Napoleon once said: never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Indeed, incompetence is more than sufficient, unfortunately, to explain where we are now.
Psychologists say that people prone to believe in conspiracies are really struggling with the idea that “chance and circumstance happeneth to all”, as we were so sagely advised by Ecclesiastes, and prefer to believe that life and the universe are ultimately controllable. For them, the idea that someone is controlling and manipulating (even malignly) is preferable to the reality of randomness and incompetence. Unfortunately for them, the belief is not father to the fact. The lamentable state of our party is truly the result of clumsy, ego-blinded incompetence of the common variety.
How did we get to here and what, if anything at all, can be done? There are many places to start from but a recent one will do, and that is Nigel’s decision to stand down as leader. Forethought, that it’s someone else’s turn for all the hassle, is not the same as foresight, that the resulting factionalism will drive away members and donors and lead ultimately to the party’s bankruptcy. The consequences to stepping down that have ensued are unlikely to have been intended. Nigel would not want to see his achievement completely overshadowed by a legacy of the destruction of the party. He must also know that only electoral pressure, which led to Cameron offering a referendum at all, will keep Brexit on course, and only a functioning UKIP can provide that.
Nigel was tired, needed and deserved a rest, and so he failed to think about timing and succession management. He discussed the decision with absolutely no-one. It was entirely selfish in a way and pure incompetence from the perspective of party management. Given the extraordinary effort he made during the referendum campaign it may be forgivable incompetence, but I do not know what excuses Nuttall and Crowther from abandoning ship with the captain. True captains go down with the ship and are not the first to leave!
Less forgivable was calling the NEC “lowest grade people” with the snobbish extra of “bringing their own sandwiches”. This was on a par with Raheem Kassam dismissing Lisa Duffy as a “former cleaner”: unnecessarily cheap and nasty. People who sneer betray more about themselves than the target of their sneers. It is weakness, feelings of inadequacy, that needs to derisively denigrate others to bolster oneself. And therein lies an implicit admission from Nigel that he had not handled his dispute with Carswell at all well. Nigel was – is – a single issue campaigner, not a manager, and he had no experience of managing a large board nor, during the heat of the campaign, time or inclination to learn. Carswell was at fault too. He and Evans were unable to handle being called racists, so they capitulated to the trolls and sought to deny immigration as an issue at all, hoping they would be personally spared insult. Their sneers at Nigel are sneakier but sneers nonetheless. That schism, which first arose as a question of tone during the general election, has grown. Carswell is smugly self-righteous and in denial of all the evidence that immigration was a significant issue, and siding with trolls against Nigel does not alter the underlying reality.
Nigel was petulantly dismissive of the NEC for having the temerity not to always agree with him, an ego childishly hurt. He failed to adapt to UKIP not being a sole proprietorship operation during the general election, and the NEC failed to see it then needed to behave like one nonetheless when faced with the single issue of a referendum. All comical incompetence – if it were not so tragic in its potential betrayal of all the people who placed their hope in UKIP to be better than the parties that let them down.
Some people think structural change is the solution and call for a new constitution. But structure was not the source of the problem in the first place. Regionalising the NEC, a motion defeated at Conference, is not a solution. A greater variety of accents on the NEC is not the answer. The regions are EU constructs and are absolutely not equal-size constituencies. Having a regional NEC representative will not disguise the fact that some regions fail to recruit members. While Carswell and Nigel have their deep hostility to each other any NEC, no matter how constituted, will be divided.
Diane James did not want to stand. Steven Woolfe was dithering – yes, supporters of his: he was – and the NEC had to phone him in Malta where he was on holiday to ask why he was not applying to be leader. Perhaps he was worried about his flawed PCC application coming to light, or perhaps he did not feel deep down that he was a leader. Banks and Nigel continued to press him, but pressed Diane as well, as a Plan B. Diane did not get up on the last day, a Sunday, suddenly looked up to see it was 11.40 and rushed to her PC (she’s an early riser)! She was in telephone contact with either Nigel or Banks or both who were in contact with Steven. When his half-hearted attempt at an application stalled, Plan B was activated with 20 minutes to go.
At her first hustings she focused on structural changes, blaming the NEC and promising to fire certain (unnamed) people. But she had no power to bring about structural change and so far as she continued with that line she was continuing the denial, the deflection, of the real problems right at the top. Diane James has form. She let Eastleigh down as PCC candidate in 2012, as PPC in 2015, and some people are not surprised by her giving up so easily.
I do not believe we have a membership of 34,000. It is said 17,960 voted in the leadership contest. We are not told how many members spoiled their ballot papers as Steven Woolfe supporters were urged to do. A few hundred if perhaps that. I do not believe that half the membership failed to vote in a very high visibility election that was followed by the media. If there are genuinely 34000 still on the books then half have given up and will not be renewing their membership. So this year’s receipts will be a lot less than £30 x 34000. More like £30 x 20000. That’s £600,000. Throw in a few patrons – a dwindling band – say, 60 if the party is lucky, and that is a further £60,000. That is not enough to run the party doing nothing, let alone running election campaigns. Indeed, Diane James cited lack of funding as one of her unconvincing reasons for suddenly giving up. So what if some MEPs and some party officers were not as subservient as she hoped for? Did she try real persuasion, offer real deals – that is, real politics? I suspect not. As to Woolfe, I was shocked that he has been in talks over the weekend to defect to the Tories – such commitment to UKIP! – and dismayed that on learning of Diane James’ resignation he showed himself to be a careerist by suddenly staying to pursue an opportunity. Presumably if he is not elected leader he will defect. Such leadership quality! Such gratitude to all those who voted for him!
Without members and secure funding the party is in deep trouble. For Steven Woolfe to say yesterday that he agreed with Nigel that the NEC is not fit for purpose is deeply worrying. It means the bookies favourite is as out of touch with reality as Diane James was. Forget structural reform. It may be considered at some future time if the party survives but it is a diversion: right now the party needs members and money, and needs them urgently.
Nigel needs to withdraw his resignation for a while at least. The NEC should offer him a deal. They should give him an easy time in return for a recruiting drive and a donor drive. Nigel need not even sit on the NEC anymore and can just do the gigs he likes, popping up on Question Time etc., as the fancy takes him. Steven Woolfe was indeed quite good on Question Time recently, but to those saying this means he must be leader I would point out that he was good without being leader and can continue as a party spokesperson – assuming he does not defect. The leadership question needs to be parked. It is too divisive, too destructive, and another contest will not lead to more members and more money. If we do not get those soon then there will be no party. Whatever action is proposed, the question is: will this lead to more members right now?
As to team Nigel v team Carswell: this should be openly debated. Carswell and Evans should be presented with evidence that immigration was a significant factor, be forced to admit Nigel was right and recant their self-serving criticisms of him – or depart. Nigel should acquire the humility to recognise there was some merit to issues about tone, that we are no longer trying to fire up core voters but to expand our base into domestic election territory where tone matters.
Like a war time cabinet, the various actors need to grasp that something bigger than themselves is at stake – the very survival of the party.
Investigations about what “really” happened at the Wolfe/Hookem fracas will not be cost-beneficial in the absence of supporting CCTV covering departures of both to the felling of one; so, the investigations must be ditched because we will never get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from either.
Unfortunately, neither would do the decent thing and resign their MEP seats – nothing to stop them re-applying to contest again!
I respect both men but do not trust(-politicians) them considering the stories I have been reading about and from either.
Moving out of this current quagmire, and, forward, this is an opportune moment for us genuine UKIPPERS(- I prefer UKOPPERS) to introduce much needed changes; I do not think Interim Leader Nigel Farage and/or Chairman Paul Oakden are the person/s to jointly introduce, lead, and manage these changes because of their known preferred and conflicting interests.
Converting our current problems(- with egotists, debilitating cliques/factions) into challenges; I suggest a self-financed(- by attendees) Saturday+Sunday highly disciplined EMERGENCY MEETING of all our MEPs, our lone MP, all Regional & Branch Chairmen, and concerned members to discuss and agree necessary changes.
Head Office is to process attendees paid applications to cover costs; and vetting for security etc. Viv Evans to audit processing to ensure ethics.
Can Head office let us know how much such a meeting will cost with options about which week-ends and venues?
Now, who is going to chair this meeting?
Please comment.
Well done, Stout Yeoman, for putting into words the quiet frustration that a lot of members are feeling.
The only person who can save your party and give us a genuine British opposition is Farage at least for a while. Let’s hope he’s not like the Roman emperor who resigned and than when asked to return said something about the lovely vegetables he was now growing and no thanks. I’m afraid the tomatoes need to be left on their own Mr Nigel….
We should have cloned Nigel a few times and guaranteed our future!
In my years of being a member I don’t think I have ever been so disheartened at the antics the hierarchy and senior members are showing. This is no way to run a party that desires seats in Parliament. I could easily smack a few heads together, eject a few more and tighten everything up. UKIP has fantastic potential, especially after the collapse (well-deserved) of the Limp-Dems and now the absurd Labour Party going into melt down.
There must be 2 or 3 people with guts, determination, LOYALTY, stamina and dedication, out there, who could put UKIP back on track?
In the meantime there is no one else but Nigel, to help us over the hurdles we have created.
Once people start getting salaries out of politics it’s very easy to persuade oneself that personal interest is national interest. That happens in every political group. Raheem said that the disputatious people at the top were worrying about where their incomes would come from in two years. Nigel Farage does not want the job any more so he’s above that. Meanwhile the Tories claim that they were expecting to announce that Woolfe had joined at the end of their conference.
When he defects, of course, they will line him up with a Tory Rotten Borough, aka safe seat.
What else would the “negotiations” be about ?
Anyone who thinks Brexit is now safe with May is totally deluded.
How many millions new people came in on her watch? And are still pouring in ?
And Hammond is doing his best to block any dismantling of Free Movement.
And as he remains in post as Mayºs number two we must presume he has her approval for what he says.
So on two counts Steven W rules himself unfit for the Leadership: treachery to the people who put him where he is; and stupidity for thinking Brexit is achieved.
“The leadership question needs to be parked. It is too divisive, too destructive, and another contest will not lead to more members and more money”.
No UKIP needs a Leader who can unite the Party and inspire the remaining members to get out to recruit new members and raise money. (It cannot rely on Arron Banks who clearly wants to buy the Party.) As far as I can see there are two people who could do this. The first is Paul Nuttall and, if he cannot be persuaded to change his decision, then Gerard Batten. Neither has been identified with any faction, both have the stature, the passion and the long-time experience in UKIP to appeal to both members and more importantly the electorate at large.
Gerrard Batten came out in support of Lisa Duffy. You think Banks/Farage will support him? There is no unity candidate, not even Nigel if he continues his public wars.
It’s very noticable that a lot of people in fringe parties think that they can avoid being accused of being ‘fascists’ and ‘racists’ (or other terms of abuse depending on the issue) by avoiding addressing the immigration question or playing it down. The bad news is that it won’t work and for this reason. If the left find they can abuse people into weakening what they say then they’ve found the Achilles heel and will go on using it until their opponents give up having watered down to nothing. Only political amateurs don’t know this.
The NEC is dysfunctional. We have no permanent leader. We have no vision (other than Brexit). We will never win elections if we do not address all three issues. We do not behave like a grown-up party and the quickest glance at recent council by-election results will show that our electoral support is evaporating. I am not surprised.
To criticise Steven Woolfe for saying that the Tories have moved substantially onto UKIP ground is absurd. The fact is…..they have! If UKIP continues to tear itself apart, our supporters will surely end up in the Tory Party.
To avoid this scenario, we must pull ourselves together fast because the country needs an anti-Establishment party. Egos must be put aside and we must persuade Steven Woolfe that his leadership of the party is our only hope for salvation. I see no other credible leader to unite us and forge a vision for post-Brexit Britain.
Will we pull ourselves together in time? I doubt it, but I still live in hope. It is our last chance. We stand on the brink of obscurity and our future, as a party, is in our own hands. It will be to our collective eternal shame if we allow UKIP to go the way of the SDP……and that prospect is imminent and very very real.
The reservations about Woolfe are not because of his observation that May has moved onto UKIP turf but because he was in talks with the Conservatives about defecting. Apart from a lamentable lack of judgement, a naive trust in Hammond (the real power behind May and NOT a hard Brexiteer), he was seemingly happy to betray members and others who voted for him and for the party. At least Carswell and Reckless when they defected recognised the betrayal to voters and so stood in by-elections. You think Woolfe is as principled? And you think a man who flirted with becoming a Tory will appeal to traditional Labour voters in the north? He pulled back from defection when Diane James announced, in effect, a leadership vacancy. Coincidence or careerist opportunism? I agree that he would have been an appealing face to the party. But he is now a suspect Tory and tainted by the `altercation’. The awful truth is that the so called senior members of our party are a bunch of self-absorbed muppets. Hope springs eternal and like many I cling to the idea that we yet survive but I am increasingly fearful that we will not. The party finances go from bad to worse while we fiddle.
Your warnings about FINANCE are very relevant and cogent Stout Yeoman.
How desperate If nobody is aware?
Read Tomaz Slivnik`s testimony in
“The Right Way Campaign”
Fight a campaign! Fund a party election!
We`re not even in sufficient state to fight our way out of a paper bag!
PS I want to hear more – something – anything from the lips of
PAUL NUTTALL
Yes, I do think Woolfe is principled. Yes, I do understand why he flirted with the Tories. Yes, I do understand why he did not defect and it had nothing to do with UKIP leadership. Yes, I do think he will appeal to Labour voters. Yes, I will vote for him if he stands. He is the only hope to unite the party and impress the wider electorate. He is our last chance.
The Tories are legend for telling people in fringe parties ‘you could have a big future with us’. Once they’ve joined and the publicity has been exhausted the Tories have neatly neutralised an opponent who is then self-defined as a turncoat and trusted by none. They’ll get nothing! Don’t tell me another person near fell for it.
I totally agree with you Julian and the fact that Nigel Farage who I have always taken as being UKIP for real, Diane James and now Steven Woolfe have all been savaged, without the support of the NEC, tells me that the UKIP NEC is not fit for purpose. I can understand Steven Woolfe making a comment regarding Teresa May’s speech because I was impressed by it too and some in UKIP are likely to send voters such as I back to voting for the Conservative Party. I remember being ecstatic on the forming of UKIP because I and a great number of British people were not being represented by the Tories or Labour so they were truly a breath of fresh air. Nigel Farage has always gained my respect and fulfilled his role and if UKIP wish to survive the NEC should listen to him and act on his words. Anything less and I will place UKIP in the “Good whilst it lasted” bin !
Exactly how did Diane James not have the support of the NEC? They allowed her to run her own hustings (contrary to the rules) and she never even met the NEC before resigning. Philip Hammond, a soft Brexiter so far as he is Brexit at all, is the power behind May’s throne. She is fool’s gold – look at her record as Home Secretary – and trying to be all things to all people which is not a sustainable position. I too thought she gave a clever speech but it did not make me want to betray all the people who had not voted before but decided to put their hopes and trust in UKIP nor betray the many that worked so hard for the referendum result.
Can you please be specific as to what you believe the NEC has done which is bad and what you believe it ought to say or do which would be good ?
Bearing in mind it is a body which is not on permanent session.
And which arises from the Partyºs constitution which, as I understand it, was largely written by Nigel a few years ago.
Hammond is now signalling a sell-out on free movement. See the Mail today. Every need for UKIP. Assuming a new leader actually supports immigration controls in view of the accusations of ‘racism’ he or she will get. The party is dead if it does a Hammond.
The Tory calculation may have been to promise full immigration controls thus killing off UKIP as redundant then rat. Hammond (inner during the referendum) is backtracking a bit early but perhaps he thinks the job is done after recent events.
It’s a fact of political life that everything proceeds from an inspiring vision. Ideas rule in the end! The current confusion arises because no one knows what UKIP is now. An enforcer of Brexit? A Tory party of all the people a la Joe Chamberlain who is said to be popular with May but a bit further right? An alternative to Labour in Labour areas? A restorer of national identity?
The problem is not a leader at root. It’s a clear vision which is required. It must be more radical – or why not join the Tories? It seems to me that Kippers are imagining that just getting a new leader is the big issue in itself. It ain’t. The fights would fade with a clear vision and trouble would be seen off.
UKIP is faced with exactly the same problem as self-employed people in business who become successful in a small way then try to break out into a larger world. Straight away they meet a huge snaggeroo they are often not expecting. The small thing can be micromanaged by one person. The bigger can’t – it’s a different animal not just bigger – and it’s very difficult until you are both big and successful to find the calibre of people to delegate to. Catch 22 and often fatal as costs escalate and control breaks down! Existing personnel are simply not equipped.
Just the same with political groups trying to traverse between fringe and established party where the leader is simply one of a chain.
Totally agree with 90% of what you said. I always said that Nigel was the greatest salesman on Earth, but not so hot at being a manager. I had glimpses of that from my own direct experiences, and when I stood as PPC I saw a microcosm of the Faragista vs Carswellistas battle within my constituency and county. That latter experience turned me against my personal involvement in politics, and now I just sit on the sidelines.
And for the last year I have watched quietly, even more quietly since I handed over the reins of UKIP Daily to the most capable and enthusiastic Viv, and have become more and more sickened by the shenanigans of that those at the top, totally divorced from the desires of the membership.
Either the party finds a strong (and acceptable to the membership at large) leader who can pull it all together, or this party is doomed, and Britain is doomed to another 100 years of a 2-party state and the rotating dictatorship of Tory and Labour.
As I understand it from media, Nigel Farage has constant security protection paid for by a donor. Anyone who replaces him will need the same. Has this been arranged? Else people willing to do the job will be difficult to find or won’t stay long -as has just happened. I wonder whether people in UKIP actually grasp the realities of campaigning for radical causes.
Actually, it is paid for by the party – see under `legal, professional and consultancy fees’ in the accounts.
Brief diversion. I went to a UKIP meeting last night. A visiting branch chairman attended seeking support for an attempt to join the NEC. The hope is to stand against the Carswell/Hamilton clique that they believe dominates the NEC and frustrates the Party’s progress.
Does anyone have any genuine NEC insight that supports or contradicts that belief?
We were also told that they and others are being encouraged (by HO) to stand on the basis that support spread through many like minded candidates dilutes their chances of winning and that there are rules in place to prevent coordinated electioneering. Any views?
While I admire the endeavour and commitment, I do wonder whether it’s misdirected. And whether the answer may be simpler that we think.
The leadership issue does indeed need to be parked. And no one stands out. So Invite Farage to select a running mate and stick in until they can sort the constitution out that gives members voice and ukip hope for the future. A political equivalent of Brian Clough and Peter Taylor. Old Big Ed doing the media and somebody new taking on the mess that is the NEC/HO/Carswell/Hamilton/anything-but-involving-the-membership attitude.
UKIP has no reason to distract itself – from the fight for survival. But a lot of goodwill to loose if allowed to whither on the vine of egos.
St Theresa has made a case but still has a party full of Remainers and a small majority to live with. And any Corbyn green libdem “rainbow alliance” will take a while. The UKIP I know is a genuine mix of exlabour and extory supporters who are none of the above and yet we are mired in the schisms that have around for ever and could be overlooked while the referendum was the objective…. but now they can’t.
As SY said, reform is expensive for a party with no money.
I just wonder whether in fact, the only thing that will bring the party back is reform, Farage, and help.
And as for the money. I was surprised last night that my 5 digit membership no has been long been surpassed by over 300,000 memberships. Suggest there is willingness and money out there. Just precious little here to attract it at the moment.
There is a clique of three – Victoria Ayling et al – that are slavishly Faragist to the point of having no minds of their own and there are a number of independent minded NEC members (who occasionally forget they are in a political party and think they are running a trading company) and then there is John Bickley who, when Carswell came on stage at the conference, stood up and cheered him. Beyond that I have no insight I am afraid. Next month we elect another 6 NEC members (or is it 7) so the members can vote for or against whichever cliques they believe exist. Perhaps the party can insist their manifestos include a statement about which team they support.
Dear Stout. I think your piece is an excellent summary, detailed, informative and well reasoned.
But I do have one issue with it. That the problem is not fundamentally structural. I would suggest that is exactly where problem lies, or at least stems from… partly that the NEC has responsibilities it cannot discharge while the leader has conflicting objectives he (or she) wants to achieve, by any means available, (supported unquestioningly by the paid HO officialdom. And what else can they do? In their position? )
And fundamentally I think too, that the leaders greatest failure and thus the Party’s greatest failure has been its inability to harness the voice of the membership to strengthen the policy base.
As this site regularly testifies, while the paid officials at HO give the leader absolute support – the combination has becomes hugely destructive when it’s all been done Irrespective of the NEC’s responsibilities, which bye the way most of us have only got a grasp of in the last few months.
But it’s worse than that because the leadership has long become so detached from it’s own membership that we can only sit back and marvel at how such a promising position can unravel.
Hence where we are now.
Other than that I don’t disagree with a word you’ve said or the many observations you make, e.g. Making the NEC regional won’t change anything….. (until the fundamental management structure issue is resolved.)
There we disagree and I would love to hear your thoughts on this point.
Why would Nigel entertain the idea of coming back to more of the same? (I’m guessing Woolfe is out of the running now)
Why would any donor cough up significant cash to a project that has failed because the fundamental conflicts have not been resolved? Not Carswell vs Farage. Leadership and membership.
I would love to see Nigel come back pro tem to provide the stability, time, etc to settle the ship. But it’s because the ship became a canoe that has created the problems.
And there won’t be recovery unless and until a new structure is defined and adopted, that a leader can work with while giving ukip members voice into policy and objectives.
How? I guess it requires a leader who grasps that Ukip’s greatest strength lies in its membership experience. That politicking becomes a sideshow to the main event. That the best leadership is a team game.
Nigel has been our star player. Our George Best.
But Blowing money on by elections has failed.
Exhausting donors patience with insufficient result has failed.
And exhausting Nigel has failed.
For me the day ukip means business will be the day it start to think like one. And IMHO that starts with the structure.
Ideally it might start with changing the structure, a chance to review many things, but changing the constitution is a lengthy and costly process. The wording has to be subject to review and challenge to ensure its effect is what we think it is (costly legal bill) before being put to he members in a ballot which needs to be after a consultation exercise lest we just bin it for being imposed. My point is that we no longer have the luxury of time and resources to do this. We have squandered any momentum we might have had after the referendum in all those seats where MPs are out of touch with their constituents. Nigel is part of the problem, as are others, but he needs to show true leadership right now and focus on saving the party.
My own recent experiences etc. within UKIP confirm that UKIP currently needs considerable re-appraisals and optimisations of its Constitution, Rules and Regulations, Management and Administration etc. by a “manager” highly experienced about the management of changes.
Traitors or incompetents?
Before we dismiss the former let us just note that government has its fair share of traitors; why would UKIP be different?
Nigel wants someone in his own image to take over the party the acid test of which is his war with Carswell (and the NEC for sorting out team Carswell for him). The (team) Farage v (team) Carswell is a huge problem for UKIP and it needs sorting. Paul Nuttall did not support Diane James, the Banks/Farage candidate, nor did Gerard Batten (so a bit rich for Diane James to suddenly work out she did not have universal support among MEPs). Divisions run deep. Would a Woolfe or Nuttall v Evans election be cathartic for the party? Or would it finish us off and cause the party to fracture beyond repair? I fear the latter would result. The prolongation of civil war will bankrupt the party and betray all who voted for us. Last year we were saved by a donor who agreed to convert loans to a donation. That option is not available this year. The only NEC member she met was the Treasurer (on the Tuesday after conference). That’s when resolve began to leave her.
I very much fear that Stout Yeoman is right: without members and money, UKIP will struggle to survive, especially as Theresa May is tacitly admitting that everything Nigel and UKIP has been saying for years is correct and not the ideas of loony fruitcakes.
The number of members who voted in the leadership election does bring into question how many members there actually are, and it will be very difficult to recruit more with the leadership debacle in the full glare of publicity.
Having voted for Diane, I was shocked and dismayed to hear of her stepping down. I do remember, though, her saying in Gateshead on 8th September that she had been talking to millionaire potential donors, but if they didn’t come through with the injection of cash that was needed, she couldn’t do the job. Perhaps failure to get the money was the main reason for her withdrawal.
It’s very tempting to say, “Well, look at the Tory leader now, promising a proper Brexit and sticking up for the ordinary working-class voter who’s sick of being ignored and being told they’re racist because they don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Perhaps UKIP isn’t needed after all.”
But how do we know that Theresa May will keep her promises? And if she does keep them, how do we know that she won’t be brought down by her political enemies within the Tory party who don’t like the ‘new Britain’?
And what about Labour, with its all-out Trot activists hell-bent on bending the party to their extremist ideology? The party may seem wrecked at the moment, but we can’t afford to take our eyes off them, as one Conservative MP pointed out today. They have a huge membership and plenty of money from the unions. Every precaution must be taken against their ever regaining power in the future.
So UKIP is still needed, because if the Tories are moving to the centre ground and taking our policies with them, we need to stay a little to the right of them as a pressure to fulfil their promises, as an alternative, and as a bulwark against Labour and the SNP. In a crucial GE, UKIP would be the party in the North voters could turn to if they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Labour or for the Tories in a General Election.
I wish Paul Nuttall would step in and become Leader. I’m sure there are threats to him and his family behind his withdrawal, but if he could have the assurance of 24 hr protection as a priority expense, perhaps he would reconsider.
They are still at it, Aron, Raheem and others briefing the media against fellow Ukipers is plain wrong, even if there is truth in the claims, which are not provable anyway. This is not a game, about careers, it’s not a chance for fame and fortune, a time to settle silly scores. It’s about our failure to plan ahead, to remove members who clearly put themselves before the party and for us to evolve into a viable opposition.
We are grateful to Aron, Nigel and many of the other top people but we at the grassroots coal face have also given huge amounts of our time and during local campaigns, a lot of our own money, to forward the cause. That’s now being wasted.
As I’ve said before, you all know Steve would win an election, so don’t stand against him, take a leaf from the Tory book and save us time, money and further embarrassment. Then get behind him, restrict any criticism to private meetings or if you can’t zip it up… just leave.
To the NEC. Yes I know it was Steven’s fault and that your were correct but it was still clearly the wrong decision, He’s about to be elected or selected despite your action. Sometimes the spirit of the law is better than the letter, we’re a political party not an arm of the judiciary. Conservatives do these things better, it’s a good job Labour do them worse.
To the “Brass hats”. We can still salvage this but it requires people to be highly unselfish, so demonstrate that tendency now please, your country needs you to act in it’s best interests and that requires the successful evolution of UKIP into a viable opposition.
Last of all, one very simple fact, It’s unwise to pick fights you can’t win without destroying what you are fighting for.
Folks,
Just a thought, can Steven Woolfe still stand with a spent conviction. I presume he can, but we don’t want this going all wrong again.
Just imagine the MSM; UKIP have elected a criminal as leader!
Totally unfair given the reality but this is politics and newshounds looking for a sensational headline which they may resurrect whenever they wish.
I don’t think someone with a spent conviction can be referred to as a ‘criminal’.
Besides, it pales into significance besides the attack on Steven Woolfe by Mike Hookem. No doubt Hookem will be suspended or expelled, and if Steven feels well enough he might stand for leadership properly this time. But I’m not very happy about Steven’s outspoken enthusiasm for Theresa May, which apparently sparked the punch-up. Perhaps he’s already left UKIP in terms of loyalty and commitment.
Steven Woolf would be another disaster.
He didnºt really want the job last time perhaps for fear of the incorrect declaration on his PPC form coming to light.
It has been dropped as an issue for now but if he became Leader it would be raised again and again- maybe there would be a private prosecution over the alleged offence.It would end badly anyhow.
PLUS he does not even deny discussing the possibility of defecting to the Tories – a discussion put on hold only when Diane resigned creating a new possibility for his self advancement.
This is NOT someone who will be a good Leader of UKIP.
PAUL NUTTALL would be a superb Leader……….much better speaker than Steven, and question time debater also.
And knows what it will take to penetrate into hitherto Labour territory in the North.
It has to be PAUL NUTTALL ! pASS it ON
PAUL
PUHLEASE open your eyes.
Steven did NOT WANT to be on the ballot………that is why, even though he HAS STAFF WHO CAN DO THIS STUFF FOR HIM he left till the very last minute and beyond submitting his application.
DIANE DID NOT WANT TO BE ON THE BALLOT That is why even though SHE HAS STAFF WHO CAN DO THIS STUFF FOR HER she left it till the very last hour to submit her application.
For their own reasons NEITHER OF THEM WANTED THE JOB.
Nothing Diane has said about her reasons for giving up are matters which were not known to her beforehand.
Steven now claims to want to be on the ballot but he also admits to being in discussions about defecting to another party……….until………..surprise surprise………..he learns that there is a leadership vacancy.
How convincing is he likely to be as UKIP Leader in the NorthEast, or anywhere else for that matter ?
He will just be sneered at as a would be turncoat who turned again when he thought the prospects had suddenly become brighter on the other side.
And anyway, have you ever heard him speak ?
He is insipid at best.
UKIP is not finished, this incident will be forgotten about in a few weeks, just in the same way that Andrea Leadsom’s decision not to stand for Conservative Party leadership has now been largely forgotten.
UKIP is a different kind of party and we don’t necessarily need a high profile leader, IMO. It’s more like the Green party in that respect.
We should also stop blaming the NEC for everything – we need a ruling body.
In fact we do need a strong leader behind whom everyone , and I mean everyone , should unite. Whatever Nigel Farage’s faults were , and he did have some , he was strong and should have been backed against Carswell , Evans , O’Flynn , Hamilton etc etc . It’s called democracy ! A leader is elected and should be supported , it really is a simple as that .
Just look at the Labour Party to see the alternative . We all know that at the constituenmcy meetingd there are those who bang on and on about their individual bees in the bonnet , but at the National level this must not happen . If it continues , the Party is truly finished .
But just HOW was Nigel ” not backed ” exactly ?
How, by what mechanism, did the NEC put any kind of spoke in Nigelºs wheels ?
HOW ?
Nigel went ballistic, as far as I can see, over the one decision the NEC made not to allow Steven Wºs late application.
Thatºs it.
For what it is worth, I would have made a different decision in their place, but it was finely balanced and 100% of the fault for the late application was Stevenºs.
So Nigel went ballistic with his disgusting sneer about ” little people with their sandwiches ” ……. which diminished him hugely in my eyes, just like Emily Thornberry and her sneer about the van driver with the Union flag in his garden.
I believe that the NEC should be elected from a regional base, to allow candidates to be tested in Hustings which anyone who wishes could attend.
But it is not the fault of the existing NEC that they were elected by the national ballot prescribed by the Constitution, which Nigel, I believe, wrote or at least approved just a few years ago.
Structure is not the difficulty for UKIP.
Having excellent candidates for the Leadership is. No amount of fiddle faddling around with the NEC or other Board or whatever is going to alter that fact……..
We have very few MEPs at the top who are fit to be Leader, and the one or two who are are just not putting themselves forward.
The dream of replacing Labour is dying.
And it wouldnºt have to if Paul Nuttall would stand. Or maybe Gerald Batten ?
It seems that the paid staff hold the power when it should be the elected NEC that holds the power in a form of board of directors to recruit and fire the paid staff.
The party leader should be Chairman of the NEC Board and there should be a competent Deputy Chairman to run it in the absence of the Chairman. Then the grassroots control the party and the paid staff can be held to account.
Maybe political parties need a bicameral system with two sources of power that have to resolve issues between them and in event of a deadlock have the problem put to the membership. One of the sources needs to be the NEC and the other made of MPs & MEPs. The leader of the party and the leader of the MP & MEPs needs to be separate people.
How about that? Your comments please.
Anthony, I have no knowledge of the legal or correct workings of an NEC, but you asked for comments, so here goes. Excuse my naive take on this matter.
Having read Mr Slivnik’s letter regarding his resignation from the NEC, it seems that UKIP is not in robust financial health. It also seems that he felt that the NEC were rendered almost powerless to control funding and much else besides.
A well functioning NEC would seem to this rookie an essential element of running a Successful Party.
Might it be asking too much of a Leader to take on, in addition to Leadership and all that entails, Chairmanship of the NEC Board?
Would it be possible for the Chair to rotate annually within the Board Members, with minutes sent to the Leader and Deputy Leader, who would always be free to attend the meetings but that way, would have oversight and could be called upon to settle any stalemate if one arose? NEC members would elect from within the Board that year’s Chairman? Might it be easier for all if power was not concentrated in a single person for too long?
Anthony you make a very good point regarding the need for the leader of the party and the leader of our elected officials to be two different people. In my view one needs to go beyond looking at what people are capable of doing and look at what gets them out of bed in the morning. What they want to do.
I once worked in marketing oriented company that did very well. The salesmen (i.e. the politicians) had a sales manager. They were a formidable team who loved what they did. We all answered to the marketing director who was himself excellent at sales and also excellent at fighting our corner in board meetings. But he also loved advertising, PR, strategy, all the less glamourous but essential side of what most would call ‘sales’, the side that gets things done and makes thing happen. I’m familiar with the sort of structure that worked in a company manufacturing and selling vehicle security systems.
I’m very new to this rather strange world called politics but I do see some parallels. I see signs of structural problems here. I believe UKIP needs to restructure and transform itself from a being formidable referendum-winning machine into an equally formidable election-fighting (and eventually winning) machine.
We have a worthy mission we all believe in, we have an army, we have leaders. However, we do need to organise. I see the recent turmoil and in-fighting as symptomatic of a lack of strong senior leadership, or as it now stands, no senior leadership at all. A chicken without its head runs remarkably well for a while …
Michael I like all you say about the necessity for the “product” to be sold professionally by a high class and motivated sales team – I`ve been saying this for yonks.But………….
For the life of me I cannot see
“the worthy mission we all believe in”
The product Brexit has already been sold, all that is required of us is we hold St Theresa`s habit to the mangle – how can you make that into a sales product?
We need a new product – I haven`t seen one identified yet.
In such dire times would a positive move like putting in place the 4 million voters who backed UKIP in the GE as members their feelings at the GE did show the need for a pro English / GB party with a common sense agenda.
Put a strong membership in place as a warning to those with a past history of lies,deceit, and treachery.
Then select a new leader
If I remember right brussels went leaderless in it’s persuit of robbery and general mayhem so why would it not work for a political force of good
Nobody is going to join UKIP until we have an attractive Leader who can appeal especially to the people on average wages and below.
Until that time we will not look like a party with a chance of winning Westminster seats.
That Leader, for my money, is PAUL NUTTALL.
A great public speaker, who can enthuse the Membership and connect with working class former LAB voters.
I heard Steven at the Conference……..Honestly his speech was insipid. And he was still blaming others for his not being on the ballot, when, given that he has STAFF for heavenºs sake, it was 120% his fault.
I donºt recall actually anything else he said.
Rhys, he has not yet said he will stand, as far as I know?
SO we must encourage him to do so !
I truly believe that not just UKIP, but the country NEEDS now Paul Nuttall as the third partyºs Leader.