This paper summarises the wisdom in the 91 NEC candidate submissions.
Candidates
The quality of the candidates is very high: Lawyers, accountants, directors, consultants, computers, logistics, charity, architect, antiques, jeweller, pilot, doctor, vet, dentist, teachers, musician, trade union rep, carer, publican, border force, police, author, civil service.
Many are retired (which could be an advantage).
Four regional chairmen are standing.
Date of joining was typically 2013 to 2016.
5 joined much earlier; they should have a good chance of election.
150 Words
7 candidates had VIP assentors.
10 candidates had errors of spelling, punctuation or fact.
Knowledge of how the party works
Candidates who joined since 2013 have little knowledge of how the party has been operating. They should read UKIP Daily.
Candidates are calling for more openness … which would help future candidates to know more about the party.
Democracy versus leadership
6 candidates want more democracy.
4 want to “support the leadership”, “helping the leader achieve his goals”, and “unite under our new leader”.
4 candidates want to “bridge the gap between the executive and the grassroots” and “prevent the squabbling”.
Some candidates recognise (perhaps subconsciously) the contradiction between democracy and leadership.
3 candidates believe that the “general membership” needs “a voice”, but also want to “support the leader”.
Should the NEC be a poodle?
Usually the NEC does exactly what the leader wants.
However, recently the NEC refused to be a poodle. Such behaviour was described (publicly) as being “NOT fit for purpose”, “divisive”, or “setting up a clique”.
Some candidates may be suggesting that the grassroots should be allowed to express an opinion but that the leader should decide. (That’s what happens in commercial companies.)
But what if the Central Clique proposes a truly awful decision. Will NEC members vote against it?
Example of an appallingly undemocratic NEC decision
The NEC in 2014 took UKIP into a Pan European Political Party, even though a UKIP referendum had decided otherwise. The NEC totally failed to support the grass-roots.
Resolving the contradiction between democracy and leadership
Maybe the NEC should appoint its own chairman.
The NEC chairman should issue in advance Board Papers which detail all the options … and help everyone to agree on the right decision. No important matter should be dealt with under AOB or without a paper distributed in advance. The leader and chairman should have advocacy skills. The NEC members should have advocacy skills. Informed agreement should be reached and decisions should be unanimous and seen by all UKIP members to be right. With the right leadership, NEC members, chairing and preparation, I believe that this is 99% possible.
Rules and Discipline
6 Candidates want a “rule book that gives clear and unambiguous answers”. They want a “fair discipline system”, perhaps at “regional level”, not used as “a tool to discipline some members and not others”.
One candidate believes that “senior members must stop criticising the party and its membership in public” and one wants Tory plants removed. One wants to redesign the discipline process like the army’s.
Regional
Many candidates want regional representation. (Regional election was turned down at conference, in 2016).
An idea, which meets the need, without defying the conference decision: each of 12 elected NEC members should adopt a region and represent it, keeping in close touch with the region. That idea was accepted by the NEC in January 2012 but never fully implemented.
The RORC meeting should elect its own chairman. Minutes thereof should go to all NEC members.
Constitution
Many candidates want constitutional reform, though one says “I don’t think we should rush to change without considering what we are changing to”.
Non-radical ideas: publish the NEC minutes, publish who voted which way, allow NEC members to tell everyone what happened, introduce an NEC stall at conference. Allocate tasks to NEC members.
Ideas that would require constitutional change:
- Allow the NEC to elect its own chairman.
- Make the discipline process more independent.
- Review who can change the rules.
Summary
NEC membership is onerous and unpaid.
Good luck to all!
When will the NEC results be declared?
There is a potential mine of information in these candidate submissions and it would be wise to distill the various suggestions into a list of potential policies. Otherwise some sensible suggestions will be lost if the originator fails to be elected.
I live in Spain.
I studied the CVs of those candidates who posted on ukipdaily and made my selection.
I then was lucky enough to receive an email copy of Independence Magazine and so I spent many hours studying that and finalised my shortlist.
However, I did not receive voting papers and the papers of my partner arrived too late to make the deadline!! – I wonder if our two votes would have made any difference?
Failure to allow for expected postal schedules is a common issue with many organisations which we have to deal with when living outside the UK. In this instance it can only be resolved by on-line voting as practiced for many years by a professional institution of which I am a member using the Electoral Reform Services.
Of course there will be a cost but it does ensure that no-one is denied a vote through such delays.
I am pleased my suggestion for emailing the magazine to overseas members worked.
I also argued for electronic voting, but didn’t succeed due to the complicatiins (?) of running two new_style ballotsbat once.. Votes were allowed at the last minute by email – didn’t you hear about it?
It was a difficult and time consuming task to elect the NEC members. I’m one who supports regional representation, because there is at least a chance I’ll have met candidates and it is easier to talk to local people on local matters. Part of a branch chairman’s job is to ensure regional chairmen know the views of his branch membership. Part of their job is to pass on those views to the NEC and HQ. It is a vital channel of communication.
I’ll wait and see how the new leadership deals before commenting further, so far Paul deeply impresses me.
Thanks for this, Toby.
Readers should be aware that candidates were given no time to proof their transcribed entries, and so, for example, my date of joing is listed as 2005 when it was in fact 1994!
There are many flaws with reguonal representation which would need to be addressed, for example, what happens when all candidates willing to stand in a given region are useless?
And what about looking at some of the more inter sting proposals, for example moving main conference day to Monday?
When Regional election to the NEC was voted down at Conference in September this year, I think the underlying reason was to do with the origins of the ‘Regions’ themselves. As one speaker against the motion pointed out, those regions were imposed on us by the EU for the purpose of EU elections to their ‘Parliament’, and perhaps for other nefarious reasons to do with control and ‘divide and rule’.
I think this shifted the mood of the Conference. It certainly shifted mine because the idea of conforming to any structure imposed by the EU is repellent to me.
While we still have MEPs, perhaps we have to accept the EU’s regional boundaries for the sake of continued representation, but when we’re out of the EU (hasten that glorious day!) there will be no reason to keep them.
The main quality I looked for were mavericks.
Such as Victoria Ayling who I voted for but then she had to withdraw when she became the PPC for Sleaford.
Such as the window cleaner from Kent who had actually worked hard in real life and also for the party – and with great success.
A fancy directorship – that don’t impress me much – to quote Shania Twain
The only ones I felt I knew at all were those who posted their c.v’s on this site. However there were so many candidates that it would have been impossible for them all to have done so in the time frame.
For the future, publishing the minutes will make us feel more in touch with the NEC, and it is the one thing I feel the members must insist on.
As Toby says, the range of expertise among candidates was impressive, and I hope for an NEC with a mix of necessary skills.
UKIP is already regionally organised with Regional Chairmen. How many members can name their regional chair or tell you anything about him or her? Why would it be different with NEC members? How would a member in a region know who and what they are voting for just because an NEC candidate was from the same region? Members in branches either side of a regional boundary might know the other region’s candidate better (and prefer him or her) but cannot vote for him or her under a regionalised NEC. Why is that better?
Membership is not evenly distributed among regions. Thus representation on the NEC would not be proportional to these arbitrary groupings.
I agree about hustings provided we could question candidates. In this IT age it could be done by a live stream conference call system.
Regionalising the NEC was defeated by conference in Bournemouth. Why is it still being discussed? Which part of party democracy do members not understand?
All true.
Only contention is why anyone should think lawyers should head any list of ‘quality’!
Consider this an upvote to that!
Yes I realise I am somewhat late with my comment,but I too would question the quality of most lawyers.
Firstly I would like to list The Braitaain Hating Human Rights Act Lawyers.
Next the numpties who are trying their damndest to overturn Brexit.
And last but no means least ,and a question which I continually raise with my friend,
who works for us in UKIP at the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff Bay:
What do the following people have in common,
Siddiq Kahn;Carwyn Jones”and Mick Antoniw?
The very thing first thing that they all have in common,is that they are all members of the Labour Party
But more importantly they have all been Human Rights Personal Injury Lawyers.
Every action that Siddiq Kahn made was against Britain,and our Soldiers.
Carwyn Jones is the labour leader in our Welsh Assembly,and a hateful remainiac.
Mick Antoniw is the Labour AM for Pontypridd or as I prefer to call him Marvellous
mick,the Coal-Miners friend,who conned our Miners out out of their
compensation,by increasing his companies fees.
Oh I nearly forgot,they all love Mozzies,and Kahn actually is one.
The idea of NEC members ( having been elected from a national electorate, as at present ) adopting a region is no substitute for elections to NEC being based in the regions.
The point for those of us who advocate this change to regional based elections is that it is only within the Regions that there is any hope of the electorate knowing who and what ( policies / competence / advocacy skills / etc. ) they are voting for.
Within a Region it would be possible to arrange Hustings which candidates for NEC could attend and at which they could answer questions / debate etc etc.
Then the membership ( of each Region) would be able to take an informed decision.
They would also have far fewer candidates from which to choose.
Again, this must lead to better, more democratic, decision making.
I suspect I am not the only UKIP member depressed into paroxysms of indecision when faced this year with ninety odd candidates’ CVs and spiel to read and choose amongst. And as you say, large numbers of the candidates appear, on paper at least, to be very well qualified.
I suspect that some might appear less impressive if obliged to debate at a Hustings ? Just a thought 🙂
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml
Rhys, I too, have an issue with 91 candidates being allowed to stand and having to choose seven from that number in a very short time period. I began by reading the CVs of candidates who have appeared on UKIPdaily regularly (this includes you, of course) and considering them. The ones who had posted election addresses, but had never been on UKIPdaily before, to my knowledge, were next in line for consideration. I also looked for candidates who had ‘VIP assentors’ as Toby calls them, but this didn’t necessarily influence my vote – it depended on who the ‘VIP’ was!
In the end I put a cross against each of the seven candidates I felt I knew something about. Did I read the CVs of all 91 candidates and give an equal amount of consideration to each? No, because for most of them it would have been like putting crosses for the football pools – a fairly uninformed guess. So imagine the difficulty of a member who doesn’t go online, doesn’t recognise UKIP ‘names’ and only knows what was published in the Independence magazine. Two of our Branch members asked me who I voted for and copied my choices, which is complimentary in one way, but a bit troubling in another.
It was good that so many candidates wanted to stand, but surely some limits should be set. Perhaps the NEC needs to discuss this when they reconvene.
Given that future NEC elections, as per BB of the rulebook, will be by website or phone handset, the sooner voters get used to reading up about candidates on the internet, the better ?