[Ed: The following article is the personal view of a contributor, a member of the East Hampshire Branch. We hope that other readers will also send in their own personal views of the candidate they will support in the forthcoming UKIP Leadership Election. This appeal is to further the debate amongst members, many of whom cannot attend the Hustings but are interested in the different views of those who are able to attend. Different viewpoints from members encourage debate – and that’s what we all want and need!]
These are my personal thoughts after the UKIP Leadership hustings in Frimley on the 22nd of August 2016, which I attended. They are not necessarily shared by my Branch.
My main thought is that UKIP needs better candidates and better governance.
This is not to decry the current candidates, but in Olympic terms we seem to be short of a gold medallist.
Why do I say that? In my view there is too much reliance on sound-bites and no coherent analysis of or solution to UKIP’s current woes.
Better governance implies a revised Constitution, but before we can finalise any changes to the constitution, we must have a stab at agreeing the main objectives and direction of travel, otherwise we will be attempting to argue the minutiae without a clear statement of direction.
Without a firm indication on governance from the candidates, it is impossible to know whom to support.
Below is my analysis and I hope that it may serve to prompt further moves to bring sense back to the “Party of Common Sense”.
Governance
In my view the “elect and forget” NEC is unfit for purpose. Why?
- Most members know very little about those standing for election, so how to vote?
- They are not standing for specific responsibilities or regions.
- They have no mandate to report back to the membership.
- The membership have no regular way to assess their individual or group performance.
I want better:
- A governance and reporting structure (to replace the current NEC) which will work for and be accountable to the membership;
- A political structure (leader and shadow spokespersons) which will be responsible for policy proposals, manifestos, media and public relations;
- A training development and compliance office to look after the needs of councillors, parliamentarians, and branches (including membership records), whilst defending the party against rogue elements of all stripes;
- An informal communications system where policy and governance issues can be discussed within the membership without commitment;
- Formal communications systems for reporting governance matters on the one hand and on the other hand obtaining approval by the membership to proposed policy.
Leadership
Successful leadership is characterised by (amongst everything else) ensuring success in three areas:
- tasks: define plan and progress on what needs to be done;
- team building: break responsibilities down and build a team that is effective;
- Personnel: both leadership and team members are available, motivated and informed and fresh and capable to perform their tasks.
So what attributes does a leader of a political party need? My dream leader (leadership team) should be:
- Cold and calculating in setting priorities and managing risks;
- Ruthless, courageous and determined in driving execution;
- Well-thought-out, fully briefed, controlled, on message, articulate, inspirational at media events and public speaking, able to carry the nation with him/her and field any googlies;
- First and foremost a team player – loyalty always works both ways and loyalty to the Party is paramount;
- Committed to develop people, teams and structures within the party to ensure that the party can govern and renew itself successfully.
OK it’s a tall order, but if you don’t ask, you don’t get.
A tall order? Not really if there were a list of great candidates to choose from unlike the current bunch.
The 5 year membership rule was a huge mistake unless intended to favour that same current bunch.
UKIP needs to be seen as a credible opposition able to field candidates to oppose all the government ministers as well as regular MPs. It simply doesn’t do that at the moment and will be caught short in the event of an early election.
Well said Pam,
We do have a management problem, which involves chains of command and people with allocated responsibilities.
I`m not much up on company structure, but I looked it up and we appear to be a limited company, so you might expect things to go on in a regular and well structured fashion.
The only thing is we are unique, unlike a normal company, not everybody with responsibilities gets paid for a start off, I`m not sure whether we have a set of non-executive directors (in a normal Co. -usually paid) who have responsibility for overseeing and advising and perhaps checking the actions of the management, but we ought to.
With the best will in the world, we are not a normal Co. It is a bit like Topsy and “just growed” – higgly piggldy and topsy turvey, there is a constitution and probably the one we`ve got is the last in a line of previous ones and I`m sure the next one won`t be the last.
We are also unique in being a revolutionary set up and we argue and factionalise, I`ll take a bet if we`ve got 40,000 members – we`ve got at least 20,000 ideas of what our policy and methodology should be.
I joined UKIP or first heard of UKIP from a chap who had a talk show on TV – Kilroy Silk, so you have him to thank for my presence.
Next I hear he`s trying to take over Nigel`s job and Nigel won, from then on, as I understand it UKIP was and had to be Nigel, and despite our moans weren’t we all chuffed at the outcome he led us to and the fact that we had stayed with him and put up with his autocratic habits and tendency to make policy on the hoof.
In my opinion Nigel is still the future of this party and just like Putin, whether he re-emerges as President,Chairman,Secretary or whatever he will continue to run and lead UKIP “his way”
Just now, as in “Godot”, we are waiting for Nigel.
Where is he?
Doing sterling work on our behalf in the States.
He is putting Obama “in his place” -over there.
He is championing the value of”his” People`s Army.
I`m sure he has plans to rejig it alongside UKIP when he surfaces.
There is work for the new set up to do.
a) Secure Total BRexit.
b) Establish a proper Grass roots Democratic parliamentary party that is not contaminated with EU ideology.
c) Work to make BRexit a success
d) Remove EU ideology from our Education system, our children must no longer be taught the are “children of the EU”
e) Remove EU ideology from our body politic and civil service that advises them
f) Remove EU ideology from Local Government.
g) Remove Ideology from our establishment and all the services on which the population depend.
h) Remove EU ideology from our Universities and other centres of learning.
That is an enormous task for a “New Deal” inclusive UKIP together with Nigel`s peoples army of 17 million souls (yes we can lay claim to them all – who can tell whether they were Vote LEAVE recruits or GO campaign? – VL won`t nurture them anyway.)
It`s up to us to unite behind Nigel, whatever post he eventually graces – he will still lead the party – probably in his normal way, idiosyncratically, unpredictably, autocratically.
There`s one thing I agree with Blair he said “What works”
It`s a crying shame we are still consulting our navels and not getting on with work out on the streets – we must nurture those who voted for us.Ignore them and we`re dead.!!!
I agree, Roger, and I’m preparing to fulfil a goal of knocking on at least 20 doors a week in order to help build up a database that will help us target actual and potential UKIP voters in the next campaign. If every activist did this, we wouldn’t need to blanket leaflet in the weeks or months leading up to an election. This wastes time and resources. Knowledge is power.
It’s interesting to compare this report with the one submitted by Comrade K about the same hustings in Frimley on 22nd August. I am assuming that ‘Frimley’ and ‘Frimley Green’ refer to the same venue.
Comrade K’s report focuses on the candidates themselves, their strengths and weaknesses. Jim Makins’ report is very abstract, focusing on what is needed for better governance of the party and the qualities needed for good leadership. Two phrases stood out for me as revealing: ‘dream leader’ and ‘tall order’. The dream leader Jim wants sounds more like a superhero than a flesh and blood human being.
Instead of dreaming, we should be looking at what we actually have: five UKIP members who are prepared to take on a very difficult task with a hard act to follow. They know that they will have to sacrifice much in terms of personal freedom, privacy, leisure, family life and peace of mind in order to do this job. They will have to face hostility from the media and mainstream politicians. They will probably face threats or even physical attacks from leftist scum. Like Nigel, they will have to accommodate themselves to security restrictions and bodyguards. They will have to tolerate personal criticism and dissatisfaction expressed by Party members, because no one can please all of the people all of the time.
Respect should be paid to all the candidates for just putting their heads above the parapet.
I suggest that we should be looking at the POTENTIAL of each candidate to be a good or even great leader rather than judging them wholly on fleeting appearances in the here and now. People can rise to the demands of a role and show a capability that surprises even themselves. They develop in a role in ways that might not have been foreseen when their remit and powers were limited.
In their addresses to the membership when the voting material is sent out, I hope that each candidate will provide a detailed CV showing where they started from, how they overcame difficulties to achieve the following stages of their development, and what they learned on the way that equips them to take on the role of Party Leader. This, for me, will be more decisive than watching the rough and tumble of a Hustings.
Good point about the CV and experience.