No doubt many of you will have seen the policy survey enclosed with Independence magazine. Don’t waste your time on it. The results will be statistically invalid, have no effect at all on the policies the party will espouse, and are a time and resource wasting distraction.
There are three reasons why it will be statistically invalid:
1) It is voluntary and as any pollster will tell you surveys of self-selecting respondents are misleading.
2) Worse, it is a reworking at an individual level of an earlier branch level exercise with no attempt to eliminate double counting. I (or you) can contribute to your branch’s survey return (the same ten line form was first sent to branches on 7th June) then go home and complete it again as an individual member entering something completely different. A complete dog’s dinner.
3) Branches had a deadline for submission of their completed forms. Individual members have none. Members returning from summer holidays will be submitting forms long after branches and other members. Yet, the `team’ collating the results will not wait for ever so now we have an arbitrary cut off point because individual members were not given a deadline.
As there is no fixed list of possible policies to choose from the forms submitted will contain an open ended list of policy topics. The promised collation of the forms will require first identifying the range of policy topics proffered then counting how often, and at what ranking, they are listed. I very much doubt the party has the resources to do this accurately and completely nor the expertise to deal with a survey that combines frequency counts with rankings. It is said we will be told the most popular. Popular what?
If, say, Housing is ranked number 2 more often than any other policy but `retire the Chairman to the home for the statistically incompetent’ is offered five times more frequently (as it should be) but at a lower rank, what gets reported in the results? Are they going to report frequency or rankings? With a manageable fixed list you can provide a meaningful report of both. But with, as may prove the case with our inventive members, a list of 500 disparate policy topics the report, if report is possible at all, will be a confusing matrix that, most likely, will have been incorrectly put together in any case.
The 2015 manifesto is being updated as we speak and it, and a summary version for conference, must go to the printers soon. Whatever the result of “Tony’s Policy Survey”, assuming any meaning can be extracted which I submit cannot be, it will have nothing to do with the party’s published policies. In any event, policies are for appeal to the wider electorate not to a relatively small group of members who may or may not – this survey cannot tell – reflect the wider party’s membership’s views.
I do not doubt the intentions behind the survey were good – engage the members, show the party is listening etc – but intentions do not determine outcomes. And the only outcome here is a waste of money on printed forms and a waste of members’ time.
Had this survey been commissioned a year ago I would have said it was a cynical exercise to hoodwink members into thinking they were being listened to, to placate them, to make them feel connected to party management when the opposite was the reality. A deception in other words.
I do not think the current management are cynical or deceitful in the way the previous shower were but the outcomes are the same. The tragedy is that manipulation has been replaced by incompetence. At best it is just management by unthinking impulse.
We’ve been hearing lately about tapping into members’ and patrons’ various types of expertise. Yeah, right. If this is an example then we are up the creek.
Anyway, Tony, have a lovely time reading your survey. Just don’t come to conference pretending it is meaningful and next time you order printing costs for anything please think first.
Finally, I should mention that the topics listed are meaningless. `Freedom of speech… within the bounds of the law’ is a tautology. We have always had such free speech. It is just that the boundaries have moved a little as to when you might get your head chopped off for speaking out against the King. The current free speech issue is over `hate speech’ crime legislation and political censorship by Google, Facebook and Twitter. We need to repeal certain sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We need also to make it illegal for social media to censor on political grounds.
As to Housing the problem is house prices with demand fuelled by people needing to live near where jobs are so the distribution of jobs matters which in turn is a function of the (lamentable) transport network and lack of enterprise zones to encourage investment away from existing conurbations. There is also the small matter of the Treasury not wanting the house price issue solved – needs the stamp duty and needs also to maintain asset prices to stop banks going insolvent (hence quantitative easing). The suggested topic on the form is merely about which level you want nimbyism. Dear oh dear.
The survey is a kindergarten level of misunderstanding of several issues. Thank God it will have no influence on policy. Unless the constitution is changed our policy framework is in article 2.5.
I assume the magazine and NEC candidate’s statements are awaiting my return from the USA. Meanwhile, I circulated the policy document for online return to those members plus email earlier. It’s not perfect but it’s a start and the small number who sent me back a completed form were mostly adept at getting around some of the glitches.
However Stout, you are bang on about the housing problem, every one of those returns opted for ‘district’ level yet it is our shameful Tory & LibDim district councillors who want to concrete over GreenBelt with a whole new town sized housing estate. They are congratulating themselves, those who live well away from the beautiful countryside under threat, on what a good wheeze it is, how it will deliver the ‘infrastructure’ and the ‘affordable’ housing. (Not in Surrey it won’t you dopes). You and I Stout, sing from the same hymn sheet when we acknowledge the need for central government to get the jobs and transport network where the truly affordable homes are, make sure building on Greenbelt really is an uncrossable red line, penalise digging up greenfields (which the developers like as it’s easy and cheap) reward brownfield development and – when we finally break free of the EU get rid of the f-ing VAT on renovation and restoration of properties.
Greenbelt rant over – yes, do send back your policy lists, preferably by email, there is a dedicated team, not Tony, processing them!
For almost everyone, intelligence (60% nature, 40% nurture) is fixed before one’s fourth birthday.
One last thing, I find most members complain a lot about the ukip.org website, but are unaware of the MEPs website http://www.ukipmeps.org/ which is a lot better. Its almost as if there are two parallel organisations…..
I can’t help disagreeing with Julia Reid on the NHS though, she seems to be of the throw-more-money -at -it brigade and has basically fallen for the ruse of socialised medicine. As the party of self-reliance and small government UKIP should be anti-NHS as it currently stands because it is a hammock rather than a safety net (a pretty shabby hammock at that) and it is impossible to get the size of government down when the NHS takes up 9.8% of GDP. My point is, our policies need to be consistent with our constitution, not just be a random walk in the park. Either we have a constitution or we don’t. We do.
IMHO over 14 years of on off membership of the party this is the first time I have real faith in the leader. Gerard is courageous, sticks to his guns and appears to be cool and sincere when questioned by the MSM. This week I have received email updates from the party and from Gerard. I have also been asked for my opinion on policy. I wonder if T May bothers to ask ordinary members for their opinions.
I left UKIP. previously when the two MPs came over from the Tories and standing PPCs were shoved out of the way so they could stand for election, without any consultation from the Elite. I may be wrong but I can’t see Gerard standing for that. Please give Gerard and his team a chance. They may be amateurs, they may not get everything right first time, but as long as they are having a go and sticking two fingers up to the establishment who have brought our country to what it is today by taking orders from big business and doing all they can to silence free speech that’s good enough for me. Increasing membership and putting the party on a good financial footing should surely be considered a success.
P.S. voted for you Debbie, good luck, your intelligence and dedication to UKIP is so obvious.
I am very supportive of Gerard and his `team’. That is not reason to endorse nonsense though.
My piece may encourage the Chairman to be more careful over what he puts his name to. That’s a good thing surely.
Precisely because Gerard and his team are getting started they should be steered away from mistakes. The policy survey raises expectations that cannot be met.
So you’re the arbiter of expectations ??
Why not accept that everyone that returned a policy survey did so in the expectation that the information will be collated and popular policies will be at least discussed ?
You’re obviously biased against UKIP HQ. Tell us why please.
The odd thing about this ‘policy survey’ is that it seems to exist in a kind of parallel universe. Separately, there are NEC members like Bubba Kate Paris involved in policy group meetings, kind of focus groups, but the one she is doing is ‘Grooming Gangs’, which isn’t one of the top 5 issues on the survey. There seems to be no structure here whatsoever. Without an overarching structure, its a waste of time. Also, why would this exercise not address the objectives of the party as per the constitution para 2.5? Most members seem to not understand the nature of the party they have joined, at least this could then be an education process. The point on Brexit I find quite strange, ‘immediate and complete even if there is no deal’, surely what we want is for there to be no deal? It implies we want there to be a deal, this is exactly the kind of thinking that has got May into her mess.
Also, I note in Independence that the usual stuff is asked for (money) but nowhere, in particular in the ‘message from head office’ section, is help ever asked for.
Lip service is paid to `help’ from members but territory protectionism is the name of the game not competence.
Stout Yeoman
Take a broader view about of the survey. I want to see UKIP continue to exist. Th latest issue ofIndependence has an interesting paragraph at the end of the middle column on page 3. For me there is a glimmer of hope for the future as it would appear the UKIP leadership is showing some democratic process.
Elections are won by getting the Great British Voter’s attention to Policies. A4 and A5 are ways of getting a message across for people who do not use use social media. Election manifestos are not the easiest of documents to use to attract the voters attention. Leaflets that highlight 4 or 5 primary policies are ideal. At least the membership is being asked for its views. Tony Mc might have listed his priorities and I do not agree with his priorities therefore I will add items to the list. I will then number the items in my order of preference.
My personal priorities would be Taxation Reform (a very wide subject), Education (all aspects), National and local government (another wide subject), law and order (a broad subject), animal welfare and finally the NHS with after care for the (after care will include people to have home care without having been in hospital first)
Having attracted the Great British Voters attention the various soundbites can be discussed and the manifesto can be used to expand the policy discussion. I have missed Leave off because it is a pre not a post leave policy. For me Leave must not be forgotten but it should not overshadow future policies.
Since the 2017 have always adopted a post Leave attitude as the Great British Voter wants a future vision after the UK has left the EU. Think about what post Leave policies might attract the Great British Voter and state them to Tony Mc. I do not want to see the UKIP leadership failure that existed with the 2017 general election. If there is a 2018 or 2019 general election I will expect the branch to follow policies similar to my personal policies.
UKIP is for the NATION and you should be for the nation. Be positive and show that UKIP will serve the country better than Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Green will be able to. There are Voters who want to vote for a party they can trust.
Please send your policies to Tony Mc. A positive response will hopefully encourage the leadership to become less insular.
Regards
D. Turgoose
Given that we can’t even get a functional website, or more importantly any cutting content for it, why are a couple of thousand pages of random musings thrown at the obviously stretched management team going to help? The first priority should be to increase the resource pool by ASKING FOR HELP. But oh no, that would never do.
Rewarding incompetence is not a good idea.
Stout Yeoman
Rewarding incompetence is not a good idea. I am critical about the slow, or apparently no, changes that are taking place within UKIP. Several Sundays ago I met some of the unpaid computer programmers who are volunteers. The volunteers stated that they are making changes to the way UKIP uses its computer system(s) and the changes will be gradual. The first aim is to set up a a system which Ukippers can use to design hand out leaflets.
There were about 45 members at the meeting which I found to be very interesting. How attendees were chosen I will make no comment. The meeting did leave me more positive about the future of UKIP.. The leader’s comment in the last paragraph of the century column on page 3 of the latest Independence magazine give me hope for the future. The paragraph starts with “I want UKIP to be the Party that represents ordinary people etc.”.
There is general lack of information being passed down from the top and I feel that comments passed upwards go into a cloud , that cloud the disappears in the atmosphere. If I had not been told that I could have attended the meeting mentioned above I would have largely agreed with your article. I described UKIP’s leadership as being lacklustre when speaking to one member of leadership. I had expressed my desire to attend a training session and I was told there and then that I could be at the meeting. At the meeting we were told that there will be some major announcements regarding future UKIP policy.
D. Turgoose
David, with respect – did you read the article?
Your comment is interesting but I fail to see much connection.
For me your negative comment is praise in deed.
I wonder if you understand the original article. In case you did not understand, the original article included comments about Tony McIntyre’s Survey and it is that part of the article that I addressed. I, for once, decided to praise what I can see as a positive step forward, I am normally negative about UKIP.
If you do not like my reply, I will make no apologies as i do not like your arrogant opening comment “David with respect’. It reflects the general attitude of many party chairman etc towards grass root members. Party chairmen should be listening to the grass roots. not arrogantly criticising them. Many party chairman (and Secretaries) are in place because no one else would like to carry out there duties. One of the chairman’s duties is to LEAD their branch members.
I wish to see UKIP become a major political party within the UK and I consider Tony McIntrye’s Survey as being a positive step to move UKIP away from its ‘dead in the water’ political stance. I am also hoping that UKIP members, when passing comment, do not use derogatory, insulting phrases or putdowns. I would like to see responders showing a greater breadth of thought in their in their replies. Hostility, intended or otherwise, leads to increased hostility and this is the first intended hostile reply that I have written.
D.Turgoose
What is positive about survey that mixes a frequency count with rankings in an open ended list which, even if could be rendered coherent, will be too late to affect the policies espoused in the manifesto to be launched at conference?
What is positive about diverting resources at a time when Lexdrum House is calling for help with counting votes in the NEC election?
What is positive about consuming resources on a statistically invalid survey?
What is positive about the way the UKIP membership that been ignored for so long? Diverting resources is not good. What was positive about the UKIP leader putting UKIP on a “general election war footing” with no action ever since except for Tony McIntyre’s Survey? What is positive about UKIP relying on a historical referendum as a recruiting policy? What is positive about having a leader who appears to gives his members no guidance oh what UKIP’s 2018/2019 referendum will be?
Should I have confidence in the UKIP manifesto when the majority of members have had no input in it?
As far as I am aware the Survey is about the soundbites on ‘hand out’ leaflets to get the Great British Voters attention for both recruitment of new members and for votes at a general election.. I am also aware that it is not an accurate survey.
I think that there is a positive aspect to the survey and I am prepared to go along with it. The reason that I am still with UKIP is down to Henry Bolton’s view of UKIP’s future , if G Batten had been the leader when my membership was due I would never have renewed by membership.
You and I may have different views and hopefully someone in the remote the UKIP leadership might be reading our views.
D.Turgoose
Tu quoque is a species of informal fallacy.
In PLAIN ENGLISH i want UKIP to become a major British Political Party.
What do want? Do you want to see UKIP wither?
UKIP and myself have one thing in common, we have good intentions and we make mistakes. Tony McIntre’s survey might not be scientifically carried out, however I like to consider it as a start to UKIP listening to its members.
The UKIP Policy Survey is rubbish.
A Brexit does not have to be immediate but it does have to be unconditional and be on or before March 29 2019.
B Brexit means we have left the Single Market so have control of our borders. As to immigration, we are already very overcrowded. Why do we need skilled people or is our much vaunted tertiary education system only for achieving foreign earnings?
C The housing issue is whether Central government should be able to order local authorities to produce a development plan which accommodates the aliens that the Home Office imports or not.
D. Proportional Representation is the issue; a HoC elected on PR could and should decide what to do with the HoL.
E. Freedom of Speech does not exist within the law so the proposition is an oxymoron.
Absolutely agree with the above.
It should be a priority to get this sorted out ASAP as I see that Dacre is no longer at the Daily Mail and the new editor of the Express has said he wants nothing to do with UKIP . The establishment are closing ranks because they fear UKIP so we have to adapt and us other ways to get the message across and it has to be done quickly . Hopefully Debbie will get voted in but she will need back up, but with help from the bloggers and other avenues I am positive that things will get better
The Daily Express today is demanding that we all get behind Theresa May’s version of Brexit. In other words we should all support a policy that we leave the EU in name only. I knew it was only time before the political viewpoint of the Daily Express would change after it was bought out by Mirror Group Newspapers. This indeed represents the first step, and before long no doubt their viewpoint will be to Remain in the EU. I have been a regular reader of the Daily Express for about 10 years because of its pro Brexit stance, but I think this is all about to change. Their editorial team have made a very unwise move here, and certainly does not reflect the mood of the country at present. Apart from its past pro Brexit stance, the only other thing going for it were the daily adventures of Rupert Bear. However this is not sufficient for me, and the Daily Express now seems to have lost its way. I will save the daily 65 pence cost of buying it, and in so doing it will lose a regular reader.
So the grassroots ask for policy input. HQ offer the members policy input and then whingers moan that members shouldn’t have been asked their opinion.
As Stout knows, the survey only cost 1 sheet of paper and an envelope. An evelope that also included an NEC election form. Return postage is paid by the members who replied.
With a new NEC on it’s way grassroots ideas are invaluable.
*Coming Soon*
Why don’t UKIP ask their members for policy suggestions ? Moan moan.
*Followed by*
Why did UKIP ask their members for policy suggestions ? Moan moan.
That’s why nothing changes quickly enough.
“whingers moan that members shouldn’t have been asked their opinion.” That’s your comment on a reasoned article? Did you manage to actually follow any of it?
May I suggest that if you do not understand something – and clearly you do not here – that you move on to something you do understand. Caricaturing commentators on UKIP Daily to the point of misrepresentation does you no credit.
“No doubt many of you will have seen the policy survey enclosed with Independence magazine. Don’t waste your time on it.”
Reasoned ????
I’ll ignore the superiority complex and reiterate my point. We ask for input in UKIP policies and then you slag then off for doing it.
How will we get anywhere if we’re chopping each other down ?
“slag”? After alluding to “whingers moan”? How indeed will we get anywhere unless we follow your model of collegiate debate.
“Reasoned ???” The reasoning follows the introductory paragraph. My earlier query as to whether you followed any of it now appears particularly apposite.
Bryan,
With respect, you’ve lost. 🙂
Freddy & The Whingers.
New album: ‘Dim bulbs meet bright spark’.
The article is warning that you may as well write to Father Christmas for all the difference it will make. What’s wrong with pointing that out?
What’s wrong with writing to Father Christmas? I do it every year.
How’s that working out for you?
I got a reply saying that my request should be addressed to Parent Winterval , otherwise it will not be considered.
Santa has not obtained a clearance certificate to deal with children.
It is likely that the vigilant Khan and Dick will seek Mr Claus’s arrest in London.
Plod has been issued with a description of the suspect that would fit one member of the NEC except for the “often found stuck in a chimney”.
Mary, I realise you were being quite contrary. 😉
In the same vein:
Good policies are needed for our survival and rejuvenation.
Our sending suggestions to Father Christmas (or, in London, to the Mahdi) rather than doing something useful with them is, well, what LibLabCon would like us to do.
c. 20,000 additional sheets of paper printed, not 1 sheet.
Bryan, I really do not understand what you have written here. Incidentally you have no right to comment on what occurs in UKIP, as you are not a member by all accounts. You’ve got to be in it to change it. Simple as that. No good telling everybody what you have done before, its now what counts. So, join the party and you too can have some input.
That’s the third time you’ve questioned my membership.
Where did you get the idea that I’m not a UKIP member ?
Very strange.
Bryan, I am glad we’ve got that sorted out then. I can rest easier knowing that you are one indeed one of us.
It is a sad state of affairs that the UKIP controllers require policy suggestions at this late stage of the game.
JackT
I regard the policy survey as a late start to a game that is about to start. The game is UKIP becoming an active forward looking political party.
D. Turgoose
Have you not understood that the final whistle on the manifesto has been blown? It is not a late start. It is game over.
There was a 2015 manifesto, a 2017 and now a 2018 manifest. Manifestos should be continually changing year by year. The 2018 manifesto will be out of date next year Continue with your cynicism as it appears to be generating debate.
D.Turgoose
The 2018 manifesto will be a re-costed version of 2015 updated for legislative changes. There is no necessary reason to change a manifesto every year merely update it. You really need to do much better than this. How about addressing the invalidity of results from a flawed questionnaire.
What questionnaire are you referring to? I have not received any questionnaire from UKIP therefore I cannot pass comment on any questionnaire.
This would have come in the latest copy of Independence, David. A ballot paper for elections to the NEC was also included.
Debbie
There was no questionnaire sheet with the ballot paper. I did receive a survey paper which I used to put forward the branch’s suggestions. Stout Yeoman talked of a flawed questionnaire so obviously he must have received a questionnaire that I did not receive.
Yes, I did send the Ballot Paper to HO.
How else can we get our ideas and views across? There is still no ladder from the grassroots to the top management.
In my aim to get onto the NEC, Jac, I hope to improve communications from the top to the bottom and back again.
I’ve suggested before that UKIP DAILY is a perfect way of informing members who,I’m sure read it, and can comment on any suggestion made by any mamber……… The resulting discussion should entertain as well as produce ideas and reasoning and usefulness enough for anyone………… Particularly if it is presented as a proposed policy etc…….. Unless of course it is important to keep this hidden and only for eyes of the great and good of the nec…… Is there any harm in this aspect being public. I think it might be healthy…….A bit of flattery never hurts, but i always read your daily analysis as a short cut. And I’m sure many others do too.
Debbie LM, you have my full and unqualified support.
Thank you Freddy.
Got my vote and I’ll be recommending branch & county
Very many thanks PPM.
`Top Management’ read UKIP Daily – they do, as do several NEC members regularly and sometimes, on big issues, all of the NEC. UKIP Daily is the ladder.
We all recognise the symptoms and dislike them…..There seems to be a curious lack of change or even consideration of it. As though what we are doing now is comfortable and satisfying, and somehow virtuous or heroic……… But somehow by some sort of Civil Servantish means, the brilliance of the parts is smothered by the whole ( Organisation)……. Gerard is doing a job with the necessities, but we need change as well as repairs……My belief is, without any proof or root in reality, The disease is ambition. The ambition to become an MP ,or Councillor. The belief that somehow the best way to do that is to copy. Not to be different.
There are some of us who just want the best for the party and the country, TG.
That’s given Debbie.
It is sad that this sort of thing is still happening. No wonder UKIP lost direction. Policies and their priority do of course need sorting out but, as a new member, I have yet to see a list of ‘our’ core values from which they derive. I hope that those values are compatible with mine and am sure that most are but it would be good to have some confirmation.
We can’t afford to drown under a long list of proposed policies either; we need to focus on the issues that are presently being allowed, even encouraged, to destroy our country. There is time for the ‘nice-to-haves’ once we recover our sovereignty and have made sure that it cannot be given away again.
I have banged on about this before, to no avail. Go to the For Britain web-site – read their “core values”. Go to our web-site – read stale sound-bites. No contest really. We have been promised a new web-site – is it the end of June yet? Sorry to be cruel, and I blame no one person, but has nobody heard of project management?
There have been articles and comments on this site for two years lamenting the state of our website, all to no avail. In one sense that accurately reflects that we do not have any clear policies or core values. That may be changing. One can only so.
As to the website, it is rumoured that a new site is `in beta testing’. Don’t hold your breath for its release or content.
I could tell you exactly who to blame but that may not be a helpful contribution at this stage.
I wonder if testing includes the consultation of a suitable experienced and representative group of members on style, content and functionality? The existing site fails in so many areas that I wonder if the new one will meet expectations. Obviously it is the public face of the Party so absolutely crucial to our success. We cannot afford it to fail in any of those areas and require change soon after going live. As I have said before the wesite is just the public face; the proper management of the information behind it is also crucial and it cannot be static.
Yep. I first came across it in the army and called Asset Strategy, or some such …in tha 60s it was calles PERT charts, In the 70s, Critical path analysis and used to sell computers to civil engineers. Now it’s totally common even in the Civil Service.9vckb
Yep. I wouldn’t mention it if I were you. Go for Lists and Forethought. We’re not building a power station here.
I agree some folk have given it a bad reputation – but drawing up the chart (lets not get into resource smoothing et al) does clear the head to identify what has to be done when and by whom. Not doing this basic step leads to promises based on hope and missed dates.
Indeed, there is saying: “Fail to plan = plan to fail”. We seem to see it in action all too often, particularly where government is concerned. That plan is far more than a simple Gannt chart.