The disastrous leadership of Henry Bolton now makes the problems we faced during the year before look like some kind of golden age. It’s become a cliché to say that UKIP is drinking in the last chance saloon – we have after all heard it time and time again – but surely, this time it is true.
The public has lost patience with us, and it’s hard to blame them. Many good members likewise have thrown in the towel in the past few months. They have spent years courageously facing hostility and often aggression defending our beliefs. Beliefs which we know are the right ones and which have transformed British politics. But when that hostility instead turns to ridicule – when, indeed you find yourself regarded as a joke, a national laughing stock – then for many, loyalty is put under an intolerable strain, and finally snaps.
As leader of the UKIP Group in the London Assembly and one of the UKIP leader’s team of spokespeople, I was one of the first to call for Bolton to resign after he’d lost the NEC vote of confidence. In such circumstances, we tend to rely on an individual’s sense of decency and self-respect to do the right thing. That such qualities are totally absent in this case has become glaringly apparent.
It has brought us to the situation where we will have to go through an EGM, an event which we as a party can ill-afford financially and around which the media will feed with relish. But it’s happening, and I urge members to go to Birmingham on Saturday week in as great a number as possible to get rid of a man who should have gone weeks ago.
For me, this current crisis has little to do with questions of morality or private lives. It has to do with the fact that the first time the public – and many of our members indeed – became aware of Henry Bolton in any meaningful sense was when his relationship with Joe Marney was splashed across the tabloids. For in the four months leading up to that, since he was elected in Bournemouth, there had been virtual radio silence.
In the week after his election, Bolton visited us at City Hall to attend a Make Votes Matter event I was hosting. From then up until now, I have had precisely two telephone conversations with him. There was virtually zero communication from our leader, something which I know has hugely frustrated other senior figures from the Deputy Leader down. There was just one meeting of our ridiculously oversized “cabinet” in the whole four month period.
Likewise there was minimal media coverage. At the very time that the betrayal of Brexit was providing us with an open political goal, our leader was hardly to be seen. And crucially, there was precisely nothing done to rebuild and develop our policy base. The importance of this cannot be overestimated, especially at a time when the very point of us as a party is being called into question.
From the moment he became leader, I had declared my loyalty to Bolton, starting with my speech at that same conference. However it became inescapable to me and others that even before the events around Christmas, the party had elected a dud.
So he must go. But what after February 17th? I’ll offer a few observations if I may, which I hope will be taken in the constructive spirit in which they’re given.
In time, there will have to be yet another leadership contest. I strongly suspect that it will be very much like last year’s, with a high number of candidates, some familiar and some whom you and I have hitherto never heard of. I would suggest that there should be a short campaign after the May elections, and not the long, drawn out affair which last year kept the party in suspended animation for the whole summer.
Secondly – and this is crucial – the vetting process must be rigorous and thorough. Henry Bolton came into the election race last year very late, unknown, but trailing a CV which he made much of at every opportunity. The fact that Sandhurst does not award BAs – he’d stated he had one – should have been discoverable with almost no effort. Similarly, the fact that he had stood for the LibDems a few years ago failed to come to light for the whole of the leadership campaign – I first heard of it on the very day the result was announced. How exactly can that happen?
The party cannot withstand anymore Walter Mittys, opportunists or those whose sole ambition is to lead something. Everything that the candidate has done or said on the record, every claim that he or she makes about their past careers and achievements must be explored, check and rechecked. Nothing should be taken on trust. This might seem harsh, but we’re talking about the survival of the party here. We cannot give the media any more hand-wrapped gifts.
Finally, the contest should be about political leadership. Sometimes last year at the seventeen or so hustings I took part in, it seemed as though the party was electing a chairman rather than a leader. Often discussions were obsessively inward-looking. No-one doubts that the party needs serious restructuring. But now, more than ever, we need to be electing someone to look outwards to the public, to be known as the face of our party, and to communicate effectively against the betrayal of Brexit.
That process must start on February 17th.
Photo by derek4ukip
Extreme vigilance is once again called for.
Tinker Bell came visiting and whispered this to me:
Trojan Horse candidates exist in the 2018 NEC Election. Their brief is to somehow enable, and usher in, a former party functionary as the next Leader.
This person will complete the job that he and his mates prematurely abandoned (thinking the mission was accomplished) – and have UKIP shut down entirely, or rendered wholly useless.
From motive, most can be learned:
His enablers’ motive – the reward of positions they’ll get on the ship, unaware they’re just useful idiots since he’s only there to send the ship to Davy Jones’ Locker.
His motive – filthy lucre.
His paymasters’ motivation – “elevation”.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC, from whose writings I learned politics.
*”Silent enim leges inter arma”*
Gerard Batten should become the leader of UKIP and Peter Whittle should become the deputy leader of UKIP. Gerard Batten and Peter Whittle would make a great team.
Thank you Peter.
I believe Gerard Batten with his COUNTRY FIRST policies is the only way for
UKIP, of course it’s not just about Gerard, Peter and others who have posted here seem more “together”now, and this is what is needed, with the support of the VATs, we would get “truth” out there to the voter.
We went into party first mode, with the reforming/unifying party leadership.
Lets just put country first.
Dear George (Edwards),
You say “dossier four inches thick on Whittle”.
Was that dossier made known to the returning officer (etc) in the run up to the September 2017 leadership election?
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557
Attention all readers!
We are finalising the relocation of this site to a different server. Therefore, this site will be in lock-down from 9 a.m. tomorrow, Friday 9th February. Normal service to resume as soon as everything is done, so do check in from time to time. See you all on the flip side!
Your UKIP Daily Team
Peter,
Thank you for your fine article, let’s hope we get it right this time, because we do not seem to be learning from our mistakes and it cannot go on.
Bolton threatens Mick McGough for ‘insulting’ his girlfriend (Acknowledgements to Luke & co MBGA )
http://mbganews.com/2018/02/07/is-henry-bolton-ordering-the-ukip-nec-to-delete-content-to-please-racist-marney/
Thanks for posting this Mr.Bav,
It introduced me to more of MBGA`s work which is very useful and interesting and certainly goes where the MSM doesn`t.
Unfortunately he needs donations to keep it up and I am not in a position to do so.
Particularly as I had a cheeky letter from our interim chairman the other day asking for donations to the EGM that his man necessitated.
I won`t be donating until HB is voted off and I would have thought the bill for the cost of the EGM should be presented to him – even if he wins it doesn`t mean the NEC were incorrect in attempting to bring him to book, it would just mean he had coerced sufficient people with his snakeoil malarkey – still doesn`t make his behaviour right or prove it didn`t happen – so he must pay.
Stop it out of his stipend or if he goes for a parting pay off stop it out of that.
George,
Is he protecting his wife and daughters then?
And the latest: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5362763/amp/Ukip-leader-Henry-Bolton-spotted-Jo-Marney.html?__twitter_impression=true
Didn’t Mr Bolton state that his leadership was incompatible with his relationship with Ms Marney.
She’s also very active on Twitter, accusing Mick McGough of calling her a prostitute.
Mr, Bav,
I think we need to be careful what we call her apart from a ‘tart’.
Wise words DD. Bolton and Marney seem to be ready to cause as much trouble as possible and we might well be advised not to give them any ammunition.
Kind regards.
She is being used by Bolton. She’s too young to realise. She’s her proxy to attack . Which is why she attacks me, not Bolton, who is a pencil – necked coward. A 54 year old man, posing as a ‘French Commando’ lying about ‘fighting in Afghanistan’ lying about not one, but two degrees, who falsifies the fact that he was an Army officer in 1990 , when he wasn’t until 1992, and who hides behind a 24 year girl, whilst his abandoned wife still suckles his rejected child.
How in God’s name, could ANYONE regard this man as a leader.
Give me strength.
She seems to become more foul mouthed with each day that passes. You’ve certainly had some nasties thrown your way. You deserve a medal for going the extra mile and putting yourself in the firing line.
The continuing bad behaviour from her and Bolton is more than enough to prove his unsuitability as leader – and I use the word ‘leader’ very loosely.
Kind regards.
We haven’t finished yet Brenda !
If we do —- He wins.
Keep up the attack.—– No Guts ! No Glory !
Dear Mr Bickley
I can only assume that you, and the rest of the NEC (with the obvious exception of Bolton), must be at your wits end with the ongoing situation.
Thank you for communicating with members and supporters here. Assuming we manage to get rid of him I do hope that such communications will continue as we strive to rebuild the party.
In the meantime, my best wishes to you and your NEC colleagues at this very difficult time.
Regards.
Hear Hear!
Definitely!
Mr. Bav,
Seconded.
Imagine a devout Hillary supporter saying to her comrades “Trump was the better man.” It would make her comrades psychotic.
UKIP will mend if we snap out of our equivilent denial. Nigel is not Allah-of-UKIP and all the NEC purges since 2015 cannot be glossed over.
I am together with my local branch chair rounding up members to travel to Brum to see off HB. We are taking bets on whether he will do the decent thing and jack it in before the EGM convenes. However, I hope there is time for a general discussion from members with the Hierarchy on the platform. My wish is for more members and more branches behind a credible leader like Gerard Batten.
We’re behind you in most of Surrey
Dear Purple,
In my branch (the world famous SWAMP branch) the motion at the AGM that “Henry should be asked to do the decent thing and resign” was passed by 12 votes to 1.
So you have our solid support.
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557, Runnymede, Surrey
George,
I think we need to witness an open count of these votes particularly if it turns out to be close.
Dear George (Edwards),
At our branch we had an open show of hands 12 to 1 in support of the NEC.
The EGM has now switched from an open show of cards to a secret ballot. I can see why some members might want a secret ballot. But….
… an open show of cards, photographed, would put the result beyond challenge.
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557
AS I have been posting since late June 2016, build on the membership, it was the only common sense route to take.
In the interminable leadership election, I was looking for a candidate who had a few UKIP principles and the passion and commitment to connect them to the public again. Henry OBE failed badly IMO and proved it when elected. Claiming a “right to privacy” when you are a public representative is bogus and serial philiandering is a serious indictment of character, which now exposed, should be enough to rule out such a person to lead an august party of conservative temperament.
But that is only half of it. Compare: The Freedom Association, a cross-party pressure group has in the last six months set up a daily newsfeed and commentary on Brexit; printed and distributed three pretty good leaflets; started issuing a series of education videos on Brexit issues.
She who I cannot mention: AMW, has set up a party and communicates fortnightly with supporters and now several times per week, to inform on progress and comment on a wide rage of matters……occasionally Islam. As a non member, I find them interesting and yseful.
What has UKIP been doing to compare? Henry OBE nothing, not even with the ready-made OUT NOW campaign. Save Pur Services……a total flop. No campaigning, no reconnecting UKIP with the public, no communication with members or anyone on issues. No leadership of shadow cabinet or anyone.
These are the most important reasons why I hope members go to Brum and vote him OUT. I shall not be there. Too many ferrets, too many sacks, too much navel- gazing and no action.don’t
If you want him out then don’t rely on others; your vote is needed
Flights booked! ✈️
Optimistically – with option to cancel ?
Absolutely ! Abstaining guarantees that he wins. If you can, go and vote!
This is my first comment on this site,I have been a member for many years but have not been physically active due to health issues.
My take on all this is UKIP needs a steady pair of hands that can lead,be proactive and led the party forward. Mr.Bolton has been a complete waste of space,no real coverage for the party since he took over in the time of the Brexit negotiations. We have act now,quickly and effectively because the party has to get together and fight for all it is worth in the May local elections. All the pro Brexit voters feel betrayed by the political elite in all the main parties and UKIP can trawl up those disgruntled voters who want to protest…it is the chance to get back on track and show all those in Westminster that they are under watchful eye of the electorate
Wilkommen! ?
Surely the answer to the question How can we avoid another Bolton/Carswell/Reckless/ KilroySilk or indeed Waters, is that UKIP should always recruit from inside the party and that nobody should be allowed to stand for the leadership or senior post without having been an active member for 5 years.
Better the devil you know !
That would also have precluded Tory defector and ex-MP Roger Knapman ?
Rob,
Well, rules is rules.
Peter Whittle, thanks for the article which was agreeable.
Your question “How UKIP Can Avoid Another Henry Bolton” ?
The answer lies in Banana splits or trifurcation.
Post Farage there was a period (post referendum haze) up to the election of HB, which led to drop off from the membership, some split to the Conservatives, some to Labour. Some UKIP members who stayed on became disgruntled during the post referendum haze.
HB was elected. HB & Nigel Farage caused the second split. Some left to join the group which must not be named, others stayed adding to the numbers of the disgruntled.
HB’s behaviours in office led to the NEC vote of no confidence. Through not resigning there will now be an expensive (£ + time + fuel) cathartic EGM, which whatever the outcome will lead to a third split. Some will doggedly remain in UKIP and join the growing band of the disgruntled.
All the meantime the membership shrinks and the disgruntled grows.
If the EGM supports the NEC then there is a way out of the dangers which Peter Whittle outlines.
I would like to see Gerald Batten take over as interim leader and if there is to be a leadership contest I agree it must not be a football team.
Three people stand out as future leaders for UKIP.
Gerard Batten, David Kurten and Luke Nash-Jones.
There may be a fourth but at least the field is narrowed.
Luke Nash-Jones in a way represents the future for the rejuvenation of UKIP. He would heal some of the former splits and bring priceless energy back to UKIP.
He is also field tested and has a large media presence beyond the dead hand of the BBC and favoured news-media outlets. He passes Peter Whittle’s CV test.
The two alternatives remaining are Gerard Batten/David Kurten or if the EGM ‘chooses’ HB.
The HB choice would see UKIP members down to the remainder from three splits and include the disgruntled.
Some of the banana skins UKIP has slipped along with, have been placed deliberately and this EGM is such.
Three choices.
Henry Bolton & Nigel Farage
Gerard Batten, David Kurten or another.
Luke Nash-Jones
[<365]
Perhaps now is the time to get a few things sorted? You may remember that Diane James was elected to leader. She had, whilst standing at the hustings, sorted out a whole host of strategies to enable the party to be run efficiently. This included high powered people to be put into place to effect such policies. She however found within a few days that she had no support for any such strategy so very unfortunately resigned. Very sad.
So how can we proceed from here? If Henry Bolton is not successful in retaining his leadership, will anyone be able to sort anything out? I do not personally support Bolton in any shape or form, just feel the need to put a good structure in place and how can this be done?
Structure, structure, structure….really? This will miraculously make up for the absence of distinctive policies that will appeal to an electorate?
We’ve had an endless stream of wannabees and leaders all carping on about structure to disguise that they cannot do the one thing really required of a leader – political leadership.
Enough of structure and deck chair arrangers. We need someone to plug the policy hole that is really behind the party sinking.
She BLAMED alleged ‘lack of support’ .
That’s not the same as it being the real cause of her resignation (which is basically that she never really wanted the job and was pushed into standing by Nigel F.)
It has been pointed out by a member of NEC that from the day of her election to the day of her resignation she NEVER EVEN MET WITH the NEC to offer them her plans or to ‘seek their support’ or for anything else !
How then could she possibly claim ( or you believe ) that ‘lack of support ‘ was the reason she resigned ?
She could not possibly know anything about the state of my support as a nec member, without having, erm, actually met me first! ?
Rob,
Correct me if I`ve got this wrong, I thought you resided in Switzerland and “attended” by sending a facsimile of your fizzog via the ether.(I note you have booked your plane to Brum)
How could she have “met” you first?
I flew in to London every month, at my expense, and had booked flights for my 1:1 with her the Friday before she won her “VC”.
She sent the following email on the day before:
Dear All
Tomorrow we had planned to meet and many of you had kindly agreed to do so
Regretfully I am cancelling these meetings
The information I required to make effective use of our individual 1:1 sessions has not been forthcoming.
I am trusting that with this level of notice I will have minimised disruption to your travel plans etc
Paul – please ensure that the meeting room arrangements are cancelled too.
Regards
Diane
———————
Dear Rob
Further to our conversation last week, I’m writing to confirm your one to one meeting with Diane James in London on Friday.
The meeting will take place at the UKIP office, 40 Great Smith St, London, SW1P 3BU and Diane will be expecting you at 2:15pm.
If you have any further questions relating to the meeting then by all means contact me by reply.
I can also confirm that our next full NEC meeting will take place on Monday 17th October 2016. I will write with official confirmation along with details of the venue at some point next week.
Kind Regards
Paul Oakden
Party Chairman
OK
You win – she`s a B…………!!!!
Re: your semi-detached format, I was going back to the good ol` days of the old Forum when I seem to remember your saying that you had a special arrangement with the NEC whereby they had agreed you could attend meetings via a camera.
Steve Crowther signed off on trying it, but Nigel said If I wanted him to assent, I would need to agree to be there in person so he could “look me in the eyes”.
Ironic, given his attendance record ?
Roger,
I am beginning to think that Nigel and Diane think they should be treated like royalty in our party.
Jennifer, Rhys,
Diane didn’t really want to be leader – true
Diane had a plan to reorganise the party, including a shadow cabinet (I asked her that one in Eastleigh) -true
I have heard it said that some aspects were not suited to a political party – well so be it, that’s the role of the party solicitor to scrutinise and advise modifications surely.
She was assured she could go ahead as part of the conditions of her standing – true
The minute she wanted to act – including having the party accounts fully opened to her she was blocked!
In her 18 days she didn’t manage to meet the NEC.
So who is doing the blocking? Correct – not the NEC
I have tried to get the names out of a few people who I am sure know – like Roger Bird but so far failed. However you should look no further than Gerard Batten’s ‘immediate actions’ in his ‘Way Forward’ IMHO
IIRC I gather she wanted the party accounts made available to someone (not her) we had never heard of!
Dear Jennifer,
Ms James never even bothered to meet with the party officers or the NEC. Apart from erecting lots of straw men at the hustings she did nothing once elected and then left in a huff.
Many of the MEPs who worked closely with her alleged before she was elected that (i) she didn’t really want the job & (ii) wouldn’t last long as she wouldn’t be able to do the job and withstand the pressure. In the end she just disappeared; we couldn’t get hold of her the week before she left.
On the change of leader form submitted to the Electoral Commission she wrote (in latin) in the signature box ‘under duress’ – the oddest thing I’ve ever seen!
Well the truth is out about her then what a shame?
Where do we go with this situation then?
Thanks for all above who have bothered to answer my queries about Diane James.
Jennifer,
She is not worth discussing IMO, especially after her outburst on LBC with Nigel, she gives a very poor excuse for just abandoning her post,but she has stayed as an MEP. If she had been paid a substantial wage for being leader I wonder if she would have stayed? I do believe that they should be paid by the way.
Dear Peter (Whittle),
Like you, I recall that many questions at the hustings focused on how the new Leader would deal with improving the structure/administration of UKIP. The reason for this is the utter frustration of the Ordinary Members and Branch Committees at local level, which those in command continue to ignore. We are not even told exactly WHO is in command! It is certainly more people than just the Chairman, Leader, and NEC. How did they get their jobs? How can they be removed? What do they all do and who pays them and how much? Where does all the money go? What are everyone’s responsibilities? To whom are they accountable? Nobody knows.
I’d be happy to write to you personally under separate cover with a whole list of problems at local Branch level which go ignored year after year by the people at the top of the Party, if you would find that helpful.
The Leader, whether that be Henry or someone else, should not have to spend his/her time on such matters. He/she should be concentrating on policy and publicity. Who then will act as Operational Director? Henry would have been ideal for this role, rather than for the Leadership role, in my opinion, but it is too late to worry about that now.
Do we have such a person? If so, who is it? The Party Chairman or someone else? If we do have such a person, then he/she is not doing their job and should be sacked.
In my experience, at Branch level we operate DESPITE the people appointed at the top of the Party, certainly not because of them. You and everyone else with any authority in UKIP should be ashamed of that. As I say, I am happy to send you examples if you wish.
At the next hustings I will continue to ask prospective Leader candidates what they will do to reform the structure and administration of UKIP, because even though that ought not to be the Leader’s role, nobody else seems to take responsibility for it. You have already given one perfect example of this which is that nobody vetted any of the Leader candidates last summer. How can the ordinary Members trust anyone higher up the food chain if the lot of you all put together couldn’t even organise that? And don’t tell me it is because everyone is very busy, when you have a pool of some 25,000 volunteers to choose from.
Writing this note, I am half expecting to receive my P45 for bringing the party into disrepute by airing these problems in public. If so, so be it. Just don’t post it to me until after 17 February please.
Dear Ruth,
The party has the following elected officers (who may or may not be members of the NEC) and are often unpaid roles :
party leader
treasurer
chairman
party secretary
general secretary
NEC
regional officers
That’s it.
On a day to day basis the party is run by the leader, their appointed chairman and their staff.
Dear Ruth,
It’s good that John Bickley has given you the list, but let me expand a bit.
The leader is directly elected by us.
The chairman is appointed by the leader (with a nod from the NEC). Very powerful position.
Treasurer, Party secretary and general secretary. Normally recommended by the chairman or leader and confirmed by the NEC. You have to be pretty heroic to volunteer. The treasurer may have to pay in when things get tight.
NEC, elected by us.
Regional officers seem to be appointed by the centre, without any input from the regions concerned.
What has NOT got a mention is that the branch structure leads up to counties and regions. The chairmen of the regions have NO power at centre and it’s about time they did, IMHO.
There are many reasons for dis-function including:
*** NEC members NOT allowed to talk freely.
*** NEC minutes redacted and often NOT published.
*** NEC published minutes do NOT say how members voted individually.
*** Regional chairmen could BE the NEC but are NOT. Indeed they have NO power at the centre.
*** The RORC has a chairman thrust upon it, and its minutes go nowhere, thus neutering it.
*** The NEC has a chairman thrust upon it, thus semi-neutering it.
There are loads more constitutional matters to discuss, many of which have been mentioned in articles on this site.
BTW re-writing the constitution is a major task. I prefer amendments.
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557
Just a thought. For simplicity could not an amendment be made where the 12 Regional Chairmen were part of the NEC ? Just added to it ? The quorum of an NEC meeting should be 13 ( a majority ) .
Then the Regional Chairmen can disseminate information directly to their respective branches and solve an awful lot of the communication issues?
Does this have to be complicated?
Fairly easy, but if you know what currently goes on, all the extra discussion would make it pretty unwieldy – and it would also double the size of venue we require…
Dear Mr Bav,
(Thank you for your admirable articles and postings on UKIPD).
As a perhaps more manageable alternative, maybe the Regional Chairmen could elect one representative from amongst their number who could be on the NEC.
This may deal with Rob’s objection (too many people in the room).
It’s worth re-reading Parkinson’s Law annually, IMHO. One finds that NO group above about 5 people can manage anything.
And BTW the maximum number of people on a branch committee (eight) is a joke, straight out of Parkinson!
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557
Then lets go for Toby’s compromise solution?
It seems to make sense ?
Rob/ Toby, you seem to know the rules pretty well, How about the two of you knocking up a draft idea right now? Lets act.
Seems to me UKIP needs a touch of “ACTION THIS DAY! ” as Churchill used to say !
Subject to NEC ratification, and an EGM if that fails, which makes him sort-of elected – he has to grub-around for votes.
Of course, there was the time when Nigel announced his new chairman to conference, and “dared” the NEC not to ratify ?
I’m afraid this comment shows how so often our party seems to go one step forward and two back.
An immediate, intemperate ad hominem attack on me. And what rumours about my past exactly ?
Are you incapable of simple discussion ?
Dear Peter
I hope this will not put you off using this site to communicate with members. Generally, we’re a good bunch of people, most of us appreciate the ‘higher ups’ writing for, and debating with, us.
Indeed, one of the most frequent complaints against H Bolton has been his sheer lack of communication.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards.
Members have just received another email Message by Chairman Paul Oakden.
Isn’t it wonderful that we’re being told what to make of the News by our Chairman – but haven’t heard a peep from our Leader …
Viv, I personally don’t want to hear another squeak out of him. Even Goodbye would be too much.
Agree with most of what you say Vivian, we at Bexhill and Battle committee struggle on too regardless, shame as such a loyal bunch and worked for the party using all our resources, as I am sure many other branches have done. You say the partey needs reorganisation, this if you remember is what Diane James set out to do. She had before becoming leader, set up a highly comprehensive strategy on how the party should be run. Unfortunately, within days, she found that she had no support from whomever, MEPS, party heads or whom. It would be good before we launch into yet another leadership election to sort a few things first do you not think?
If she had a plan she didn’t share it with the party officers or the NEC
Same with Mr Bolton – after four months we have no idea what his plans are for the party.
Hello Viv
Could Paul Oakden tell the UKIP members what UKIP now stands for apart from leaving the EU. I notice that he is quiet on the leaked 4 page EU document. Which is more important for him, comments on British Political Parties or does he approve of the EU’s “dictatorial negotiation stance”.
I can now appreciate why there is hatred of him in the branch that I am a member of. I can understand why the leadership candidates wanted to sack him. What added value does P Oakden give to UKIP, Whilst H Bolton is quiet I would expect P Oaken to promote UKIP.
H Bolton forgot the motto “serve to lead” that the used in UKIP meeting in Derby. Does P. Oakden understand the motto.
Anna Soubry has now overstepped the mark and should be regarded as a non entity.
Regards
David T.
Today?
I think I’m reading this right and you are referring to the email Viv mentioned. Lots of comments between so got a bit confused!
I got an email from Paul Oakden timed at 10.36 this morning.
Regards.
Found it, thanks – Gmail app has started filing in “promotions”.
Good, sound article from Peter Whittle, again validating the comments made by John Bickley, Mike Hookem, Steve Crowther and Bill Etheridge regarding the sheer lack of productivity from Bolton and his dire communication skills.
From what I’ve seen of Peter Whittle on various news and politics TV programmes, he does seem to be a very solid individual and always does the party great credit.
Kind regards.
Peter is absolutely right that we faced abuse when campaigning legitimately and lawfully. Even so, we could still get our message through to some people.
Alas, he is also right that that is not possible at all when the party is a laughing stock and supporters are ridiculed. I’m fairly thick skinned and have campaigned in the face of threats and abuse. But I will not be campaigning for Bolton and in the face of ridicule.
Bolton’s supporters do not see, will not see, that a leader who renders the party a joke has removed any chance at all for the party to recover with the electorate. Ridicule, which finished David Steel as a politician for example, is far more electorally damaging than hostility or abuse.
UKIP is split between those who saw Bolton was electorally finished and want him gone asap and those who seem to understand very little about politics. If Bolton wins on 17th Feb I am in no doubt that UKIP is finished. If he loses then there is still hope, some chance of a future.
I agree totally with you as you your last two sentences.
IF HB wins ( and I fear that by dint of bussing in supporters plus NF’s pulpit support demonizing the NEC it’s not impossible ) then UKIP collapses totally.
I do not know a single member in the NorthEast who would be able to stay an active member, or even renew when the time comes round.
Stout Yeoman, Your last paragraph says it all.
Good on ya.
I reluctantly renewed my member purely for the EGM prospect which was subsequently scheduled for a week when I’m away. Am I the only person wondering why attendance is compulsory and there is no provision for proxy or postal votes?
It’s just one more thing that the framers / proponents of the Constitution ( step forward one Nigel Farage ! ) simply didn’t think about.
Obviously it OUGHT to be possible to conduct this vote postally, or maybe even at Branches on a specific date, with Chairs emailing the result to someone independent such as the Electoral Reform Society to collate numbers.
But we are where we are ~it is emphatically NOT the fault of the current NEC members what the Constitution requires ~they are merely complying with its provisions.
Another modification to consider would be that when a qualified majority ( and certainly if unanimous ! ) of the NEC requires the Leader to step down then that should be sufficient.
An EGM should be required only in the event of the NEC being evenly ( or almost evenly ) split.
But this is just another modification which will be necessary when the Constitution gets re written.
http://www.ukipdaily.com/essential-policies-new-leader-adopt/
It’s important that at an EGM the motion or motions are put to the attendees who may or may not change their minds upon hearing the arguments from the two sides.
The NEC has no authority to hold an EGM via a postal vote. Ironically, the party vehemently opposes postal voting in elections, other than for those who genuinely can’t get to the polling station!
Hear Hear, Peter
“Wrong and nasty.”
Right and necessary. Indeed, blindingly obvious.
Peter I too quickly became concerned but at first put it down to Mr. Bolton keeping a low profile while quietly beavering away in the background in preparation for bursting onto the political scene in a blaze of brilliant strategy couched in scintillating wit and repartee.
Well yes, he most certainly HAD been EXTREMELY busy and yes he did burst onto the scene …
It might even have been funny had it not been so sad.
All this while our country rapidly descends into third-world crime, anarchy and poverty.
I know how quickly this happens.
I’ve lived the history of Rhodesia becoming Zimbabwe.
So much to do. So little done.
And the mantle for doing it is UKIP’s.
Like it or not, history has chosen us.
So, we’d better get doing.
The time is few and the work is many.
Peter,
Good to see you posting here, I agree with your analysis about Bolton but not that we should have a Leadership campaign as early as May with as you say the possibility of a high number of candidates.
We need a period of stability and that is why I support Gerard Batten as Interim Leader. I think we can trust Gerard to put in a number of necessary reforms and stabilise the Party before another Leadership election.
The election must NOT have an unlimited number of candidates, many of whom we have never heard of. I propose a maximum of four with the criteria that they must have been members for 5 years and have been elected to office as an MEP, AM or Council. I know it sounds complicated but I would also have two rounds where the top two go to the final ballot. The second round could be eliminated if the top candidate in round one receives more than 50% of the vote.
Finally I would suggest that the Leadership election should not be held before the autumn.
The constitution requires a leadership election within 90 days. No wriggle room, sorry.
Rob,
Well what happens with the following scenario.
1. The NEC appoint Gerard Batten as Interim Leader and then call
for a Leadership election as required.
2. The NEC state that to save the Party further ridicule and
money it would be better if there was just one candidate.
That candidate should be the Interim Leader if he agrees.
When nominations close if there is just one candidate surely
that candidate has to be announced as the Leader or am I
missing something?
It is essential that we have someone who is experienced to see us through at least until the Exit from the EU. I also am strongly of the opinion that the NEC should meet immediately after the EGM result is announced. The Interim Leader should be announced to the members present and he should then be invited to give an address.
With members travelling from all over the country I think this is a golden opportunity to unify the Party and be ready for the May elections.
If only one candidate by close of nominations, they get it. It happened a few years back, when no-one challenged Nigel’s re-election in the run-up to the 2015 GE.
Who can enforce the Constitution and how and why?
The courts. And party leaders have gone down that route in the past… 😢
Allow me to point out that this article is about removing Bolton at the EGM and why.
It’s not about Peter Whittle standing as leader or about his past. So would you and others kindly stick to the topic: why Bolton must go.
Kindly point out to me where I have ‘defended Whittle’.
Publishing an article by him – for which I’ve asked him, David Kurten, the MEPs – on the Bolton affair is not = defending him.
Btw – why is it that those I did ask (see above) have not taken this opportunity? Any thoughts on that?
Unfortunately I think the UKIP brand is now fatally flawed. Henry Bolton looked promising, he talked the talk, and appeared to walk the walk. In retrospect his CV was a little too good to be true ( has he really got an OBE ? And if so what for ? ).
He is the most disastrous of the UKIP leader post Farage. The NEC also has some questions to answer after all the letters N E C stand for National EXECUTIVE Committee. So how about some actual execution then ??
I feel extremely sorry for the rank anf file UKIP membership most of whom are the salt of the earth and deserve much more than the mess they have been served up with.
I left UKIP years ago when I realised that many of the ‘leaders’ were just opportunist nutters. The NEC have been totally ineffectual at (a) identifying these folk and (b) keeping their sticky fingers off the levers.
Dear Alan Hill,
You are right to forgive the electorate for its mistakes. Indeed, one only needs to consider the examples of Napoleon-consul-for-life-Bonaparte and Adolf-would-be-chancellor-Hitler to realise that an electorate is sometimes a crazed beast (whether or not it should be forgiven for that).
The purpose of an election is to give people what they choose not what they need. A democratic system allows for the evidence of time to lead voters to a wiser place.
If anyone should be attacked for Henry’s victory it is his opponents such as me. Why did I not notice Henry’s Sandhurst BA given that it was so in my own interest to do so? Had I done so and presented it at hustings the only person who would have suffered would have been me (for the sin of engaging in in-fighting instead of setting out my own stall). I say this in a spirit of self-criticism. Leading people includes an element of trial and error. Exactly the thing democracy delivers more of than tyranny does.
Imagine that the NEC had been “effectual” in vetting candidates and one candidate they were advised by the chairman to ban would have been Anne-Marie Waters. Is the party really in a worse place now than it would have been if Anne-Marie had been banned and the circa 20% of the party who supported her denied their voice? Given that she did not win anyway I think this imagined outcome demonstrates that doing nothing showed wisdom on the NEC’s part.
Yes Henry won. Perhaps you are right that Henry is the party’s biggest disaster so far. But I hereby accuse you of a lack of imagination if you mean by this that there were not bigger disasters waiting to happen standing against him. I write this without a trace of irony you understand.
In my time I’ve been accused of many things but lack of imagination is not one of them. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to envisage an NEC which vetted all candidates thoroughly before they were allowed to stand. This at least gives the members the chance to know exactly what they are voting for. I’m guessing that the holes in Henry’s CV if known would have prevented his being elected.
Aiden,
How’s the rocket building going?
They said that once to Elon Musk…….
Mr. Bav,
Yes, but is’nt he a billionaire? and is’nt his car heading for the Asteroid belt, so there might be something in what Aidan is proposing.
Perhaps, in the future we will all be able to go into outerspace in an open top sportscar!
Maybe he’s the passenger in Elon Musk’s car to Mars? ????
Alan,
We are not dead yet!
No more football teams of candidates please. We must have a first round to whittle (no pun intended) them down to 3 max for the final choice.
Dear Purple Potty Mouth,
I believe our last Leadership election process was a triumph even if its outcome was definitely not. John Rees Evans, Anne-Marie Waters and I would all have changed the party radically but in three different directions. In this sense the members were offered a meaningful choice at exactly the moment in UKIP’s history, I would argue, the party most needed to change direction in order to survive. That the membership chose a candidate, however far from the bog or marsh, who actually stood for continuity was not the fault of the election process. This does not mean I oppose a two stage process. The last election saw off what I would call the menace of self-harming ideologies and now that self-harming in a not idealogical form has cleared the decks the next election, which I hope will be this year, will afford the party the fresh opportunity it needs to hold on to its hats.
Self harm Aidan – you’ve made my day. How I wish Henry had confined himself to ‘self harm’, to use that long outdated euphemism for the activity you were told would make you go blind.
Perhaps now all the contradictions between what he says he was doing and what he was actually doing are coming out, he did us a favour when he failed to spot a honey-trap. I’m sure you wouldn’t have been so foolish
Yes that is how I grouped the candidates for the benefit of our local members; had I known, I might have added David Kurten to the Breakout list because of his association with Alan Craig. I also thought that the Breakout candidates were more intelligent than the continuity candidates. I note that JRE has now joined the Democrats and Veterans Party via Affinity and is still talking about direct democracy and a shadow parliament. If he offers 10% interest on deposit I probably wont punt as I also managed to resist Bernie Madoff’s blandishments.
Mention of the EGM raises another point. After the sight of thugs invading Jacob Rees-Mogg’s recent meeting (and ‘Leave’ marches)it is odds-on that the same scenario will obtain at Birmingham unless security personnel are employed. Has this situation been appreciated by the leadership? What measures are in place?
You will only be able to get in to the meeting if you have a)Registered and b)show your membership card. There may be thugs from the Left outside the meeting but that is the responsibility of the ICC authorities.
Dear Peter Whittle,
You were one of the few Leadership candidates last summer to grace the NorthEast with your campaigning presence.
I was one of many who attended who was heartened by the fact of your candidature ~ your intelligence, cultured hinterland and decency all came across. Of course you got my vote. More power to your elbow if you stand again ( tho’ I hope you will adopt my proposed policy of a Complete Moratorium on all New Immigration for Five Years whilst we attempt to mitigate the Extreme Housing Shortage 🙂 )
Once this grotesque mountebank is got rid of on the 17th. we must assume an Interim Leader will be appointed by the NEC, and then, as you say, elections for a new, more long term, Leader.
I must assume, and certainly HOPE, that the NEC already has members of it thinking about the mechanics of the next Leadership election.
I hope they will agree, for example, not only on the rigorous checks you rightly mention, but also on the extremely important mechanism of some version of Transferable Voting, with progressive elimination of the candidates with fewest votes, so that ultimately we end up with a Leader who in the final count has received more than 50% of the votes ( and hopefully a lot more than that ).
If the NEC sticks to the ludicrous FPTP system ( which the Party itself decries as a system ) then expect any old result, as FPTP is little better than a lottery.
Rhys Burriss
http://www.ukipdaily.com/essential-policies-new-leader-adopt/
PS: I hope you and others in London are marshalling the pro UKIP troops to travel to Birmingham on 17th. and finish HB off.
Wrong and nasty.
Dear Peter (Whittle),
It’s great to see you posting here.
I have NOT forgotten the magnificent speech you gave at a dinner in Epsom, Surrey.
Regards, Toby, 01932-873557