “heads should roll” is a gross overreaction:
(1) The integration agenda policies were certainly defensible, and the most controversial ones have been implemented in several countries overseas and had been given support or at least serious consideration from politicians from several parties. The controversy was only because they were being promoted by UKIP, which surely ought not to have been a surprise, nor difficult to handle.
(2) It’s surely reasonable, and the right thing to do, for a local candidate (a) to focus on the policies of particular importance to him and to his constituents (b) to demur from individual policies with which he does not agree or in which he does not have full confidence, when asked. That’s what I did.
Rule of thumb.
Before you do anything else decide what your aims are. Once you’ve done that things such as policies, organisation, people, money will fall into place.
The media will always look for anything we publish or say that helps them ridicule us. You only have to look at how the ” Badger chasing” item was dressed as if Henry had said the words rather than his interviewer and even people in here happily swallowed the story. There was much excellent policy in the 2015 manifesto, as someone else said, parts of it were repeated in 2017. It was utterly ignored by the MSM and ordinary voters rarely read manifestos.
We do need to have some key policies that are different from other parties and not just Brexit but they have to be practical things that appeal to the majority of the electorate, not just to a minority.
Well Nigel works for the Torygraph….er sorry Telegraph now. Perhaps you could ask him what it’s acceptable for Kippers to talk about and have policies on. He no doubt has worked out what’s ok, to keep on the right side of the MSM
The 2015 manifesto was brilliant; once I’d read it from start to finish my mind was made up to vote UKIP.
I did question to myself why it took so long to bring out the 2017 manifesto, seeing as much of it was much the same (and why not) with the exception of the ‘integration agenda’ additions. The problem was that much of the ‘good bits’ of the manifesto were rarely discussed in public, with the media focussing on (and subsequently ridiculing) the ‘ban-the-burqa’ policy (‘what about beekeepers?’ etc).
So yes I agree the 2015 manifesto is a good foundation to ‘begin again’ from, with a bit of tweaking to bring it up to date.
But I would urge Mr Bolton to start work now on getting the party’s manifesto brushed up, as I fear we are heading for another General Election sometime soon, maybe as early as next year.
I really don’t think anyone cares about the manifesto.They want slogans repeated 8 times. With politicians able to answer understandably and confident with the answer, without being boring, and a joke or putdown, and reassurance that all will be good.
I certainly dont . I want serious persuasive and thought out answers.
Not dull repetition that stuns the brain with it’s ordinariness.
The 2017 manifesto was rushed, a certain vote looser and plain wrong. Personally I completely ignored it. Henry is right to dump it, the 2015 edition was a very good document.
No way to be radical without the awkwardness of disowning the watering down which went on in a fruitless search for ‘respectabiity’. Without it might as well give up.
Not sure who us advising Henry, butAFAIK the NEC saw the draft policies and approved. Should be an interesting meeting at month end!
You are not the only candidate who was horrified by the promotion of that policy, the finer details of which I could not support (routine examination for FGM, blanket burka ban) when FFS any fule know it’s the economy stupid. Bill Etheridge got it right at the London informal Q&A (before he withdrew as a candidate) Abolish VAT when we exit the EU – what a stormin’ help business, help small tradesmen who want to expand policy that would have been.
At the same meeting I couldn’t help but notice David Kurten’s discomfort as he acknowledged he had been involved in the press conference.I supported his standing, even signed his papers but was not committed to voting for him for that reason. Only when Ben Walker threw in his lot with Jane & Henry tried to challenge AMW’s candidacy did I finally decide he had to be my man.
As for Peter – he was the bookies favourite, I think the reason his vote tanked was because of the 2017 manifesto – don’t completely tar him though and overlook Suzanne’s role in it.
How would you tackle FGM?
There has not been a single successful prosecution.
To prosecute, you need evidence. How would you gather the evidence except by examination of at-risk girls?
How traumatic would a couple of minutes examination be, compared to the pain of the cutting, and a lifetime of discomfort?
Indeed, the end justifies the means.