[Ed: We just received this important statement, sent by a member of the NEC. Please read it carefully!]
The NEC consists of grassroots party activists elected by all the members of the party from among themselves. Our role is to oversee the permanent party hierarchy on behalf of the members. We are volunteers, we do not get paid, we put in our own time which we frequently have to take away from our paid employment. Most of us pay our own expenses which in the cases of some of our overseas members exceed £10,000 per year. Although we formally meet only once a month, in reality, being a member of the NEC is a nearly full time job (unpaid). Many of us are patrons and further donate large sums of our own money to the party.
NEC members are not “party elites”, we are volunteers putting in our own time without any kind of secretarial support. Our goal is always to try and represent what is right and fair for our fellow members in accordance with the Party Constitution and Party Rulebook.
Our numbers include barristers, solicitors, professors and successful businessmen. We are a group used to taking serious decisions and we take our responsibilities to the party seriously.
Regarding the Steven Woolfe decision, the situation is as follows:
On Tuesday 2 August, a panel was convened to assess the eligibility of the candidates applying to be leader of the Party. This panel sat at 12:20.
This panel considered the following candidates: Jonathan Arnott, Phillip Broughton, Lisa Duffy, Bill Etheridge, Diane James, Elizabeth Jones and Steven Woolfe.
Attendees included Jonathan Arnott, Phillip Broughton, Lisa Duffy, Bill Etheridge and a representative of Diane James. Apologies were received from Bill Etheridge and Elizabeth Jones.
The eligibility criteria that were being considered were:
- – Are you a member in good standing?
- – Have you been a member of the Party for 2 years?
- – Was your deposit received before 31st July 12 pm?
- – Was your application received before 31st July 12 pm?
- – Do you have 50 valid assentors drawn from at least 10 branches?
Every candidate assessed was assessed against these criteria only, and was found to have met them except Steven Woolfe.
As per the Party Rulebook, the panel’s remit did not include any examination of any suitability criteria.
The question of Steven Woolfe’s membership dues that was raised recently was resolved. The panel were satisfied this was not an issue.
Steven Woofle’s deposit was received on time on 31/07/2016 11:35 (BST), but his application was received only on 31/07/2016 12:17 (BST).
The rule is “Complete applications, including nominations MUST be received by the Returning Officer by 31st July, 12pm”.
This had not been met. It was put to Steven Woolfe who showed evidence that he was experiencing computer troubles while submitting his application and deposit.
The panel examined the evidence from the UKIP server log and found that UKIP servers were in good working order at the time of Steven Woolfe’s submission and continuously 6 days prior, and received different candidates application at 11:43am on the same day without issue.
The panel also examined the timestamps on Steven Woolfe’s submitted files, which could not be reconciled with his statement that he was ready to submit his application by 11:35am. It was the panel’s unanimous view that Steven Woolfe did not give himself enough time to take into account technical problems that he may have suffered and the rule is clear that the applications MUST be received by 12pm rather than sent.
Outside of this issue Steven Woolfe’s application was in order.
Immediately upon completion, the panel’s findings were presented to the whole NEC for approval. The NEC was supplied with legal advice which made it very clear that the rules of the election were that “complete applications MUST be received by 12:00 on 31 July” in order to be able to be accepted. If the NEC made an exception for one person and accepted an application that did not comply with this requirement, such a decision would not stand up in court.
Any other candidate, or indeed any member entitled to vote, would have had the legal standing to sue. If this had happened and we’d lost, we would not only have had to pay our own legal fees and court fees, but also the other party’s costs. That is money that our party can ill afford. Alongside this, the legitimacy of the whole leadership election would have been thrown into chaos.
The NEC took a vote which closed at 11:30am on Wednesday 3 August 2016 and a clear majority of the NEC voted to approve the panel’s recommendations.
The NEC is now being blamed for not accepting Steven Woolfe’s nomination. Those taking this view may wish to answer the following questions:
1) If they were the directors of a limited company (which our party is) and personally responsible for its finances, owed fiduciary duties to its members and creditors, and had to make this decision which could potentially have exposed the party to lawsuits it was virtually certain to lose, and could financially not afford to lose, what would they have done?
2) In what is probably one of the most significant events of his life, why did Steven Woolfe, who had 20 days to lodge his application, wait until the last minute to do so? All the other candidates filed in time.
3) Why did Steven Woolfe put the NEC in this position?
4) If you were to go on holiday, would you arrive at the departure gate 17 minutes after the scheduled takeoff time of your aircraft and expect to be able to board the plane? If the airline refused you boarding, is this a reason to vilify the airline, call for it to be disbanded, and post pictures on Facebook of people wielding rifles, calling for the airline’s management to be shot? Your readers may wish to know that members of YI (the chairman and deputy chairman of YI are on Steven Woolfe’s MEP payroll) have been posting just such pictures and comments on Facebook.
5) While Steven Woolfe appears to have accepted the situation, some others are attacking the NEC – the same people who have long wished to abolish the NEC for reasons, we suggest, wholly unrelated to Steven Woolfe’s candidacy.
6) All Steven Woolfe needed to do in order to be on the ballot paper is file a day earlier. Or even an hour earlier. Every other candidate did. And yet, despite being the first candidate to declare, he didn’t. Why? Why is this the NEC’s fault?
The NEC did not take Steven Woolfe off the ballot paper; Steven Woolfe took himself off the ballot paper.
We have had no reason to treat Steven any differently than any other candidate – nor did we.
We would now just ask our members to consider this: would they prefer the Party to be governed by a governing body which abides by the Party Constitution and the Party Rulebook, or one that does not?
We stand by our decision to be the former.
No Doug, no Suzanne and now no Stephen!
Why not just let this NEC offer us a single candidate and smirk as they get 101% of members vote.
Sack the lot, they are a metaphor for the EU.
Steven Woolfe should not be allowed to stand. The NEC held to its submission deadline. This has saved Steven and UKIP massive costs and damaging publicity. Now let’s move on and select a leader. But the NEC itself needs reform thus:
it should be elected annually
from regionally appointed members who are democratically selected
NEC members should be barred from any other UKIP office
Rule changes occur only with a majority vote of the committee
Selection of Party Leader must come from the whole membership
Especially sack the unknown that wrote this article.
Y’know something?
There’s a very old saying that goes ” Rules are made for the abeyance of fools, and the gudance of the wise” – never more apt as in this case.
The time of receipt of his deposit is clearly logged as 1135 hours, ergo that *should have been accepted* as bona fide evidence that his application to stand for election was indeed made ‘at or around’ that time, and should therefore have been accepted as such.
Add to this the fact that at least one member of the NEC was standing for the same position – a VERY clear conflict of interest, if ever there was one – and we begin to see why the NEC has literally shot its own toes off by doggedly insisting that THEY were right and everyone else was wrong.
One thing is for sure; UKIP “top shop” has done the Party NO favours whatever over this nonsense, so I’d suggest as a start that if we are to keep the NEC as a governing body, then ALL members of it should (a) come from the Party Grassroots, and (b) should automatically be disbarred from holding ANY other office within the Party.
NO more high-fliers with alternative agendas, NO more conflict of interests or loyalties – just plain, straightforward common sense – which is what UKIP is supposed to represent to the voters in the street.
I agree with what you say. If this doesn’t happen many members will leave the Party. We should support a grassroots party not one of suspects and suspicious people..
I do agree that the NEC should consist of gràssroots members and not elitist people, we’re barristers and solicitors make up gràssroots people above ordinary people is above me ” why mention it ” ha ho. All we ask is openness and commonsense and no agenda.
Very interesting that anonymous uses the airport to support his argument. A black lives matter group blocked the entrance to Heathrow this week. Holiday makers allowing themselves plenty of time for their flight were effectively prohibited from checking in by an event out of their control. Food for thought
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? Jonathan Arnott and Elizabeth Jones are on the NEC. Did they decline to vote or take part which would be a conflict of interest rendering the vote ineffectual. 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 UKIP, listen to the people. Back down or UKIP is finished
Agree entirely. With Jonathan Arnott and Elizabeth Jones on the NEC .. we should have means to know whether they declined to vote.. mention has been made about ‘vested interests’..and ‘agendas’ A Party For the people by the people. Not with a shadowy unaccountable group sitting in secret and producing no minutes of meetings.. I will leave the party unless something is done to resolve these issues. I can’t support a party like this. Perhaps a new party should be formed.
Most of us politically ‘innocent’ Ukippers haven’t even thought about the NEC and what is going on there. I appreciate some sort of head office needs to exist but the way they just make decisions on behalf of Ukippers is disturbing. It’s the sort of thing that got May in her post. It is not democracy as most of us want it to be. Government by the people is what we want with our parties doing what the majority of the people want.
The Nathan Gill thing with Hamilton stinks and most felt there was something going on there that we didn’t understand. I don’t and never have trusted Hamilton or Carswell.
I will not be leaving UKIP and taking my ball away. Please don’t anyone do that as it is exactly what the sort of anti-UKIP people we all despise want you to do. If there is anything anti-UKIP going on in the NEC then leaving the party will not help to get it fixed.
I am not a member, I’m just one of many UKIP voters so you can safely ignore what I have to say if you wish.
But reading between the lines; it appears to me that Steven Woolfe purposely submitted his application late – and I believe he did so for the greater good of the party.
Its more than likely he knew of the impending and ‘untimely’ serious election fraud investigation of his ‘forgotten’ declaration of a drink/drive conviction back in 2002 for the elected Police and Crime Commissioner role. Even so called ‘spent’ convictions have to be declared, and I don’t believe he had simply forgotten. More like he was too embarrassed to mention it, but in any case, he probably knew it might catch up with him and it would have done the party more harm than good had he stood and got elected as leader of UKIP.
I don’t think even he anticipated a leadership campaign was on the cards, let alone him being front-runner so soon after BREXIT?
I like him irrespective. He cannot now stand, he will however do well in a role to help get the party back on track. First call of duty will be to help get rid of the NEC Conservative moles that are systematically destroying UKIP.
Good luck to all you hard working and honest Kippers!
Point 1 Don’t have time to research but…
Point 2 An another candidate posted at the last minute.
Point 3. As he had paid and declared, why didn’t the NEC ask before the last minute where his application was?
Point 4. I have have been on aircraft a few times that have been delayed ” just waiting for the last 2 passengers” That’s against the “gate close rules”
Also the Government changed the rules on Brexit vote, at the last minute…
Point 5. Steven Woolfe has to be seen abiding by the rules in order to stand again.
Point 6. “another application was filed at 11:43” Contradiction!
A member of the NEC is up for election but voted for another’s application to be cancelled?
Better get back to your legal experts about bringing UKIP into disrepute, Due diligence in completing the application process and vested interest of a voting member…
So…as they say ” We are volunteers, we do not get paid, we put in our own time which we frequently have to take away from our paid employment. Most of us pay our own expenses which in the cases of some of our overseas members exceed £10,000 per year. Although we formally meet only once a month, in reality, being a member of the NEC is a nearly full time job (unpaid). ”
Than wouldn’t it be easier all around to just “relieve” the poor, suffering NEC members, (who are just lowly volunteers and have no political ambitions of their own or would ever try to create rules in their own favor to bar some serious competition to their own candidature) by disbanding them and giving them all their time back to focus on their paid jobs and families? A committee of 3 party officials can surely read the Party rule book and come to an agreement on rules and regulations and terms so much easier and with a lot less time and personal costs than a bloated committee who operate in secret and appear only to act to the betterment of themselves? Perhaps it’s best to thank them for their service and disband them, so they wont’ have to hold down a mostly “full time upaid job” because it’s clearly affecting their sense of logic and fairness, since they already change rules on a whim …it’s just allowing Steven Woolfe to stand after a technical glitch would not be in the NEC members who are standing against him’s best interest. Perhaps he would have filed sooner, but the rules kept changing before (first it was 5 years, then it was 2) so waiting till the last minute was only to make sure he was still eligible, since all the other criteria seems to have changed without warning.
Here is my legal advice for what it’s worth. If a party misses a Court deadline they may apply for “relief from sanctions” and judges will consider the reasons for default and often grant this. This is sensible, rational and just.
The NEC by contrast has decided that internal party rules must be entirely inflexible. The result is that the best person to capitalise on our Brexit victory and expand our electoral success was excluded. That affects not only UKIP but British politics as a whole. But of course – this does not matter. Because rules is rules.
What near-sighted jobsworths our NEC are.
Just a couple of comments that don’t appear to have been mentioned (One probably impossible for most people to have knowledge of). Before the referendum, the Prime Minister (i.e. the Government), extended the length of time for which voters could register for a vote in that referendum. Many people complained but I presume the time limit had been a LAW before these exceptions were allowed? Sauce for the goose? Or could we not have a referendum within the party to decide upon this extraordinary situation? If members thought that this was a non-democratic proposition then this vote would not take place. For the stability of the party this seems a more than acceptable suggestion. If it were to hold the party together with a majority it would be worth it. Is the Party run for the benefit of the NEC or the members who probably supply a majority of its funding – after all the NEC wouldn’t be losing money – only power. This next bit is historic: when I first joined the Party and I received my first copy of the Party’s magazine, it was obvious to me that votes for the NEC could be compromised. I alerted the Party and they changed the method of voting. The NEC was not consequently disbanded. I believe I can prove this (if it has any relevance) by producing the letter thanking me for my actions. There is another situation that I would like an explanation for from the NEC or head office but in view of the intransigent attitude of the NEC (as I see it) I’ll let my rep. at the EGM raise it. If it hasn’t already been addressed by the NEC at the time of the EGM, they will have been guilty (in my eyes) of failing in their duty to the members. For relatively new UKIP members can I say that the seemingly authoritarian attitude of the NEC is hereditary. Expulsions from that body are not unusual but those that seem to have been ‘let go’ were ones that were making positive contributions at the time of their leaving. Another thought, Nigel – and of course others – still form the largest contingent of UK MEPs in Brussels. What will their position be should there be a split in the party? Anything in the rule book about their positions? Would members have any influence in this respect? Would UKIP MEPs themselves have any? Maybe the anonymous initiator of this discussion could put us right with references to this situation so that those attending the EGM have as full a knowledge as possible of what they are being called upon to debate and conclude. Finally, did the NEC extend the deadline of their own election as has been alleged? If they did, they will know that their protest against the Woolfe disqualification is unenforceable.
We need to get rid of cars well and Hamilton they are both ex tories Nigel worked hard to get ukip established and as far as I am concerned it will not do the party any good with all this going on the media love it and it will turn people away from ukip
The NEC consists of grassroots party activists elected by all the members of the party from among themselves. SO why are the MEMBERS NOT voting for a new leader. It should not be the elitist gang at the top who should be making decisions, especially as the current polls show that Stephen Wolfe would be the most popular choice. Every Branch should have a vote on this, and a EGM held in every branch,, on two issues, whether we should remove the current NEC, and who should be the leader. AND the results published so that ALL members can see the DEMOCRATIC results.
Ok, I’ve changed my mind on this. I’m disappointed that Woolfe isn’t running but I have no grounds to dispute what the NEC are saying. They are Kippers just like all of us. Why did Woolfe leave his submission so late? Can we really blame the NEC? Do we have any real evidence of foul play?
I’m not tearing up my membership. I’m not voting for an EGm. I’m going to vote for Diane and hope that she’ll bring Woolfe to the top team. I hope Duffy will also be on the top team as she’s actually a good media performer.
UKIP is better than this. Let’s flush Carswell out of the party then unite behind a new leadership team. We’ve got work to do.
Hear,hear, Rallan.
I feel exactly as you do, and am also one who hasn’t been a member of any other party! Your support of the NEC is the same as mine also – they are sticking to the rules, though many seem to think that rule books are invented to be ‘elastic’ ans always should be stretched to suit THEIR point of view/opinion! I’m with you, lets get down to the real work and stop giving the press a banquet of anti UKIP topics to feast their beasts on!
NO, if there is a problem with the UKIP NEC then let us bring it out in the open. They are openly undemocratic and have formed a nice little clique that controls the feeling of the whole membership. They are a small number of individuals that are using their own personal agenda to control the Party as THEY SEE FIT irrespective of the number of individuals that do not agree with them. They are no different to the Parliamentary groups in Parliament that openly ignore the wishes of their membership. There is no such thing as ‘democracy’ in Britain, we are ruled by an elected oligarchy that once elected do precisely their own thing without regard to the Electorate.
It is only by shewing them that we will not stand for it will they finally realise that they are supposed to be representatives rather than their own perception of delegates that are free from doing what those that elected them desire.
It is time for the membership to combine and pass a vote of no confidence in their indifference to what the membership desire. It does no good to say that what they are doing is within the rules when they are the ones, without regard to the membership, who make the rules.
Members, stand up on your hind legs and tell them what the real story should be.
I disagree with that. I would like to see a new constitution established.. and I believe this is not just important for now but also to introduce a degree of democracy into the situation for members in the future.. I believe we need an EGM to clear the air.. if on the other hand we try to brush this under the carpet now.. and simply carry on voting for candidates .. it could fester and happen again.. Words like UKIO is better than this, or we won lets pull together now are OK.. but they do not solve the underlying issues. I want much more accountability and transparency for the simple reason of eliminating anymore of this type of thing happening. I believe UKIP will be much better for it. Remember this IS the People’s Party .. and it worked well in the referendum..
Sadly Diane couldn’t bring Steven Woolfe into it now. Those who tried hard & succeeded to make him ‘toxic’ would fight on. What new leader would want that ?
IF HIS PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BEFORE THE DEADLINE THEN THE NEC SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THAT AS PROOF OF WISH TO STAND. I TAKE HIS PAYMENT WAS ACCEPTED AND LODGED IN THE UKIP ACCOUNT SO WHY WAS THIS NOT DONE !
I’m sorry Graeme Taylor…..something as important as that should not have been left until the last possible moment.
It wasn’t – Woolfe was trying unsuccessfully to submit, then along came another candidate at 11.46 AFTER Woolfe who was able to submit without problem – very suspicious in my view. If the deadline is 12.00, then it should be possible to submit successfully up to that time – any technical problems should result in submission being allowed to completed at 12.17 – in the words of Magnus Magnusson – I’ve started so I’ll finish. This would’ve made so much more sense and caused so much less damage to UKIP than what is happening now. The NEC have already demonstrated they can do whatever they like: make a 5 year rule, change it to a 2 year rule, invent rule W19 and so on. The fact is that Woolfe’s leadership bid was nobbled from start to finish. No one has provided proof that it was 12.17 before Woolfe’s application was received; no one has explained why another candidate could submit at 11.46 while Woolfe was still trying. If it smells like a rat, it probably is a rat.
But one candidate left it even later.
To a degree this is irrelevant.. because there are other issues involved which need clearing up. For the benefit of the members & supporters of the UKIP Party in the future. Its not just about Steven Woolfe.. though perhaps that has been the issue that has sparked off an underlying controversy..remember 3 NEC members resigned.. talk of vested interests and corruption..
I agree . We need our questions answered. Now is not the time to try to pass off any guilt onto the members. So as to push away the problems..
So UKIP goes forward with a leadership election without two of its most talented potential contenders.. That’s the issue the NEC should be confronting. Why not get each candidate sign a letter agreeing the contest be ‘reset’ with conditions allowing any member to stand including Woolfe and Evans? It would reflect badly on any contender who did not sign.
Could I just point out that ‘W’ rules end at W18, so W19 used to attack Gill was invented by the NEC.
I can only say that I strongly disagree with this decision, and oppose the NEC to the point that an extraordinary general meeting should be called to review both the membership of the NEC and their recent decisions.
It will first have to ask, “Should the rules, as published in the rule-book ALWAYS be adhered to, or may the NEC choose, (supported by a majority vote & decision), to amend them as they feel necessary?”
I would also point out that the NEC might well feel that CHANGES TO PROCEDURE CANNOT PROPERLY BE MADE RETROSPECTIVE!
Accepting then that Steven Woolfe submitted his application late, and an acceptance of this dated 12:17 may have led to a legal challenge from others candidates, are the NEC admitting then that they are not a legally constituted entity and liable to legal challenge, they extended the deadline for their own elections in 2015, is this against the rules ?
I think the NEC are acting just like the tories no regard for its members I welcome a EGM, the diplomatic way
Nigel Farage will you as leader and the only politician I trust tell us your thoughts on how best we sort this fiasco out
I honestly believe that UKIP would be better off without the NEC as in this world we have too many dictators and not for the right reasons Mr Nigel Farage has played an important roll in Leading UKIP all the way to an outstanding 17.5 million people who voted to exit the Dictating corrupt EU we now need to move forward and complete RXIT bickering in the party is not solving the issue strong Leadership is what UKIP NEEDS RIGHT NOW to regain supporters also new members.
NEC are toast if they don’t reverse their decision because there will be a EGM soon then they are out
This whole issue started with the NEC getting rid of Nathan Gill because, despite not doing anything wrong, they wanted him to give up either his AM or MEP jobs. I have been told there is nothing in the Rules that says he cannot be an AM and an MEP. (Obviously, the NEC wasn’t too concerned about the Rule Book on this occasion!)
At that time, Nathan was supporting Steven Woolfe in his candidacy – and we all know what’s occurred since.
I have been a member of UKIP since 2009. I joined because UKIP was a breath of fresh air back then. It’s the only political party I have ever joined and it certainly stirred my interest in politics. Until this year, I have not been aware of any major problems with the NEC. I have been told that there have been problems with them over the past year and that what’s occurred with Nathan and Steven was the final straw. I guess there’s no smoke without fire, as we say!
I am also getting extremely fed up with the anti-Farage movement sweeping through UKIP. I accept that not everybody likes him; fair enough. I also accept a new leader would be healthy for the party right now. I also accept it was the right thing for Nigel to resign when he did. What I don’t accept are the certain fractions within UKIP aiming to have nothing to do with Nigel whatsoever. I find that absolutely appalling. Without Nigel, UKIP wouldn’t be where it is today. And, again, it brings me back to the NEC. I know Nigel didn’t want Neil Hamilton standing as a candidate. Whether this was because of the 2014 expenses scandal, I don’t know, but the NEC allowed him to stand in Wales. On being elected, he managed to get the rest of the AMs – except one – to vote for him to be leader and has made life hell for Nathan since then. He also got rid of all the people who helped Nathan establish UKIP in Wales. It took him 10 years of hard work to do that and he should be respected for his achievements. I come from Wales and know it wouldn’t have been easy to establish UKIP there.
So, I really do believe the NEC as it stands at present needs sorting out. It’s not just the issue with Steven, but other matters as well.
Well said
It is clear that the NEC does not represent the views of the membership and needs to be replaced. We are pushing forward with the EGM regardless of whatever attempts at apologetic explanations come out of the NEC is the meantime. The party belongs to the members and the members will take back control.
Whilst the membership is arguing amongst itself regarding the issue of Stephen Woolfe and the NEC our focus is not where it should be, it is disappointing that Stephen Woolfe is not on the candidate’s Ballot paper, but the decision has been made, and I am sure Stephen Woolfe will play very important role in the continued development of the party, It’s time people got their heads our of their backsides and focused on the important issues at hand, we all need to ensure we hold this government feet to the fire regarding Brexit, come on folks we are going to loose a fantastic opportunity here if we are not careful, we need to evolve as a party stop all this bloody infighting, get a new party leader elected and start moving foreward, and the NEC needs to respect it’s membership more instead of coming out with rediculas statements moaning about the time and cost of being apart of the NEC, if you feel so hard done by, step down and let someone else step in who would relish the challenge and not moan about the time or cost of such a position, it simply alenates yourselves from the membership. Time to all come together, and look forward before its too late and UKIP is no more.
As a member I’m disgusted. I can see both sides but woolfe was our winning card and due to rules it’s been taken away.you say you don’t get paid I get that because I along with many members have stood outside on stalls freezing ir sweating. We deliver leaflets walk miles because we believe in ukip FOR FREE just like you. In a situation like this the members should choose. And we go by the majority…. Common sense… What ukip was built on
The NEC have refused to release funds before the local elections and until right before the referendum, as they wanted to retain a healthy balance for a post referendum party. That seems a little counter productive for a party whose raison d’etre is fighting to leave the EU.
This resulted in branches in the more working class areas being cash and resource starved before vital elections, and meant that we couldn’t effectively fight our campaigns.
As for presenting a motion to conference well, some of us did that 2 years ago with a view to gaining regional representation on the NEC, and this was voted in favour of by members. This seems like a reasonable request considering the North/South divide that we know is present in the UK. The motion was rejected by the NEC despite being popular with the members.
I just want to go back to the author’s assertion that the NEC members are ordinary members and not the “party elite”. So substantial donors who happen to be successful businessmen, barristers and lawyers, some of whom live overseas and who all ignore the will of party members in order to protect their own positions… sounds quite elitist to me!
I at first preferred Steven W ( in the absence of Paul Nuttall / Patrick o’ Flynn from the lists ) for Leader……..
But someone being investigated by the Police for the very serious offence of Electoral Fraud cannot be taken seriously ( unless he denies categorically the offence, which he has not done ).
Look I pay all of my bills at the last minute as do most people I know.
I also submit any documentation at the last minute. And this has been the case since I lost everything in the 2008 banking crisis.
If Steven Woolfe experienced technical difficulties which caused his paperwork to be late, what reason do you have to think he is lying? And what possible reason would he have to do this deliberately.
Rumours were flying around long before the deadline, that the NEC were going to try to block Steven Woolfe from the leadership battle.
Many UKIP members were expecting something to happen and were not surprised when it did. Personally, I would have held off sending in my papers until the last minute, just in case something happened to them, if you get my drift.
If the NEC do not make allowances for this technical difficulty and allow Steven Woolfe to stand in the leadership battle. You will have proved all the rumours about the NECs plan to block Steven Woolfe, to be true.
Steven Woolfe as a huge amount of support throughout the north. Support that UKIP will loose is you don’t listen to your northern members and voters. Many of whom left the Labour Party because the stopped listening to those who give them their power, now look at what that self righteous arrogance has gotten labour.
Don’t make the same mistake. Because we in the north have had enough of politicians who have forgotten that their job is to serve not rule.
If you don’t allow us to use our vote for the candidates of our choosing. Many of us will vote with our feet.
UKIP need to make a choice,
Self righteous arrogance,
Or the voters that can get you into No.10
But why on earth would he leave something so important to the last minute ?
It is not the same as paying a bill at the last minute.
How serious a candidate is he if he leaves it so very late ?
And don’t forget he has STAFF now to do these things for him .
Leaving it till just after the deadline makes no sense – unless deep down he wanted to be barred ( you don’t need to be a Freudian trained psychiatrist to see that ).
He may have had good reason to suspect that the incorrect declaration in 2012 ( no convictions for an imprisonable offence ) was about to come to light ?
I am in despair because frankly not one of the remaining candidates cuts it.
Paul NUTTALL it is your duty to the country to step in.
The fact is that UKIP do not deserve to be regarded as a credible alternative to the established parties and by coming to this state, have disenfranchised millions of voters who would otherwise be ready to elect them.
Although still a ‘paid up’ Member of UKIP, it was purely a mistake that I had forgotten to change my Direct Debit. Up until a couple of years ago, I was an active member of my Branch Committee and even stood as a Local Authority Candidate, now, as far as I know, there are very few of that original Committee that are still active. They have simply drifted away from a Party that, at grass roots, has lost its sense of direction.
It has not been due to a lack of commitment on the part of those activists, simply a growing disillusionment with an increasingly authoritarian and distant hierarchy that treated the activists as nothing more than ‘chess pieces’ and appeared to have the same contempt for local activists as Lord Feldman had with his jibe of ‘swivel eyed loons’.
Despite a unanimous decision of the then Committee to expel a member because of his racist attitude, because he was ‘in’ with the hierarchy, this was fought over for more than a year and it took the threat of a wholesale resignation of the Committee of the time to indicate just how strongly they felt that the matter was finally resolved’ Even then, that was only because the person involved set himself up as an Independent Candidate in opposition to the Branch selected, UKIP Candidate that he was finally expelled. Not for his racist comments but because under Party rules, he could not be a supporter of another Political Party.
The NEC, in the above statement appears to have set itself up on a pedestal on how they are such fine and upstanding altruists who work themselves to the bone without any recompense. But, the problem is; they are not representative of the membership. There are no ‘Regional Delegates’ responsible to their own constituents and instead, have set themselves up in a tight little, self-sustaining group that has become a party within a party. Pretty much as the Parliamentary Party members have distanced themselves from their respective parties with their apparent contempt of the rank and file wishes because ‘they know best’ to the point where they are now kicking themselves for allowing a referendum in the first place because of its unexpected result.
UKIP over the years has had probably more upheaval at the top echelon level than any other party. It has lost the services of several worthy individuals such as Rodney Atkinson, Professor Alan Sked and many other notables. It has now even lost Nigel Farage who, more than anyone, has been the driving force that has brought UKIP within shouting distance of Parliamentary power. This has been due entirely to infighting within those higher echelons that seem to have more regard for their own prestige than what is good for the Party.
The antics of the various NECs has, far from appearing ‘altruistic’, is more reminiscent of Trades Union activists in the 1960’s and 1970’s who worked tirelessly to get to the top of their various organisations resulting in the ruination of the Country. The UKIP NEC has exactly the same potential.
Britain is crying out for a sea change in politics as exemplified by the referendum result. With the ‘Established’ Parliamentary Parties in complete disarray, UKIP has the opportunity to step in and claim the support of so many of the Electorate. In the last General Election, UKIP won almost 4 million votes but achieved only one single MP due to the dispersion of the vote without a single majority in any one ward except for Carswell who was already a standing MP.
The referendum has changed all that, especially in the Northern Labour ‘heartlands’. I saw this when helping out at some of the run of by-elections where in 9 consecutive by-elections, UKIP came from low single digit percentages in the 2010 General Election to second place with percentages in the 20’s in every case. I was constantly being asked in even the most staunch Labour held seats whether UKIP were fielding candidates in their area for he 2015 Election.
Now that UKIP finally has a chance to make headway, it is being ruined by the irrational in-fighting in the NEC. UKIP needs a Leader with the panache of Farage and I am afraid that none of the other candidates excluding Steven Woolfe can fulfill that role.
The main battle ground will be in the North and Steven Woolfe is a ‘Northern Lad’ brought up on a Council Estate. He will be accepted by the target vote far more than any other candidate that few actually have ever heard of. Perhaps, more significantly, Steven Woolfe can put to bed the outrageous charge of racism that has been laid upon UKIP because, as he himself has pointed out, he is of mixed race.
I have been running the theunituk.org.uk website since Trevor Colman retired at the last European Elections and it has been steadily growing in its readership. Last week alone we had 46,000 page views and that is by no means our best week. We shall be campaigning that the NEC recovers their senses and finds a way to overcome this problem. After all, this is the same Party that had the previously disgraced Niel Hamilton as its Party Chairman.
You have to separate completely the issues of whether the NEC reflects the party membership views generally from the Decision re Steven W – very very very unfortunately the latter is now Toast – he can never be seriously considered for the Leadership with a prosecution for the very serious offence of Electoral Fraud hanging over him.
UKIP would be a laughing stock if a person under such a cloud were the Leader – more so even than Corbyn’s Lab Party.
I do agree that the NEC should be elected on a Regional basis ~one member from each Region, elected ( by postal ballot ) locally after a local Hustings which would enable candidates to set out their stall and be closely questioned.
What is the matter with you Johnathan? You keep wittering on about ‘the very serious offense of electoral fraud’ and how it will make the Party a laughing stock. Get real, it is about overspending on his candidacy, it is not about offering bribes for votes. The three main parties have all been accused of exactly the same thing. Do you see them running around in sack cloth and ashes. Is there a major ‘hue and cry’ for their blood? No, there is not.
The majority of the party, unlike you, do not give a toss about these foibles. It does not disqualify Woolfe from standing. Woolfe is the only candidate with any real presence at the moment. We can afford to put political placements in as Party Leader when we are established in Parliament. Until then, we need someone who can rally the party and actually GET SOME MPs ELECTED.
What if we all had tended our vote 17mins after the Britexit vote closed “would we have won” simple is it not . The remain vote spouted sour grapes am I hearing the same .
If I was in the queue before 10pm and put my vote in the ballot box at 10:17pm then I would expect my vote to count.
Please, those who are disappointed in the list of candidates or actions of the NEC, don’t resign. For the party to evolve and deal with the new reality of Brexit, we need all the support we can get or we’ll be lumbered with Brexit lite. It’s not over until the thin lady sings.
Hang on until you see the new line up after the leadership election and the result of the EGMs now being widely supported by many branches.
Change is always painful but it must happen, consider your reactions to the debate now taking place within UKIP to the turmoil in the Remain camp and their attempts to overturn the referendum result. We cant’s fight for the implementation of what we voted for unless we are united. Don’t throw our work of years away because you dislike one or two individuals no part can ever please everyone on everything. What matters is our common ground, not our differences.
Clearly the decision by the NEC is not correct, since Mr. Woolfe was and is popular amongst the voting members. Mr. Woolfe is also disappointed that he is not able to compete…
It is also clear that the rules of the NEC are not inviolable, the five year rule became a two year rule whilst applications for this election were in progress… A 17 minute rule would seem to be rather petty?
By not allowing the application, the NEC is depriving the membership of a properly democratic vote…
This is almost a carbon copy of Tony Blair’s (and David Cameron’s) action over the treaty of Lisbon vote, that we never got.
This is marvellous… The NEC is making the formally most democratic political party in the UK look just like those two characters. The party was founded on the basis that the established parties were (and are) anti-democratic.
I will not be renewing my membership… I first became a member ing 1997!
It’s the job of the NEC to see the rules are followed and there is no valid excuse for Woolfe filing his application so late, ( or forgetting his minor conviction). He is however a valuable member and spokesman, we need him on board. No one individual can fill Nigel’s shoes.
Post referendum it was always going to be necessary for us to evolve. Post Nigel even more so, though I hope he sticks around in some capacity. How about Hon, Life President ?
As for the NEC, thank you for your service , you did the best you could in difficult circumstances but events overtook you and there is one final selfless deed you can do for our party. Resign, please, go before you are pushed and save us further controversy, time, money and angst. Sad or even unfair though it is, there is nothing you can do to regain support amongst grassroots members. If you cling on the EGMs will take place, clearly the party is determined to have change and you will lose. There may be other party functions you could fill.
We have to unite behind a new leadership soon, or we will be of little use to our country. I pray that Diane and Steven can work together, with him as deputy and accept that others in the party are entitled to different views, we are or should be a wide church. No other present candidate(s) is capable of gaining public acceptance or dealing with the media so well. The others would be eaten alive by any half decent interviewer. We are choosing an national politician here, not a party darling.
I am afraid you and many others posting here have misunderstood : It is NOT a ‘minor conviction ‘ which he forgot.
It was an imprisonable offence.
And the offence for which he is now under serious investigation by Manchester Police ‘ Electoral Fraud ‘ is most certainly not a ‘minor offence ‘ : if convicted it is 50 / 50 whether he will get an immediate prison sentence – if he gets a suspended one and / or a swinging fine , if convicted, he will count himself lucky ( and as a barrister he knows this ).
Look at the Electoral Commission website on the subject : they STRESS that any conviction whatsoever for an imprisonable offence is a total bar to standing for PCC, and they also underline that this includes ‘spent’ convictions – ie even if spent it is a total bar : how can a barrister not have understood this ?
I take no pleasure in pointing this out : I supported Steven until this came to light, but now it has he cannot possibly be considered for the Leadership.
NONE of the permitted candidates is suitable either – it needs to be Paul N, or Patrick o`Flynn. ( so yes the rules have to be changed to get them in ).
It is a total mess up.
The NEC is not a bad idea, but it needs to be elected on an annual basis, and Regionally, ie one member each Region, so that candidates can properly set out their stall, debate, be asked questions, and all members will have an opportunity to hear them.
The national basis for electing NEC members does appear to be democratic, but in practice it just favours name recognition candidates, not necessarily the best.
And for some Regions to have zero members on the NEC is just wrong, and distorting.
I think that it would be very important to know the name of the person that Steven Woolfe was speaking to when he was explaining about the problems he was having trying to submit his application. Surely this person could verify what Steven has said?
I would also like to know the names of the people on the vetting panel. I requested this from Head Office was told that it was not to be given out to save them from abuse!
My local branch secretary has had problems submitting application forms to the Ukip site in the past, as, apparently have others.
Oh, so this is what all your mythering is about. You want Paul Nuttal or Flynn as a candidate. Well, I have news for you, neither could hack the job. Paul is a nice enough bloke but is not forceful enough. The least I say about Flynn, the better. I have not forgotten his attempted assassination of Farage after last General Election. As to drink/driving being an imprisonable offence, you are right but only for persistent offenders or someone who was so intoxicated they caused death. Yes, drink/driving is a thoroughly antisocial thing but the loss of a driving licence and a hefty fine are usually enough to put someone back on the straight and narrow. Bearing in mind, it takes 11 years for such a conviction to be spent, it is a fair bet that Woolfe learnt his lesson. But also bear in mind, driving at 31 mph in 30 mph zone is also a criminal offense. It is all a matter of degree. So, please, get a sense of perspective. You are convincing very few people here.
Fourth sentence: “Most of us pay our own expenses which in the cases of some of our overseas members exceed £10,000 per year.”
REALLY? Almost £1,000 a month? £250 per week? Are you kidding me?
Overseas members? Rightyho.
NO CREDIBILITY in the above statement.
I’m another UKIP member moving on.
You’re not a very loyal one, then, are you? Neither are the others who are threatening to leave. Which party achieved Brexit and is the only party 100% loyal to Britain and the wishes of the British people?
Loyalty to a cause is the only way to achieve it and we haven’t achieved full Brexit yet.
It is not the Party that is at fault, it is the NEC which is most certainly not invincible and can be got rid of far quicker than in a General Election. There are already moves that that should happen.
“Steven Woolfe did not give himself enough time to take into account technical problems that he may have suffered” — a clear admission that the process is unreliable, as are many such internet processes. The NEC could easily have resolved this issue by accepting Woolfe’s application late because to technical difficulties. That they chose to inflate the problem by behaving in a bureaucratic and unreasonable manner speaks volumes about their behaviour. As does their omission from the statement of the fact that 3 people have resigned from the NEC in protest.
Ok after reading this I can fully understand the NEC s decision . It’s true however that standing NEC members / candidates should not have voted , but the legality of it is very clear.
Carefully omitted in this report by the anonymous NEC member is the number of votes for and against. It is know that candidates for the Leadedship were also voting NEC members. At least in a Commons vote you know the names of those voting. The NEC as presently constituted is opaque and anonymous in its dealings. Scrap it.
IS This in Reality about the 4 Million soon to BE less as the end Result WILL Show and WHEN the Credibility of the NEC has gone….,REMEMBER that You may well be Volunteers and Your Personal Opinions should NOT have be any part of this Process, so therefore the Downfall of the Party may well be on Your Hands ??? N.B. There IS too many People stating that they are NOT renewing their Memberships and also do You Believe and EX-Tory should Run OUR (The Peoples Party) UKIP ?
NEC is there to represent the party members with a well balanced view.
1. It excluded Suzanne Evans, and I think an amnesty was essential.
2. It made up a 5 year membership rule
3. It changed the 5 year rule to 2 years, so it has the discretion to make and change rules
4. It suspended the newly elected leader of the Welsh Assembly.
5. I see a witch hunt for Woolfe, as his membership first, then his past, finishing with a negligible delay for which they had the discretion to correct , looking at the intention .
I thought we are the common sense party with No common sense NEC, that dismissed the overwhelming majority. The more candidates the better I would say.
It is clearly the NEC that is bringing the party to disrepute. An EGM is now inevitable , equal to a Referendum and we all know how frustrated UKIPers can be if you dont allow them to have their saying. I received over 600 emails in few days and many phone calls asking for action threatening with resignation. The option of an EGM,will release the pressure and hold the party together. In absence of that, the next leader will have not a majority mandate and wont be able to unite the party. It is after all the only Democratic tool available by the Constitution in exceptional circumstances. I am not afraid what may happen if we have one, but what may happen if we dont have one.
I not no comment about the report tonight on Chanel 4 about Woolfe being investigated by the police for electoral fraud. Also the brush of for Woolfe from Farage who said to Ch4 ‘had he known he would not have let Woolfe stand’ this i think is call being dropped by Farage
I thought there was a 12 month rule for investigating electoral fraud? 2012 is 4 years ago?
The NEC cannot have it both ways. If it was a black and white rule; they should have had the courage to say they were simply enforcing the rule book, the letter of the law. End of.
But the fact that they put it to a vote means they moved it from interpretation/application of the rule into the realms of opinion, emotion and, yes, personal politics, thus losing all credibility.
True. And, with Woolfe clearly having attributes that could improve UKIP appeal in certain demographics to drive success, and given its previous, the NEC looks for all the world to have voted to sabotage UKIP. This caused the outrage. UKIP members who accept this will find, if they get their way, the party on the path to failure. And if this shambles generates a new party – which inevitably will lead to a sunken UKIP – I would ask the politically ambitious with nowhere to go this: please do not get involved to spoil our progress again. The LibLabCon is a better suit.
I am afraid that the point about all this that precisely echo’s with my thinking is:-
“2) In what is probably one of the most significant events of his life, why did Steven Woolfe, who had 20 days to lodge his application, wait until the last minute to do so? All the other candidates filed in time.”
Honestly, I find it unbelievable that a man of his standing with such strong support should screw up so badly and let his own supporters down so badly.
I also have to, in the absence of anyone rubbishing him over it, go along with the NEC members comments about exposing us to costly legal action if his nomination was accepted. This is UKIP and you can be damn sure that in this toxic party that would be a racing certainty.
Regarding delaying the deadline for him or re-running the ballot, yes, that’s going to look very good when we try telling the Remain Fascists who want the will of the people ignored that they had their chance and fluffed it.
Oh, and back to Woofle himself, I mean, what on earth was he doing over the previous fortnight to even get near to this fiasco? This is the sort of shambles one expects to see on “Young Apprentice” not from someone at their penultimate step to becoming Prime Minister.
“……Shakes head in total puzzlement…….”
Maybe Steven felt pressure to run for leadership, but didn’t really want to, hence cutting it too fine and being excluded. This may have been on a conscious or subconscious level. The other explanation is that he took a very lackadaisical approach to submitting his files and thought the deadline wouldn’t be applied to him if he was late.
Either way, it’s caused unnecessary ructions which we could do without at this crucial moment in UKIP’s history. Please can we now get over it and select a new leader in relative peace. The calls for Nigel’s return are futile, give the man a break. Who really thinks that after the flak he got last year for resigning and then coming back (thank goodness he did), Nigel would want to go through all that again?
Let’s turn our attention to the candidates who took the trouble to get their paperwork done in time and select someone who will fight to achieve complete and irrevocable Brexit as quickly as possible. The focus should be on those candidates, not harking back to what might have been if only this or that ……
NEC changed rules after nominations had opened. Nominations opened 11th of July with a 5 year membership rule. On the 21st of July, after nominations had opened the NEC changed the rules to allow members of 2 or more years to enter the contest.
As the NEC have the ability to change the rules they could have changed the rules to accept completed nominations up until 12:30 on the day in question.
So on that basis, members are fully entitled to whatever kind of expression of outrage they fancy – barring physical violence of course.
Emmett hows the new party coming along ? UK-DD .co.uk or is it UK-DD.com
An anonymous NEC member – says it all really. Snide digs continue along the lines that Woolfe (of whom I not actually a supporter by the way) why didn’t he file earlier? Why should he if the deadline is 31st July? Why add these gratuitous comments if it is solely about meeting a strict deadline? The admission of a payment received in time shows he began the process before the deasdline so it all hinges on 1) the technical glitch and 2) whether that amounts to sufficient mitigation. If a web server is slow to respond that will not necessarily show in the logs. And the panel are competent to examine a web log are they? I’d like to test that. Please publish the log and answer my questions. We’ll see how much you understand. If the decision was so inevitable, and a breach of duty if you accepted the nomination, why did you have to vote? And who would have sued if you accepted Woolfe’s nomiations? On what grounds? That you accepted a technical glitch delayed things by 17 minutes of a process that started before the deadline? Get real. As to why Woolfe waited until the last day how is that relevant for a snide comment? The rules do not say anyone waiting until the last day is subject to particualarly ruthless treatment? Your attitude betrays a secret rule of prejudice against those who leave it to the last day. The published constitution mentions a day not a time. Why did the NEC feel a need to amend the rule to include a time? As to an airline, boarding or take off is often delayed by a late passenger. Your analogy is weak if not also completely spurious. All he needed to do was file a day earlier? Where is that in the rules? And why has it taken this long to give a slightly fuller if equally pompous explanation? You write like a company director who finds shareholders a nuisance. Your disdain for what members feel is apparent. I do not believe you have written to help members understand. You article cones after you have seen the grounbswell for an EGM.It appears self-interested. No-one would have been harmed by accepting the techmicla glitch, however caused, as extenuating but interets are served by excluding Woolfe. The grounds for suing the NEC are that it has leadership candidates on it that did not report a conflict of interest and recuse themselves. So don’t pompously lecture about fiduciary duties.
The NEC and allies are mounting a counter-offensive – so doubling down for the suicide of the party. As part of that, this piece is an attempt to gaslight membership into acquiescence. However, if one looks closely, as you have, it only reinforces the notion that there is crucial need of reform.
Strange coincidence my BT Broadband connection on the 31st July had deteriorated to download speed 0.76 Mbs and upload 0.36 Mps. If Steve’s computer had been affected by connection issues he could have quite easily lost a lot of time. The NEC site would not have recorded his difficulty on their servers.
It really does seem daft to reject his application. Unless the application were to arrive after the NEC has started to process the applications.
The panel and the NEC took the right decision by applying the same criteria for candidacy to every candidate equally and fairly.
A subjective bending of the rules in favour of one candidate is indefensible and could lead to a challenge from at least one of the other candidates, creating a damaging and expensive struggle within the Party that would benefit no one except the liblabcon Remainers.
If Steven Woolfe has accepted the decision, so should his supporters without further gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair.
You refer to the “Party Rulebook”, and specifically state “The rule is “Complete applications, including nominations MUST be received by the Returning Officer by 31st July, 12pm”.
So why then was it necessary for you to to put it to a vote?
As I have previously stated, not wholly convinced.
Farage’s attack on the N.E.C.’s existence in the Breitbart article contained almost no practical reasoning as to why UKIP would be more effective without it, instead justifying itself with a slightly ugly socially patronizing series of sneers at its members.
I was impressed with the standard of the candidates that I elected to it at the last election, viz. Coke & Slivnik, and of a number of others who were candidates. As a constitutional argument Farage’s article was almost completely void of reasoning & had faint scent of Putinism about it, perhaps with Woolfe being lined up playing the role of Medvedev, with A.B. as the king-maker oligarch?
If they want the N.E.C. abolished they should detail specifically how it is presenting a hindrance to UKIP’s progress, given all that’s been achieved by the party over the last 5 years?
If they can’t it should continue facilitating democratic control on the party’s direction in conjunction with the leadership.
As for decision by polling of the party’s membership to decide its policies and course, that’s an interesting reform & can be initiated, without requiring the automatic abolition of the N.E.C.
The main reason for the supposed disbandment of the NEC is that it wont do what Farage wants regardless. This was apparent last year
If some people want to disband the NEC, I suppose they can bring a motion at Conference next month, or the Party can consult the membership more widely – one member, one vote.
After reading Nigel’s Breitbart article in full, I can see he’s hitting back at the NEC now he’s resigned, in the way he did in a revenge attack at the MEP drones in the EU Parliament after the Referendum. What kind of ‘barrier’ did the NEC present to Nigel? I believe that one issue was the membership fee: he wanted to recruit more members by lowering it considerably, but the NEC refused.
These arguments about the party structure and constitution should be referred to the members with clear explanations from both sides of what should be done and why. Then, if the majority of members don’t want an NEC, we don’t have one. But it needs to be done calmly without people flying off the handle.
As for sniffs of Putin and Medvedev and king-maker oligarchs, that’s all a bit weird and over-dramatic, innit?