After Bolton, What Next? Can the NEC Do What Is Required?

The Main Players

You may also like...

24 Responses

  1. Rob McWhirter says:

    Interesting stuff: I remember studying O&M at university too!

    Nitpicking, but a branch is already supra-constituency; where it’s just constituency level, it’s called a “constituency association”.

  2. Barrie greatorex says:

    Definition of a leader is surely, a person who others elect to follow. Because he or she is elected by the followers then if the leader fails in the minds of those who elected the said leader, they can be replaced by those who are the followers.Not by some other body elected to scrutinise policies or other machinations of the organisation. Further if elected by a Democratic consensus involving the entire membership body,then sure only by the same process can a leader be replaced.

  3. Jim Stanley says:

    Quite a document Mr Holland! When a CEO in the Security Industry, my mantra was “Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail”. Two contracts come to mind, one a Bank computer centre, and the second for an oil installation. We won one contract,but failed with the second as I did not have the capital to run the job, or we would have won that one as well. By planning for an attack over the net for one, and having intrinsically safe patrol vehicles for the second, I was able to show that I was planning for evey evenualiy, as a Party we must do the same. Every Party failed to plan for Brexit, including us, and the result is the current dogs breakfast that passes for negociations. I would urge our new Leader, when they take office to consult widely with far sighted individuals like Mr Holland. I am not worried when our detractors go on about a lack of talent within our Party, look at May, Cable and the rest, I see no real initiative there, just the same old same old. You can be sure that while our people may not be “known”, they have ideas and drive to move us forward. We have our troubles, but we must see this time as an opportunity to rectify the mistakes of our past, our glass is half full, and closing time is a long way off, so charge your glass and toast a brighter future free of the undemocratic EU..

  4. John Bickley says:

    Good article and food for thought, however what is it that’s broke? If you can identify what’s broken or could be improved then that’s the basis for moving forwards. The structure you have proposed is no more likely to resolve what’s broken unless you have first identified what it is that’s broken.

    Forgive the crap example: if your car breaks down you don’t take it to the scrap heap, you find out what’s not working and fix it – after all we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    • Rob McWhirter says:

      Hmm. Don’t throw out the baby – anyone told Henry? 🤣

    • PJW Holland says:

      Thank you for your response John. I just finished watching your performance at Leigh. Most impressive… with one or two points I would take issue with but not now. My article aims to set out the questions rather than the ultimate solution. The skeleton structure is there, for the most part, to identify the tensions. As soon as you produce a diagram like this they leap out at you.

      What is broke? Well if I knew that I would not be standing at the side of the road with the bonnet up…. to refer to your comparison. I have read the Constitution and it is broke because it provides no viable mechanism for change and we have had a rapid succession of failed leaders. It provides no remedy for disagreements and it creates an unworkable relationship between the NEC and the Chairman.

      To identify what is “broke” you first have to ask the right questions. In this piece I put some. With answers to these I would deliver another set of questions. Ultimately the needs of the organisation could be identified and a solution designed. After watching your explanation at Leigh it is even more clear to me that the correct approach is to bin the present Constitution and start again anew.

      I believe the problems are organisational rather than legal. UKIP is not the Liberal or Labour or Tory Party and is on a much smaller scale. Copying the old order will not enable UKIP to thrive. We have a much smaller pool of talent to harvest from and nothing and no-one should be wasted.

      One issue that has to be defined is the role of the leader. It seems to me that has been left vague and the result has been conflict.

  5. J.L.Kay says:

    To PJW Holland
    You are right on almost every point you make. UKIP needs to be organised and run in a logical and transparent way, which it is not at present. This is why in a previous post I have suggested a root and branch reform of the Party from top to bottom, which means an overhaul and complete restructuring and a forensic examination of what exactly each part of the organisation does and how i.e the NEC, constituency associations, regional chairmen etc. how people are appointed and how they can be removed, especially if they bring the Party into disrepute.

    If UKIP can’t by its own volition undertake this and pretty quickly, then it is finished as a serious political party.

    J.L.Kay

  6. forthurst says:

    Libertarianism can be a rabbit hole. The Libertarian Alliance recently sundered into two organisations, the Libertarian Alliance and the Ludwig von Mises Centre; the former is a flat organisation, the latter has a Council and Faculty with Godfrey Bloom the Honorary President. I used to read articles before the split in which arguments were being put forward extolling libertarianism as a principle followed by comments which might include claims that true libertarians would not wish to exclude people without British passports from coming to live here on the grounds that they were exercising their libertarian rights which of course leads on to respecting others cultures and genders etc. It’s probably better to stick to concrete principles which ordinary people can understand such as an absolute right to freedom of speech as opposed to not only thoughtcrime law but also punishments for using ideas and terminology which do not comply with currently acceptable public discourse even as humour such as calling women sluts who fail to clean behind the fridge.

  7. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    Mr. Holland. Thank you for that. It takes quite a bit of backwards and forwards rereading. Well it does for someone like me ! Thankfully we have in our number, people that can give good analysis. I for one salute them !

  8. Informed says:

    You say; “After Bolton what next” assumes he will be replaced – the exact same Authoritarian view espoused by the collective NEC vindictive mob.
    As you correctly state with some acclaimed authority; “The party’s present Constitution is authoritarian”!
    How right you are.
    As such change will be resisted at every turn. You know that right?

    Constitutionally however, I would say it looks sound on the face of it.

    • Jim Stanley says:

      Dear Informed, I think we all recognise the need for change, the rules, constitution and NEC, that is s given. However, currently, we have a Leader who has lost the confidence of the NEC, the democratically elected controlling body of our Party, and the majority of the membership. I suggest we sort out the current mess, and then address the issues.

      • J.L.Kay says:

        To Jim Stanley and others
        In regard to the state of UKIP and the antics of the ‘so called’ Leader, perhaps you should step back and consider how UKIP appears to other, non-party members of the public. People I have spoken to now regard UKIP as a joke party, headed by a preening, priapic clown who couldn’t organise the proverbial ******in a brewery. Two years ago, as has been pointed out, UKIP was supported by tens of thousands of loyal members and was snapping at the heels of the other main political parties. Now hundreds of people are leaving weekly, local constituency associations are collapsing and being wound up across the country.
        This can partly be put down to UKIP allowing itself to be infiltrated by former Tory MP’s, whose motives and loyalty were always questionable (no names mentioned) but also by people who wanted to grab a small amount of political power, which obviously made them feel important, and make a name for themselves in their (very) local areas.

        There are many who have and still do disagree with Mr Farage’s style of politics but without him Brexit would not be coming about (I still have hope). However since he left the party there has not been a worthy successor who can match him in charisma and the ability to motivate people, rather a succession of grey and uninteresting wannabees, hasbeens and nonentities.

        • Jim Stanley says:

          Dear Mr Kay, I agree with you. Our Leaders antics are straight from a low budget soap opera. The tabloid style splashing of the details of his affair is typical Red Top headlines, the root cause of the no confidence vote has, in my mind been about the breakdown of trust following his very public split from his wife. His crime was that of dishonesty when descibing his martiage, as i have said before, in my opinion, being a widower with a generally good marriage on my cv, a solid fullfilling marriage simply does not break down, and a new partner installed in about 10 weeks between his election and Christmas. On top of this, he was just elected to lead a political Party in the doldrums. Again my opinion, how on earth did he have the time to have such a row with his spouse, decide to leave, find a new home, then a girlfriend, and, I recall when asked about how he was going to live without pay, he said he would carry on with his security consulting, and his name is Henry Bolton, not Clark Kent, frankly it beggers belief, to do all that in such short space of time, just think what the man would be capable of, but I fear we were deceived by one of the Walter Mitty characters who seem to inhabit politics these days. I hope that thise leading for the motion wil, lay out an accurste time line of what was actually said, said and when, then detail the timetsble of his actions, when it will become clear just how much we have been led up the garden path. It is the original breakdown of trust that is the basic csuse of the vote, the events which followed while a factor simply reinforce the decrptive nature of his Leadership.

      • Informed says:

        Dear Jim, my point. Everyone including the NEC agrees the constitutional framework isn’t fit for purpose yet nobody is willing to tear it up and start over.
        Bolton himself may or may not be the ideal (or choice of) leader, is a little wet and uncharismatic and waffles on (typical low ranking officer), but he’s capable of leading given the chance. Currently he’s powerless to lead, act or implement change – not because he’s incapable of leading but because the rules and those seeking power from within prevents him from leading – the same way previous leaders were prevented to lead.

        Without significant change, no leader, whoever they are will ever succeed in their role. Not even a popular one like Farage or the fall guy Bolton.

    • PJW Holland says:

      Indeed it is an assumption. All the indications are that it is an informed assumption. As things stand I have heard the views of a number of NEC members who are prepared to embrace reform. Whether will adopt the approach I set out in my article is another matter. If they do not then the future would be glum indeed. Failing to remove Mr. Bolton would, in my view, almost certainly cause the demise of UKIP.

  9. J.L.Kay says:

    Please see comments by J.L.Kay

  10. J.L.Kay says:

    Dear PJW Holland
    You seem to ‘have a handle on things’ and have made some perceptive comments. I feel that tinkering with the internal structure of UKIP, however, is a pointless exercise and those who feel that they can preserve the party in any semblance of its present form are wasting their time. It doesn’t matter what new initiatives or structures are put in place, it is the way that UKIP is perceived by the general public which is important, and as I have mentioned before, all the evidence is that members are leaving in droves and that the party structure across the country is collapsing.

    What is needed is a new party which represents the views of those of the centre Right, like most of those I assume who support UKIP, a party that believes that it is not shameful to be patriotic or proud of their country’s achievements. People who do not feel , like the abject David Cameron. that we should apologise for what happened in our colonial past, people who support the traditional institution of marriage as interpreted over thousands of years, people who no longer wish to be ruled by anonymous and unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats, who wish for our courts not to be over-ruled by foreign judges, most of whom probably don’t even speak English and who wish for a British Bill of Human Rights, instead of the Yuman Rites Act.

    Have I said enough?

    • PJW Holland says:

      Probably far too much. The comments section is for responses to the points made in the article. If you wish to write your own you might be better advised to contact the Kipper Central Senior Editor and submit your piece.

      A new party would have to start where UKIP began. While UKIP is far from perfect it has a modicum of a network. It merely needs reform to enable it to develop as a real political party. Nigel’s recent, unhelpful, comments only illustrate how the present structure is so dysfunctional. So long as lines of accountability are vague there will be disputes. If a leader dictates to the party then it is neither democratic nor libertarian. These are the beginnings of the debate that must be had.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *