In this article I’m going to set out my stall for how the Party should deal with the current situation regarding the National Executive Committee. My vision is to unite the Party rather than divide it, and I’m hoping that this article will provide some initial direction on how we can achieve unity
I’m standing for the Party Leadership for a few reasons, but the key one is that I believe I’m best placed to bring this Party back together. As far as the internal structures go, we need a Leader who actually understands our Party Constitution and who knows what can and can’t be done. The internal structures of this Party desperately need reform and I’m the man to deliver that. I have six years of experience as General Secretary of UKIP, during which time I became more acquainted than almost anyone else with the constraints of our Party Constitution.
We need a plan that actually works. That’s why I oppose the EGM suggestion, which would lead the Party down a completely blind alley whilst creating negative media stories, but favour the Leader pushing reform of our Constitution instead.
No EGM – because it wouldn’t work
There are two main reasons that people have suggested an EGM should be called:
- To restart the leadership election
- To reform the Party Constitution / abolish the NEC
Neither of these makes any sense. It takes an absolute minimum of 49 days (and probably in practice a lot more than that) to call an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Party. The procedure to call an EGM is:
- 20%+ of UKIP branches all request an EGM, stating the business for the EGM. This would be roughly 80 branches at present.
- The branches give a minimum of 21 days’ notice in writing to their members that a branch EGM will consider this issue
- After each branch passes the motion, it authorises its Treasurer to draw a £100 cheque or bank transfer from the branch account and send it to Head Office. The branch sends a written statement, signed by the branch chairman, requesting the EGM.
- The Party Secretary must then write to all members, and an EGM must be held in 28-90 days’ time (5.8 and 5.10 of the Party Constitution apply).
The Party leadership election will be over well before an EGM can be held.
An EGM doesn’t have the power to change the Party Constitution. The Constitution can only be changed by a postal ballot of all members, so it’s not able to abolish the NEC. Therefore there is no point in calling an EGM. It just won’t work.
In fact, there’s an election for the NEC coming right up. It’ll be in progress or possibly finished by the time an EGM could be called anyway. 7 of the 12 seats on the NEC will be up for election. If members are unhappy with the current composition of the NEC, then there’s a really simple solution: vote for candidates you’re happy with!
We’ll change the Constitution
I want to modernise our Party Constitution to make it more robust, and much clearer. The clearer a Constitution is, the less chance there is of us ending up in court.
This isn’t a process that can be rushed. Changing the Party Constitution is a very expensive process, so we can’t afford to change it too often. We need a Constitution that will last us for a decade, so I don’t object to taking a few months if it means we get it right in the end.
We also need to be aware that Constitutional change requires a two-thirds majority of members voting in a postal ballot. It costs tens of thousands of pounds for the Party to run an all-postal ballot, so if we don’t get the necessary majority we’ll be stuck with the current constitution.
We’ll have an internal referendum on switching to Regional Representation on the NEC
Many members have suggested that we need each region to have their own representative on the National Executive Committee, so that everyone can know who their NEC representative is and ensure accountability. I know that many other members are opposed to it, sometimes because of different sizes of regions.
As part of the process of changing the Constitution, I’ll propose a separate vote on the same ballot paper for this change to be considered.
Why can’t we just abolish the NEC?
The problem is that the NEC carries out various oversight functions for the Party. Not all of these functions could be duplicated by other parts of the Party, and it would hugely centralise power in the hands of the Leader. The NEC is currently the constitutional check and balance on the power of the Leader.
Its members are the Directors of the Limited Company (that is the Party), and they have a fiduciary duty to that company. It is the organisation which can (technically) force a vote to remove an unpopular Party Leader. It is the organisation which is responsible for ensuring that the Party has rules, ensuring compliance with the law, ensuring the Party doesn’t go bankrupt and so on. Many of these powers can’t be given away without creating massive conflicts of interest.
If you abolish the NEC, you’ll end up either being forced into creating another body with a very similar remit, or with a virtual dictatorship.
We’ll make the NEC more transparent
When I was General Secretary of the Party we published a report on every NEC meeting. I want to go back to that system so that members know what’s happening. If members are informed, they’ll have a greater understanding of what’s going on and there will be less tension. Yes, there are some things which absolutely must be kept confidential – legal advice, for example – but we need better communication to make sure people know what the NEC is doing.
I want rules for all kinds of elections, whether candidate selection for public office or internal elections, to be set out at least six months in advance so that everyone knows where they stand.
I want to give more teeth to the Party Conference and ensure that the NEC has to implement the motions it passes.
We’re going to professionalise the Party
Whilst we’re focused on the NEC and its role in the Party, we are forgetting to talk about everything else that needs to be done to professionalise the Party. We need dedicated teams working towards every kind of elections. We need to recognise that Westminster success will only come through local Council election success. We need dedicated teams for Parliamentary by-elections which are ready to swing into action at a moment’s notice.
It’s the same with policy. We need to take members’ suggestions and opinions into account more efficiently than we do now, and utilise the huge amount of specialist knowledge that the Party has available. We have to be ready in case of a snap General Election, after all. A Party with no Manifesto would have a problem.
We can’t afford to keep lurching from one election to the next; we need proper planning. Remember the “5 Ps”: Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance. That’s the culture that we need to bring into UKIP, and that’s precisely what we’ll do under my leadership.
This is what I think happened with the NEC
Step 1: Leadership elections called and long held factions with differing and intense emotions suddenly raised to the surface.
Step 2: An incredible attempt to stump out Carswell/ Evans, which a lot of the members strongly agreed with… Leading to the NEC stating that you had to be a member for x long to run for leadership.
… and this is the point that Woolf fans have missed. I am not at all a Carswell fan, the guy blocked me on twitter for asking a very basic question on an economic speech of his on twitter… and UKIP becoming a ‘happy liberal smiley party’ would just be awful.
However, I recognise that there are many people who DO like Evans… Complete SJW’s some of those I have met who cannot take evidence… I despair of these people. But the emotion is nevertheless there and these supporters do support the party so should not be ignored in my view.
Step 3: This event was met by those in the NEC, and the sort of liberals inside UKIP, with emotional disagreement and anger, and they conspired to get Woolf out… Because they were too angry to do anything else.
When people used to follow Nigel I used to get speeches through of things he was saying, some non information connected posts of praise… But a lot of people were repeating exactly what he was saying and RT’ing (for instance) posts of his or connected to him that were packed with information… I liked his intelligence, and his policies, the way he explains things makes me feel like I learn something each time I listen to him.
I do not get the same feeling with Woolf… Firstly, Woolf supporters were on him too quickly, before much was even discussed, before it was even clear anyone else was running; secondly, whenever he speaks he talks in terms of looking after the electorates wishes as though they were children and talks in vague abstract neo liberal terms about what he wants to do. I don’t like this and thirdly: One thing that annoys me about how the Woolf supporters talk about him is they refer (positively) to him being a (new word for me) BME candidate… Because the poison of the Guardian has got to them… I think this is stupid. We should never capitulate to our enemies and make decisions based on what they might say.
So, after step 1,2 and 3 what has happened?
Democracy is important, and like you might have imagined after my just now comment on Woolf I am not currently a supporter, and I think he represents a step down from someone more ruthlessly intelligent. But he is who the members probably want. Those same members who did not care if Evans was kept out of the running via corrupt practices but are now upset the Steven has.
Now this monster of NEC and general party inefficiency is open, the process has been tainted and whoever wins will not do so on a proper mandate but will have only a percentage support they would have had had the leadership election not had these screw ups. Democracy is important, if people do not feel they have had a fair vote they will not support its results.
Whenever democracy is denied things get a bit more extreme. Bill Etheridge and Lisa Duffy are talking about banning the Hijab. I believe we will have to take the fight to the Muslims eventually, I do believe that. Sharia courts, FGM, Mosques, Rotherham and the rest, it’s going to get difficult but I do not believe UKIP can take that stance yet. We need to wrest control away from the corporates via stopping cheap labour (immigration) and the rigged market that is keeping competition away from these completely inefficient and corrupt large businesses. Only then, with the working class empowered (small business, personal wealth etc.), democracy in the UK somewhat restored, and the sense of unity that can bring, can we start to insist that these issues… Chilcot, Islamic infiltration, ‘austerity’, proper foreign policy and the end of PC politics. Only then can we insist these get sorted out… Without power these issues, and we as a people, will remain under the thumb of the corporates. To try and take on a massive side issue now (the Hijab) is to invite controversy and a big fight before we have got the economy working properly, and disempowering the neo liberal media (BBC) through democratic will is a side effect of properly empowered people (they profit from lack of competition too!)
But then who knows. That’s just how it looks to me but life is ever unpredictable!
Dear Jonathon. Great to have one of our MEPs writing and commenting in this forum. I applaud your considered effort to calm things down. However, it does not address the lack of judgement shown by the NEC. As ex military who worked in an organisation filled with rules and regulations it was imperative that good leaders knew when to ignore the rules for the greater good. Other analogies come from the sporting world: at the recent Tour de France we all saw Froome crash into the back of a motor cycle on Mount Ventoux. Froome’s subsequent actions could by the rule book have him disqualified from the race. The cycling authorities for the spirit of the race ignored the many Byzantine rules to ensure that a fair resolution was achieved. Had they not then the whole sport would have been brought into disrepute for slavish adherence to rules and forgetting why they were racing in the first place. In this case good judgement and common sense was shown. Continuing the sporting theme, many sports now aid referees whose job it is to apply the rules with video technology or additional umpires. This allows reviews of decisions to be made that then permit wrong or poor decisions to be overturned. This perversely means that the integrity of the sport and the referees is maintained and even enhanced. The excuse that there could be a legal challenge if Mr Woolfe was permitted to stand is possible but would anyone else standing be so petty. If they were then I like many others would be asking if this was the Ukip that they joined. As in the Tour de France the other cyclists did not object (although they could have) to Froome continuing to wear the yellow jersey. The fact that 3 members of the NEC resigned over this issue tells me that these are the leaders and principled people of good judgement. The membership deserves the best possible list of candidates to choose from. Because of the NEC’s decision the party is in disarray and the list has lost much credibility. Look beyond to sports and other organisations because they can show the way to resolve these conflicts.
The most comments I’ve seen on here about any issue. I actually prefer something closer to the Carswell – Evans view of the future, though I would not have voted for them. As for the NEC, sorry, it has to go and the best, indeed only way to get party unity now is an EGM or better still, the speedy resignation of the NEC and it’s replacement by a board of regional Chairmen. Should they now ban Nathan, they will infuriate the party grassroots even more and make things worse.
We are where we are, Diane is by far the best available candidate, it would be good if she appointed Steven as her deputy. No doubt that Lisa is an excellent organiser but she’s just a front for Carswell,Evans and O’Flynn. As leader she is very PR unfriendly, would be a disaster and would not last 5 minutes under media pressure.
There is room for all in our party but excluding people from a ballot or making arbitrary decisions that actively damage us and deny members a say has to stop. We have all worked too are to let a few individuals with big egos, sink us. Just GO NEC, It’s the one best thing you can do for the party and to regain our respect.
Dear Jonathon
I’ve been a member long enough to remember your reports of the NEC meetings and other Party business and the Party certainly misses them. Stephen’s leadership-bid failure was a shock but as the dust settles, I would humbly suggest the present difficulties have simpler resolutions than any EGM, if adequately supported.
Communications – Restore those that you used to run, and add quarterly Regional Reports from Regions big enough to support them so the rest of us have some idea of what’s happening and who’s who.
There is little trust in the NEC because mere members have no idea who most of the attendees are or what agenda they have. Nigel’s recent description of people achieving personal Everests is very telling but regular reporting would go some way to restoring confidence, as would some regional chair NEC appointments.
Appointing a CEO would go further – provided they are specifically tasked with acting as a direct link to, and being answerable to, the membership. UKIP’s shareholders in effect.
One reason is that it is currently practically impossible for any member to contribute to policy, which is a ludicrous waste of opportunity.
Secondly, a directly contactable CEO would negate inevitable hierarchical communication failures or distortions AND a provide a means to counter the NEC member “Everest” factor.
But finally, Nigel is a huge act to follow. I would suggest currently too huge. As a third member of the leadership team, the appointment of a CEO would give UKIP a far greater opportunity of repairing the present damage and providing the forward leadership and vision that is presently lacking.
And finally I would suggest that such a Leadership Group would do well to concentrate on Policy Priorities by finding out what the members’ priorities are. UKIP’s mix of old Labour and old Conservative support is unique but the manifesto gives no sense of Policy priority. I would guess that Lisa’s views on supporting British Muslim females would gain wide UKIP support as would Stephen’s social mobility proposals. But we currently hear nothing from ordinary members who may have ideas that would electrify both the membership and beyond.
As for Stephen’s leadership bid, I think on reflection most people will realise that however disappointing, he should have made sure he got it done on time.
The damage to UKIP will not come from that mistake, however caused.
The damage will come if the leaders within UKIP do not take this opportunity to repair the failings of the present, opaque, Party management structure and set about rebuilding trust and motivation at ground level.
You’re making a number of good points. The Party has bad experiences of attempts to appoint a CEO in the past, partly because we’ve never properly defined the role and we’ve often recruited from people who don’t understand the Party.
I think you’re right about the general direction that we should be going in.
I haven’t been a member all that many years,a little less than five in fact. The reason is that I have long had an aversion to political parties and have never been a member of any other one.
I joined UKIP because it seemed honest and straight-forward, speaking (rather as we Yorkshiremen are reputed to,) the truth as they see it, which attracted me! Since then I have seen ‘glam’ recruitment, established political figures mainly from the Conservative Party ‘defecting’ to UKIP and being welcomed with open arms. BUT NOT SIMPLY AS MEMBERS! STAR TREATMENT AND ‘HIGH OFFICE’! When the General Election loomed over the horizon, selected party members for candidature ‘displaced’ by Head Office, to favour these incomers.
“..(Paula Walters?) Take a look at the UKIP website. UKIP believe democracy should be devolved to the people through local and national referendums on key issues so that laws are made by the people not the political class. The government of Britain should be for the people by the people..”
So where have THOSE principles been buried lately?
In other words, as a reasonably established member, I am going to ‘take a sabatical’ and see how (if?) UKIP gets itself sorted out into something like the party I THOUGHT I WAS JOINING FIVE YEARS AGO!
There’s good reason to think that those who’ve been in the Party for a long time understand the Party in a way that newcomers cannot.
I’ve never been a member of any other political party other than UKIP.
It has been heartbreaking and bitterly disappointing to see what has been happening to UKIP during the last few months.
When I attended the Annual Conference in Llandudno a few months back, the Caswell faction went to great efforts to sabotage the main event by holding their own mini conference down the road. However, the party faithful were not fooled by this transparent treachery and I understand it was very poorly attended.
And now, a few months down the line, and the NEC appears to be riddled with the self-same ‘Carswellian’ faction. We have Evans (who I previously had a lot of respect for writing an excellent manifesto back in 2015), Carswell, the running embarrassment that is Hamilton, and plenty more all trying to push out the 90% of members who want to see UKIP continue in the proven Nigel-backed way forward.
The NEC is riddled with a bitter and selfish score-settling mindset. And this mindset cascades down through the branches. A previous correspondant (Concerned Supporter) talked about his or hers branch, and there are similar issues in my Branch in a sunny part of Essex. Our membership is falling at a rate of 10% a month due to poor branch leadership and no direction or discipline from above. We have expelled members desperately trying to get back into the cold, just waiting for the royal Carswell pardon. Like ‘Concerned Supporter’, we are I a remarkably similar boat.
How do we resolve this? Well I would say most UKIP members are sick and tired of this faction taking over and destroying our party because it will alienate the loyalists and our millions of supporters out there who will not like what this party will become. The NEC might give the impression of reconciliation but it’s no more than a sticking plaster and you what – the massive Farage-loyalist core of UKIP know it too, and will vote with their feet if this party is taken over by the ‘Carswellians.
Sorry Mr Arnott, not falling for it.
Peter S.
Jonathan’s original article , the comments from readers, and Jonathan’s replies to some of these have been very interesting.
Of course, they address procedural and constitutional reform matters, not substantive party policies for the future.
What I would now like to see would be each of the Candidates setting out their stall as to :
1] The procedural / constitutional issues – specifically whether they see a need to change the mechanism for electing the NEC ? ( I am still not clear as to whether Jonathan does or does not favour a change to Regional based elections )
and
2] What are their substantive preferred policies for the country on issues such as the economy and taxation ; immigration ( my own view is we need an almost total moratorium on all new immigration for as long as it takes to sort out the huge housing crisis ) ; housing ( including the hard choice issue of whether we need to, reluctantly, sacrifice some of the green belt to provide land for desperately needed houses and flats ) ; the electoral system for all elections ( we need to make common cause with Libs and Greens, and some Labs on advancing Prop Rep ); education ( are grammar schools the answer to everything ? I think we need to be more imaginative ) ; whether we should EXIT the EU immediately as recommended by Professor Patrick Minford ( I believe this is the only sensible policy – interminable negotiations will lead to some version of Norway’s bad deal ) and so on.
There is no time to lose………….
Whilst the Organizers of ukipdaily.com contact the other Candidates for their contributions, perhaps Jonathan could start the ball rolling in a new, separate, article ??
For clarity, my position on regional representation:
I will support it, although somewhat reluctantly for the reasons I’ve explained – it’s not an ideal system either.
This is an area where a compromise has to be reached, and I think regional representation is a compromise that the vast majority of the Party can get behind.
As for policy, I agree with much of what you write. Especially on education! Agree that it’s probably best for a full article to discuss.
As for ‘immediate Brexit’ through repeal of the 1972 ECA, the problem is that there’s zero chance of getting Parliament to agree to it.
Thank you : things are getting clearer.
I’m not so sure about what parliament would do re ‘Immediate Brexit’ – but the point is at least three quarters of them oppose any kind of Brexit at all : UKIP has not refrained from advocating a policy in the past because Parliament opposed it – the whole point is to set out what we ( in your case the Leader / you ) believe are the best policies.
Cameron’s embarrassing ‘re negotiation ‘ showed that absolutely nothing is to be expected from negotiation with the remaining EU – they are not currently minded to offer free trade unless we also agree Freedom of Movement.
We would be far better off grabbing hold of our full independence with both hands, and if that requires WTO terms and a 5% tariff on our goods in the EU well so be it. They would probably soon agree to a move to free trade once they saw we were serious, but even if not we have the whole of the rest of the world to trade with !
I look forward to seeing your Manifesto on substantive issues ( as well as the procedural ones ).
Btw, on the subject of Regional representation : I have no objection to some adjustment for those regions with far more members than eg the NorthEast having two members, provided the thing does not get unwieldy.
As you say and I agree, no system is perfect, but the benefit of members feeling they have a REAL choice in the NEC selection is an invaluable plus.
Jonathan, I really like the graphic heading your excellent article. I think it’s got the message exactly right and your comments suggest to me in general terms just the kind of thinking we need.
For many years I’ve supported UKIP as the only credible vehicle for telling the EU to LEAVE and take their stultifying regulations, corruption-friendly structure and anti-democratic attitude with them and give us back our territorial waters and of course our fish! I officially became a member, as it turned out, on the very last day that would make me eligible to vote in the upcoming leadership election. (Ironically I had been thinking of voting for Steven Woolfe. Now I’ll need to think some more.) UKIP is the first political party I’ve ever been a member of in all of my 69 years.
To any others in my shoes, please don’t burn your membership card just yet or stomp off in a huff. If the undisclosed conviction really is as serious a matter as some think then perhaps it is just as well this came to light now. However, if it is not a first step would surely be to find a way around the 17-minute late matter. It sounds unreasonable to me and obviously does to others as well.
However, in a way, I do see all the hubbub as a good thing. Painful, but growing pains usually are. And grow is exactly what we need to do. It has not passed me by there are some serious heavyweights on the Brexit side of the debate in Parliament. (Some almost on a par with Nigel himself.) As a test one might ask; what are the chances of them crossing the floor to join UKIP in its current form? I see Nigel’s stepping down from party leadership as a clear message that we need to raise our game to a level that makes us a credible contender as the ruling party after the next general election. Given the prevarication I for one don’t trust the Cons with Brexit, immigration or in more general terms the running of our great country. Brexit and the EU aside there is much that needs to be put right. Our ever-rising national debt, jobs, manufacturing decline, expensive energy, the list is long. The race is not over. It’s only just begun.
In my view patriotic voters are watching and waiting to see a UKIP that is a safer bet than the dem-lab-cons. In theory it should be easy! Onwards and upwards and by this I definitely don’t mean go softly into the night!
What a great post! You’re absolutely spot on, and your words will give many of us who’ve been in this Party for many years cause to reflect and remind us why we joined in the first place.
Jonathan’s contributions are at least calm and reasonable, which cannot be said for some of those criticising him. But everybody seems to assume that UKIP’s problems can be solved by more (or better) internal democracy and accountability. They won’t.
UKIP has existed and succeeded for only two reasons: Brexit and Nigel. Without Brexit and without Nigel, it is already clear that UKIP will tear itself to pieces. Perhaps Brexit will remain an issue for a little longer. But UKIP will only have a long-term future if Nigel comes back and is given carte blanche to lead and organise the party in the way he thinks best. He will come back – and perhaps lead us to a glorious future. But only on his own terms. We have to make up our minds, each of us individually, whether or not we are willing to accept those terms.
This is a somewhat pessimistic view in my opinion.
The current discontent within the Party has been brewing for some time, independent of Brexit and was doing so already under Nigel’s leadership. The same talk of abolishing the NEC, of purges of those who were considered to be disloyal, was already taking place before this election began.
That suggests to me that this current disunity would have occurred, Nigel or no Nigel, and Brexit or no Brexit. Reform of the Party’s structures to bring more democracy and accountability will help.
I see far, far more disagreement online than I do when meeting members in person. The branches seem much more positive and united than the impression I get on the internet.
I recognise that there’s a lot more to do than reforming the Party’s internal structures, but I don’t think it’s a lost cause either!
Upholding the constitution is all very well but what good is a constitution without a party. The NEC must be delusional if they think that a few party members are a bit cross and that this will blow over. People join UKIP as an open and honest party and as such. questions need to be answered. Steven has affirmed that he submitted his application in good time. I questioned whether the band width of the UKIP servers was sufficient to cope with two applications simultaneously and am advised that this was investigated internally. Given the brevity, it is in the interest of the party to have this clarified by an expert. I would also question why the NEC has taken such a hard line in upholding the constitution when previously they have chosen to ignore it by amending the eligibility rule from 5 years to 2. They also extended the time limit for applications for the NEC election. The NEC is entitled to do this because they can make or amend from time to time rules or procedure as it deems appropriate for the efficient conduct or administration of the party. This would effectively exclude other candidates from mounting a legal challenge which is the excuse given for not allowing Steven the benefit of the doubt. So lets look at the vote itself. This was done electronically and in secret, we have been given no information regarding whether counting agents were appointed while NEC members have been gagged and are prohibited from providing us with information. Is this the democratic party that we thought we were part of? You and Elizabeth Jones are on the NEC. I accept your assurance that there was no conflict of interest on your part however you advise that you supported the vote reluctantly. Not good enough Jonathan, either you support the NEC and their secret ballot behind closed doors (remind you of something?) or you support the grassroots members who trusted you enough to put you in the job that you hold today. These questions will not go away, they need to be answered. The NEC was supplied with legal advice in other words they were directed how to vote. .The NEC has the power to stop this now, there can be no legal challenge from other candidates so why don’t they do just that and save the party they profess to care so much about. Take a look at the UKIP website. UKIP believe democracy should be devolved to the people through local and national referendums on key issues so that laws are made by the people not the political class. The government of Britain should be for the people by the people. UKIP says Listen to the people Take your own advice listen to the people. The NEC must step down or UKIP is finished. You could do something wonderful, you could ask the other candidates, yourself included to temporarily step down until an independent and open investigation is concluded
I’m sorry but what you’re saying isn’t accurate. You say “however you advise that you supported the vote reluctantly”. No, I didn’t. I stayed well and truly away from the vote because it would be a conflict of interest to do so.
I attend some NEC meetings as a representative of the MEPs. This means that I’m on the NEC, but it’s not always my turn to have a vote. It leaves me semi-detached from the NEC, so I am able to look at it a bit more from the outside and see what’s going right/what’s going wrong.
I’m not here to defend the NEC or its decisions regarding the leadership election. It would be improper for me, as a candidate who’s bound by their decisions, to either support or oppose them.
I know you disagree with their decision, but don’t blame me for it as a candidate who had nothing to do with that decision!
Fair enough Jonathan thank you for making that clear, this is not a personal attack on you. I know that Paul endorses you and I respect and admire his opinion but there remain questions that need answers. I have been reliably informed that two or more candidates threatened to sue UKIP if Steven’s application was endorsed. This sheds an even more sinister light on the situation and one that Paul Oakden has omitted to mention to our members. In effect, certain candidates are willing to destroy the party and all that we have achieved in an attempt to grab the leadership. Are you aware of this?
I’ve heard similar rumours…I don’t know whether they’re true or not. Certainly not true in my case.
Thank you Jonathan, best of luck in your campaign
Sorry, folks, but it’s long past time to expel the slimy, Establishment, Tory plants!
Just to clarify, I’m referring to Carswell, Evans and Hamilton, as I’m sure you’re already well aware.
I’m sure I know your cousin, Barking Mad! Speaks nothing but common sense, as you are doing in this post! I may demur in the case of Ms Evans, I feel that she has been rather badly treated. But yes, too many ‘Glam’ recruits, accepted and treated as ‘Stars’ and given places far higher than (and at the expense of) ‘plain-old-ordinary’ members!
Good reasoned response. The NEC are UKIP Ltd’s directors and you can’t have a company without directors. The structural problem is a chairman who is not accountable to the board and who has, in effect, a private fiefdom at Lexdrum House and who bars the NEC (contrary to the companies act) from access to accounting records. Current NEC is clued up and more assertive. Chairman thinks them bolshy. What will you do about that?
There’s some merit in what you’re saying, particularly as regards directorships. There needs to be consideration given to the nature of the Party Charirman’s role. Do the roles of chairman of the NEC and the current political/administrative role of the Chairman need to be held by distinct people?
It’s something that deserves serious consideration.
How about an elected party chairman? With a mandate of his or her own the chairman is more independent and as we mature and grow as a party it will less the two man band it has been. The NEC has not handled everything well but they are being unfairly maligned. In future, how about the NEC holding meetings a couple of times a year in between conferences – one up north, one in London, one elsewhere perhaps – at which members can meet them, see they are human, ask questions and make suggestions. The NEC will be less remote, more connected. But whatever is worked out we need to find a structural solution. The days when it was Nigel’s party, and his voice reigned – and god bless him for all he has done – are over and so the structure can be adjusted. We must all work together now to give the party a future. We owe it to try hard – I am a mere foot soldier so need people like you to keep pitching – to all the people that look to UKIP. voted for us or with us in the referendum. There was a tremendous family feeling in the referendum campaign and UKIP needs to get back to that.
It’s worth consideration, certainly – though it depends on what the roles and responsibilities of the Chairman are in the future.
If the Chairman loses the confidence of the Leader, but has a mandate which comes from being elected, I can imagine that there would be problems which might arise.
There’s an argument for doing it anyway, but in order to do it you would need to have a very clear job description and mechanism to resolve any conflicts which arise.
I think this is overthinking it ( electing the Chairman).
If the Leader is democratically elected following full debate amongst the candidates, including about specific policy matters; and if the NEC members are elected on a Regional, and annual, basis ( which allows the fullest participation of the membership in said elections ) then that is enough democracy : the Leader needs to have power to appoint ( and disappoint ! ) the Chairman.
Two x poles of authority / leadership are a recipe for division and splittism.
About time people like yourself pulled your necks in, I’ve been supporting, promoting and voting UKIP since you were in middle school, I’m one of the old guard that has been around for a very long time, since UKIP’s inception in-fact. In all this time I’ve never witnessed such an abuse of power, never seen the rules be changed at the drop of a hat to exclude people from running for Party Leader, you Arnott, along with the other cronies I’ve witness take over this party, you absolutely disgust me to the core. The Party is ripping itself apart because yet another stipulation was added which I cant seem to find anywhere in the rules, a 12 midday cut-off point, and during a period of time when UKIP had already been made aware of a problem with the Party’s database, and you expect the members to just swallow and roll over knowing that Steven was disqualified from standing due to an issue with UKIP’s own system, no chance in hell, the moment the Party was informed that there was an issue with their database the time should have at least been extended at the minimum to the end of a normal business working day, in truth the registration should have been called off until the technical issue had been dealt with. You want to bring the party back together and try and unify it, then do the right thing and add Steven Woolfe to the candidates list.
I’m not sure why this particular missive is aimed at me. I’m a candidate in this election, and therefore it would be improper for me to comment about Steven Woolfe’s eligibility or otherwise.
It’s a bit like a footballer trying to overrule the ref. Not going to do it.
I’ve been a member of UKIP since 2001, and I’ve been through the highs and lows just like you have. I’ve worked at grassroots level, at branch level, at regional level, at national level. I’ve seen many NECs come and go, and I’ve seen the best and worst that the system can produce.
I love this Party, I hate what it’s going through, and I’m standing because I want to reunite us.
As I’ve already said, you want party unity, knowing full well that at this moment in time due to what has happened to Steven, due to UKIP’s own computer system failing due to a technical problem, ruling Steven out of the leadership challenge, also after accepting his 5 grand, which could be seen as a contract by a great deal of members, which was made well in time of the cut-off time. The members know Steven was on the phone with someone at UKIP whilst he was trying to send in his application, the party knew there was a technical issue with their own database, and because of a fault in your own system Steven and his many supporters get shafted in the process. You want unity at party and grass-roots level, do the right thing and get Steven on the leadership list, it’s that or the party will continue to become more divided. Grass-roots in their droves feel Steven was shafted, how do you expect to unify the party if a massive chunk feels cheated.
I wouldn’t be able to get Steven Woolfe on the ballot paper, no matter what I try or do. All I would achieve would be to create further division. No thanks.
Derek is making good and very valid points about Woolfe’s application rejection and the eventual decision about continued membership of UKIP. We have noted new rules being quoted (NEC can introduce rules but we were never informed although the constitution states the rules should be available online) so the NEC could have used common sense but the impression is that they were determined to keep him out. You can blame the lack of transparency if you like but we members sure as hell don’t know what is happening unless we read it in the news.
He has had his collar felt by the Manchester police. Steven wouldn’t accept now to be on the ballot paper.
@William Kane: I’m still not commenting on the NEC’s decision for the reasons I’ve already explained about a conflict of interest.
For your information the Party’s Rules of Procedure are available online though: http://www.ukip.org/ukip_party_rule_book
Jonathan Arnott,
In the absence of Woolfe, you have my vote.
But the problem is not just the Woolfe situation – it’s Hamilton’s disgusting behaviour and factionalism that is pushing Nathan Gill out of UKIP Wales.
We in Mid/West Wales (Hamilton’s region) lost members in droves when Neil Hamilton was selected as the regional candidate. We lost droves again after his disgusting treatment of Gethin James, and we are losing droves again over the Woolfe/Gill situation.
Hamilton is killing us in Wales. Years of incredible work are being thrown away for one man’s obsession with his political comeback.
The membership… That is NOT the NEC should be allowed to vote for a Steven Woolfe candidacy…
If we could have in the previous leadership election, someone like Winston, who had been in every party plus the one he invented for himself… We can have someone with this terribly besmirched history of skullduggery, like missing a deadline by 17 minutes, or not declaring a spent conviction for something he never had cat’s chance in hell of winning, to take our chances and vote for.
We are not like the other parties.
We want to ensure that the UK leaves the EU, which while the NEC sits there undermining the membership, is looking less likely by the day… and then campaign on building a better democracy, a direct democracy…
We should not be entertaining underhanded CONservative party politicking, we should be making sure that we have a leader that is capable of leading us, capable of handling the almost universally hostile media…
…And I am sorry Mr. Arnott, you are a very nice chap, a very clever chap… But you do not have either of the above qualities.
As Margaret Thatcher once said (or maybe more than once)…
There is no alternative…
If the membership in a free vote do not think that Steven Woolfe is the best candidate, they will vote for someone else… And I will be content.
That is what is called democracy…
But to ban this candidate on the spurious convulsions of the group of persons who claim to be representing the paying members, is not conducive to democracy, particularly when they keep changing rules as they go along.
I had a very annoying communication from some people I have never heard of (Piers Wauchope, Adrianne Smyth and Toby Coke), and the arbitrary nature of it confirmed my view that Nigel’s piece in Breitbart was absolutely correct… He probably didn’t go far enough.
Stephen
I believe that the current method for electing the NEC ( a national postal ballot ) is not as good a way as my preferred method ( region based elections, still postal ballot, with local Hustings everyone can easily attend before the local ballot ) for achieving an NEC as responsive to and reflective of the general membership of UKIP.
HOWEVER, I believe vituperative criticism of the current NEC is wholly misplaced ~ it is not the fault of the currently elected NEC members that the electoral system is what it is. ( Btw I was myself a candidate two years running for the NEC and was unsuccessful, so I am not ‘parti pris’ in favour of the current NEC ! )
For what it is worth, I supported, reluctantly – because I just cannot imagine why he left something so important to the last minute, especially given he has STAFF to assist with such things – , the proposition that if all that was wrong with Steven W’s application was the 17 minutes’ lateness then the NEC could have adopted a principle of ‘de minimis non curat lex’ and allowed his name to go forward.
However:
a) I do not think the contrary view, which the majority of the NEC upheld, is a totally mad one, I think it is reasonable in its own way; and
b) and most importantly, that particular decision, to exclude on grounds of lateness, Steven from the ballot paper, has been totally OVERTAKEN by the ADMISSION that he made an inaccurate declaration regarding his eligibility to be a PCC candidate in 2012.
You are perhaps unaware that this is considered a serious offence, not a triviality, and that the alleged offence is being actively investigated by Manchester Police.
Do you realize he could go to prison for this ?
The fact that Steven himself is no longer actively contesting his exclusion from the ballot is probably an indication that he himself realizes he has worse things to worry about, and that he could no longer seriously offer himself whilst this Police investigation is ongoing ( unless he was utterly denying the allegation but I gather that is not his position ).
Therefore I think that we need to move on from what has become a theoretical argument ( about what would have been Steven’s eligibility had the inaccurate declaration issue not arisen ) to the ACTIVE issue which will have more long lasting effects : namely what would be the best method for the future of electing persons to the NEC ?
I believe for reasons stated already that the best method would be a Regional base : so that members could easily attend Hustings in their Region to listen to candidates for NEC set out their stalls, engage in debate, and answer questions from the Membership.
The vote would still be a postal one, of all members in the Region, not just those who attended the Hustings, but in my view this would be a mechanism which would surely result in a genuinely responsive membership of the NEC.
If you agree that this is worth aiming for then I urge you to direct your energies to this cause, not the totally lost one of Steven Woolfe ( whom even Nigel has apparently stopped supporting, since the revelation about the undisclosed conviction ).
The sooner Nathan Gill is kinda ked out of UKIP the better it will be for all. He has past form and is interested only in lining his pockets
Thank you, Jonathan, for addressing these issues and making things clearer. I think the most important point you make is the need for greater involvement of the members in terms of giving information, improving communication, listening to members’ ideas. When rumours abound and fur is flying, it’s very difficult to work out what’s going on, whom to trust, and what needs doing to prevent further damage.
That you are the first candidate to directly address the readers of ukipdaily and set out your ideas for solutions to the current problems indicates a readiness to communicate with the members that is commendable.
I believe I am correct in saying that Regional representation was the subject of a motion passed at Conference in Doncaster? What has the NEC done about this?
The NEC doesn’t have the power to introduce regional representation.
What it could do is put it to the membership as a proposed constitutional change, and ask the members to vote about changing the constitution. That would need a two-thirds majority.
The Conference motion didn’t get a two-thirds majority.
The NEC decided not to sped tens of thousands of pounds on a ballot which would probably have failed.
That was the position of the (previous) NEC which discussed this.
It needs to be put to the members now, as does wider constitutional change. I’m pledging two ballots. One on modernising the constitution and one on regional representation – to be held at the same time to save money.
“Oh dear, you`ve got to laugh”
or is it just me?
“The NEC is RIFLE with Carsewellians”
Perhaps it is appropriate I have always regarded UKIP as a revolutionary organise/disorganised, collection of folk from every political shade from far right to far left wing instincts and previous loyalties together with those who have never had much interest in politics, but united and welded (mainly by Nigel) into a very effective fighting force for one cause.
As Nigel has said at the time of his resignation he was not a politician and his success was in bringing a “voice in the dark” pressure group up to a brilliantly successful conclusion of the PRIMARY aim – BRexit.
Now, we have to put away theNECrevolutionary “Rifle” loaded with Carsewellian bullets and become a sensible, ruley, Political party..
Personalities don`t really matter, it`s the POLICY that counts and apart from hearing that feet must be held to the fire to ensure TOTAL BRexit; I have not heard anything about policy.
The majority of our supporters are Nigel`s Grass Roots army, a hotch pot of disparate previous political loyalties, it will be interesting to know what sort of policy is going to keep them interested and prepared to provide the EFFORT and monetary fire power for now what is going to be the long haul of creating and maintaining a political presence to serve all our needs.
My suggestion which I will repeat once again is that UKIP must unite with the GO and LEAVE.eu Cross party campaign and organisation and direct parliamentary activity through this body.
Perhaps thought might be given to where those MEPs are going to continue their political careers after BRexit, never mind those from UKIP there are some from the other parties who maybe perceived the value of BRexit, but who for party considerations were unable to come out of the wood.
Whether we like it or not the Revolution is over, we won the war, now the peace must be worth living, it is up to us all to make a success of BRexit. and we can make a start by ensuring that we have a new parliament free of EU strangulation and peopled with those who reflect the views and aspirations of all the voters including Grass Roots elements.
Back to where I started.
“If you didn`t laugh you`d cry” ……..at the antics and personalisation of the supposed sensible victors who had persuaded the majority of the voters that to leave the EU, was the sensible course, despite the hysterical and hypocritical actions of the Remainiacs and their equally guilty overzealous establishment fellow travellers who have committed such a disservice to the economy and provided the basis for this continued disharmony which is working towards the cancellation or minimalisation of BRexit
Jonathan:
What, if anything, does the Constitution say the purpose / powers of an EGM is / are ? ( Not that I am urging one. )
Ditto the powers / purpose of the ‘Business Meeting’ at the Annual Conference ?
Is there any reason why the Business Meeting could not pass, should it so wish, a change to the electoral mechanism for the NEC, from national ( current ) to region based ones ?
If such would not be constitutionally valid, surely it could so vote on an advisory basis , following proper debate ?
I do agree that changing constitutions is ‘something we have to be very careful about ‘ which is why I would like to concentrate, at least for the present, on this one issue : the mechanism by which we elect the NEC.
I am not aware of any other issues within the Consitution which are as pressing or important ( but willing to consider those which you set out, of course. )
One thing about the Conference, of course, is that it cannot of itself be really representative of the Membership : MANY members simply cannot afford the costs of attending, especially from distant places such as the North East.
I am sure Bournemouth is delightful as a location ( I intend going ) but somewhere like Derby might be more practicable for the majority of members.
Newcastle / Gateshead are also delightful for future Conferences, btw ! 🙂
Obviously I meant to write ‘rife’ but the spell checker won out. And I’m an educated man, for the record, so stop the unnecessary sniping please, Roger T.
1. The Business Meeting has to stick to the constitutional authority that it has. It cannot overturn the Party Constitution.
2. I didn’t have any input on the Conference venue. The rumour is that after two Conferences in the North (not that far north, but by UKIP standards…) the next conference should be Southern. Not saying I agree! There’s an argument that seaside conferences increase attendance because of the availability of accommodation and the ease of making it a bit of a holiday if taking non-political family members.
Conference passed a motion (but without 2/3 majority) on regional representation in 2014 so I think I would take it as given that this is a reasonable constitutional change to put to the membership.
Other changes to the constitution are needed, but that’s something which requires more detailed comment than I can do justice to here. Holding both ballots at the same time will save in the order of £50,000.
There is something terribly wrong at the heart of UKIP that will scupper the party, Mr Arnott. If anyone asked for this to be abolished, they also talked about a replacement. Because lots of people have put in too much hard work for UKIP to be vandalised to death. I personally don’t care how long it takes remove the canker, nor how much the process would provoke the scorn of the (discredited) corporate-media – things just need to get fixed. If they don’t, then I will leave UKIP for an alternative – and from what’s been said it’s very likely there will be one – and encourage others to do the same.
I agree that it needs sorting. The problem may even be worse than you imagine: often it’s both sides that are in the wrong!
It can be sorted but it won’t happen overnight.
Thank you for the reply. I appreciate your setting out what you would do about this if elected leader; I would like to see the other candidates do the same.
@Jill Bush: I’ve already answered your questions about conflict of interest before you asked! I did not vote on any matter relating to Steven Woolfe, and indeed I specifically asked to be copied out of the correspondence relating to it. Ray Finch MEP voted on these issues.
Ditto, regarding Nathan Gill.
We either have to find a way of uniting the Party or we’ll end up conducting a huge purge and splitting it. My view is that the proposals I’ve put forward give us a chance to stay united.
My proposal does address the changes to rules actually – my point is that rules should be written well in advance, with every eventuality prepared for.
I’ll be blunt. If you’re looking for a night of the long knives, vote for a different candidate. Kicking out too many people – and let’s be blunt, there’s fault on both sides in many of these issues – will result in the Party imploding.
@Anthony Nailer: I’m not still teaching – I kept it up for as long as I could, but ultimately after being elected as an MEP it proved impossible.
@Rhys: Regional elections for the NEC requires constitutional change, and therefore a postal ballot of all members. It makes sense to offer this ballot at the same time as offering other constitutional change.
There is much sense in what Jonathan outlines. I do feel that many of those who are calling for the NEC to be removed are doing so based on the manipulation of what they are being told about the removal of Woolfe. His nomination as leader was flawed from the outset, further he clearly knew he would never be leader with electoral fraud in the background. Members of the party need to address this in their own minds as electing a leader who potentially could be jailed is pure insanity.
Jonathan
Please can you clarify :
Are you saying that a change to Region based elections to the NEC would require a full on 2/3 majority in a membership vote ?
Because your first article today implied to me that a simple majority would suffice.
If the change would require 2/3 maj then it is even more essential that you ( and other candidates for the Leadership ) specify in advance of the Leadership vote whether you do or do not support such a change.
Do you, in fact, support a change to Region based elections to the NEC ?
If not, please advise your reasons.
Yes, it would be a constitutional change and therefore require a 2/3 majority.
That’s why I propose to separate that vote from the other vote on constitutional reform on the ballot paper. I don’t want the one to cause a problem with the other. If 75% support regional representation and 75% support constitutional change, but they’re different people, then both changes could fail to get 66.7% if they’re put together on the same ballot paper.
Do I support it? I’ve always been reluctant in the past because I do worry that we might simply change one set of problems for another but I’m coming round to the view that it may well now be necessary.
Grateful if you could spell out the ‘other set of problems’ which regional elections might bring ?
I cannot see what they might be and would like to have an opportunity to address them.
Plus ~any change of this kind which a new Leader is opposed to is very unlikely to get even a simple majority, let alone a 2/3 one.
Plus : you have not spelt out what would be the other principle points of the Constitution which you would wish to have changed. I would be v interested to know what they are, but I fear that they would distract from the issue of Regional elections to the NEC, which to my mind potentially solves a lot of problems, and relieves disquiet that the NEC is too remote from the membership.
( I think a clean slate of annual elections to the NEC would also be beneficial .)
This now becomes tricky because you’re effectively asking me to argue against the new system you want me to propose. Ultimately it may simply have to happen because the current situation is worse.
For the record my reasons for being slightly cautious are:
1. The 2003 problem.
If you have a situation where certain regions are pitted against the Party, you create a problem where there will be an endless stream of regional representatives elected who seek to continue a fight. We might not have got out of the problems in 2003 if we’d had such a system back then.
2. The perspective problem
As NEC members would depend upon local members only for re-election, there is a danger that they all act parochially on the NEC. A national committee needs to consider the good of the Party as a whole.
3. The fairness problem
The largest region in the country may have 20-30 times as many members as the smallest. It therefore will lead to requests from large regions to have 2, 3 or more seats and the danger of fighting between regions.
There are ways around this, but someone somewhere will claim any solution is unfair.
These aren’t the only concerns, but they have to be considered carefully. I’m worried that a regionally-picked NEC won’t be perfect. I’m starting to think though that it might have fewer problems than we do at the moment
Jonathon
Thankyou for your reply.
Please see my further comment below the main one (I was obviously in the process of writing when you clarifed this to an earlier enquiry) and I am similarly pleased to read your further comment regarding Nathan Gill. Even if you had not clarified this, I would probably have given the benefit of the doubt, because you had excluded yourself from the Woolfe saga.
Re: Woolfe, I have not yet decided who I will vote for and I will not decide until all the candidates have put forward their manifestos’. I was merely addressing my concerns regarding the NEC contradictions and the directions it is/was heading.
No, I am not looking for a night of the long knives. I am actually a bit of a wimp who is applying standard risk aversion principles to human nature and all its foibles; how and in what way ‘power’ can corrupt some and can make them vindictive if that power is taken from them.
Thanks, I understand you concerns. There have been far too many personal vendettas on all sides, and that now needs to stop.
What you suggest comes across as a formal diplomatic proposal, which to some degree I would agree with.
However, 4 points which call into question your proposal.
1. Your proposal does not fully address the level the NEC have brought itself into disrepute with the party membership, by changing rules when it appears to suit itself, eg: a) disbarring of Gill, changing the leadership 5 year rule to 2, b) it would appear the rule book does not contain a 12.00 deadline and c). if it is in the rule book, why was it necessary for the NEC to vote on Woolfes’ exclusion? d). Funny how the NEC can ignore or insist on adhering to the ‘rule book’ when it suits. e) The un-named NECs’ article where it is claimed no other candidates left their application until the final hour. I understand this is not true, but either way what the membership read in this article was an astonishing display of arrogance toward those the NEC appear to regard as the ‘little people’. And these are just the recent issues, I understand these latest instances are merely a continuation of what has occurred in the past.
How very liblabconish. More importantly it appears to demonstrate this is an entrenched/personal problem, whereby once some attain ‘power’, believe they can patronise, and possibly even try to hoodwink the membership. Like it or not, these ongoing issues with the NEC do need to be aired and in some respects a EGM is a good way to do this. In doing so, a clear message is sent to future NEC people, do not attempt to subvert the party because the membership will hold you to account.
2. Your proposal appears to suggest as a member of the NEC there may be a conflict of interest as to why you may prefer the approach you suggest.
3. Another possible conflict of interest is the membership do not know if you were one of the majority who voted to exclude Woolfe.
4. As I memtioned above, your proposal at first glance suggests a diplomatic approach, however, on closer inspection it is also a proposal to ‘sweep under the carpet’ the subversive attitudes of those who may now wish to step down from the NEC, so that they are not only not held to account by the membership for their power grab, but that they will also be able to disappear into the woodwork, and possibly continue their antics from a different direction.
Trust the key here and trust in the current NEC has been lost. A strong message needs to be sent to those who seek power for powers sake.
Re: 3 above I have since read your reply to a comment below and pleased to read you were not involved.
JONATHAN, good morning,
First, there is a lot of sense in what you write in today’s piece.
I would be grateful if you could clarify one thing in particular : what now would be required exactly to move ASAP from a national ballot for NEC elections ( the current situation) to a Regional one ( where each Region voted locally for one member of the NEC, perhaps such elected members to be topped up by up to three nominated by the Leader [ but these latter subject to approval by the elected NEC ] I have in mind that the Leader could properly use his nominating powers to appoint persons with particular expertise, legal, financial, etc. to the NEC ) ?
I believe that the very earliest possible adoption of Regional elections of NEC members would go a good way, possibly the whole way, to satisfying those members of the party who are upset about the decision to exclude Steven Woolfe from the leadership election.
More importantly it would be a huge step, quite possibly a sufficient step, towards making the party more democratic, more responsive to its membership.
UKIP is a party of enthusiasts, and if we had Region based elections to the NEC all candidates could set out their stall, be cross questioned, and debate at a Hustings centrally located in each Region so all members who wished could attend. This is just not practicable for a national election.
( The Regional proceedings could be live web~streamed for those who could not attend, or could perhaps be broadcast on the BBC’s Parliament channel, why not ? In any event the Minutes of such Hustings could be put online for those who could not attend to read.)
The VOTE ( regionally ) for the NEC member to be elected would still be a postal one, conducted by the Electoral Reform Society. This would provide for maximal participation in the vote for NEC.
I believe such a procedure ( Regional elections for the NEC ) would make us the most democratic party in the country, not just in theory but in practice. Such elections could take place on an annual basis, so that if there were to arise some specific item of discontent ( such as the barring of Steven W ) where there arose a general feeling that the NEC had acted unfairly, then the membership would know they would have a voice in the issue, and could correct the NEC, within a shortish time frame.
I do hope that you, Jonathan, and why not , if they wish, other Candidates for Leader, will adopt my proposal, above, and state clearly that if you ( or they ) are elected you will immediately aim to move to such a Region based system for electing the NEC, and such from this Autumn ( ie all existing NEC members to make way for the to be elected ones ).
Whichever candidate most unambiguously, and most enthusiastically, adopts ‘ Regional Elections NOW for NEC membership ‘ will get my vote.
I believe that the judgment as to whether the NEC’s decision to bar Steven W on grounds of lateness of application was a fine one but in any event has been rendered entirely moot by the subsequent admission of the much more serious business of making an incorrect declaration in 2012 on the issue of a previous conviction for an imprisonable offence. ( The Electoral Commission’s website makes very very clear to intending candidates that ‘previous conviction’ INCLUDES spent convictions . It is really difficult to understand how a barrister could have missed this warning. )
No one who is now under active investigation for alleged Electoral Fraud can possibly be a candidate for a major party’s Leadership ( with the possible exception of someone who categorically denies the allegation ~but this is not Steven’s position, as I understand it ).
So ‘Steven or Not Steven’ is now a side issue for historians.
However it has brought usefully into focus the very real issue as to the inadequacies of a national ballot for NEC in terms of electing persons who are reflective of, and responsive to, the general membership.
I hope you will consider and adopt unambiguously the banner of ‘Regional Elections to the NEC ‘ as part of your Manifesto.
I am pleased that you, Jonathan, have set out your stall. So far you are the only one to do so with a clear remit to rework the way the party operates. I too have been the subject of unfair and undemocratic action by a couple of Chairman of Branches who like the position and prestige but down want to organize the members campaign efficiently.
The party rule book is far too loose on issues of branch management and any appeals to head office often result in decisions made by junior member that are an affront to democracy at branch level.
I have looked at your credentials Jonathan and must say I am impressed. A Master of Mathematics Degree. Employed as a Teacher and continuing part time as such together with being an MEP. The most speeches and highest voting record of any MEP of any party. Past General Secretary of the Party. You are probably the most qualified to do the job of restructuring. Are you though the best speaker with the required charisma of Leader. Maybe you would be better employed as Party Chairman. But who then for Leader, Suzanne Evans or Dianne James?
Out of all of the candidates, there isn’t a standout ‘best’ public speaker anyway. All have their strong and weak points. Am I the best speaker in the Party? No, I’m not.
Am I the best speaker amongst the candidates’ list? I don’t know – but frankly that’s not the main criterion that we should be applying when seeking a new leader.
The Leader will have to drive forward restructuring. Who’s best placed to do that?
The Leader will have to be knowledgeable across a whole range of policy areas in a way that UKIP has not had to do before. I’ve proven my track record on that.
The Leader will have to be someone who’s able to unite rather than divide.
And frankly, charisma isn’t the key right now. Right now we need stability and to build a professional fighting machine.
@Concerned Supporter:
1. If you want to sort out the NEC, there’s an NEC election which will be taking place during an EGM. Simpler way: vote for people you’re happy with on the NEC.
2. An EGM has to be called for a specific purpose. What purpose? You’ll have to say what you want to do with the NEC.
Abolish the NEC? An EGM doesn’t have the power to do that.
Force fresh NEC elections? They’re taking place before/during the EGM anyway (and it’s not 100% clear that an EGM even has that power).
What exactly else could an EGM do?
A couple of comments before I’m asked the usual questions. My 6 years of experience as General Secretary of the Party was from 2008-2014; I resigned shortly after I was elected. I’m not GenSec currently. Roger Bird followed me, and now it’s Adam Richardson.
“Aren’t you on the NEC?”
I attend some NEC meetings as a representative of the MEPs. This means that I’m on the NEC, but it’s not always my turn to have a vote. It leaves me semi-detached from the NEC, so I am able to look at it a bit more from the outside and see what’s going right/what’s going wrong.
“Wouldn’t it be wrong for you to be involved in anything to do with the organisation of the leadership election?”
That’s right, which is why I haven’t voted on anything and I’ve asked to be copied out of sensitive correspondence.
“How did you vote re: Steven Woolfe?”
The MEPs’ vote was exercised by Ray Finch, not me. It would have been improper for me to be the one to vote. I asked not to even see the correspondence due to the potential for a conflict of interest. I believe Ray has stated in public that he voted to reject the Eligibility Panel’s report, and to allow Steven Woolfe on the ballot.
We need an EGM because, to quote another wise saying: “A fish rots from the head down”. And I’m talking about the NEC here, not Nigel. The NEC is rifle with Carswellians and self-interest and the resulting schism will bring the party down if left unchecked.
Heaven knows I’ve had problems with a couple of local branches I’ve been involved with; self-interested, patently unsuitable chairmen; permanently expelled members desperately looking for a way back in, knowing that if a Carswell candidate leads the party they will be welcomed back with open arms. You can guess how well that will go down with the loyal membership. This scenario is replicated in some other branches, I’m sad to report.
It’s time to get back to basics, have an AGM and root out this indiscipline and hugely damaging disruption from within. And get the leadership the party needs.
There is already scheduled an AGM for five weeks’ time, in Bournemouth.
As I understand it an E G M cannot , NB CANNOT, validly take place until several weeks AFTER the Bournemouth AGM, thus it would be redundant, especially if the current party Chairman will make clear that at Bournemouth there will be no artificial stage management ( as at Tory and Lab party Conferences ) but instead an open Forum at which all who wish may speak.
I cannot see what an EGM could possibly achieve, which cannot be achieved at the ( earlier in time ) AGM ?
But perhaps you have a different view ? Happy to consider it !
In principle I agree with you that an EGM isn’t a particularly sensible approach. The Constitution is rather vague on the powers of an EGM, which I think is what’s leading to the current confusion.
The national Party has a Business Meeting at Conference, which is not the same as an AGM. The Party doesn’t have a formal AGM. The remit of the Business Meeting is very limited indeed:
“5.3 The Business Meeting will be open only to Party members “in good standing”. Its business shall be:
a) to receive reports from the Party’s leaders and officers; and
b) to receive and note the Party’s accounts, which by virtue of Article 2.2.2 hereof are required under company law.
5.4 All motions at the Business Meeting may be passed by a simple majority of those voting.”
What’s unclear is what the powers of an EGM are. I think it’s pretty clear that the EGM can’t make a change that overrides the Party Constitution. But it must have greater power than a Business Meeting. This is something which we’ve got to be very careful about.