PARTY REFORM: Suggestions For Constitutional Reform

You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. Bill Matthews says:

    I don’t believe election of the NEC by the membership will ever be satisfactory. It does not matter how much space is provided for candidates to sell themselves to the membership, it will never express their personalities, their ability to deal with difficult questions, or even describe how they perform in public.
    I feel they must be selected by people who know them. For this reason I would like to consider each region providing a member on the NEC, voted for by that regions leaders, who themselves have been elected by the regions membership.
    This of course presupposes we need an NEC, perhaps some form of management team appointed by the Leader could have some merit, provided the leader was appointed for a relatively short period, but with the ability to stand for re-election.
    Above all, I feel all elections at any level should be made by people qualified to judge genuine suitability. By being asked to vote for people I do not know is dangerous and can easily lead to the sort of problems this party has gone through since the Referendum.

    • MIKE MAUNDER says:

      BILL. I am almost in agreement with your points. The big exception for me is your last paragraph, with ”People qualified to judge ……” Who would run the rule over members to find out if they qualified ? I am a Democrat even if I am placed in a difficult situation for a decision !
      Some years ago, on the approach of a General Election, I overheard two old boys comments. ”Who you going to vote for, Bert ?” ”Well Charlie, I’m a working man, so I vote Labour !” …….. That summed up the dexterity of this man’s political thought, as their chat turned immediately to football !
      Now if I were to agree with your take on this, I would be of the opinion that everyone should face three or four questions before casting their vote, with the right of exclusion given to Polling station staff, and in all good sense we would be correct. I WILL NEVER AGREE TO THAT. Even the uninformed have the right to vote ! It is a hurdle within the process, called our Democracy, but is covered by NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION !

  2. forthurst says:

    UKIP needs to give priority to turning itself into a party that can communicate both ways electronically and securely such that decisions can be taken by the membership without getting off their backsides. Bolton’s IT initiative needs to be scrapped immediately; we need someone who actually understands what he is doing and how to do it. I was impressed with JRE’s proposals for internal communication, if nothing else, and I see he has initiated these before the launch of his new party; Luke Nash-Jones has some good ideas.

    With regard to the issue of e.g. elections to the NEC, I agree that the amount of space was insufficient, but also so was the format. I would like to see a proper CV for a start so we actually understand the level at which the candidate has previously operated and what special knowledge he can deploy. One or two of the candidates were polymaths, at least in their own minds and would need many acres to put their case. That being so, rather than an issue of Independence which breaks the bank, if the whole process was online its cost would be minimal, the same with leadership elections for which CVs, addresses, to the membership and hustings could be online with audible sound etc.

  3. Barrie greatorex says:

    So Bolton’s Revised reforms giving to much power to the elected leader, but yours seems to make the NEC even more powerful, so it beggars the question why have a leader election at all. Simply by your stancdards all should be decided by the NEC. Then of course they would become self selecting. Democratic process elects the leader for a term, unless it can be proven with out doubt that the leader has done unrepairable harm to the Party then that term must be honoured by all. If proof is abundant,which in the recent case it was not,then only by the same method of the leader being appointed can the said leader be removed. It would seem to many in the Party that the NEC have made assumptions on the manufactured charges by those not qualified to do so. Seeing how they, the NEC are accountable to no one but themselves, we have a travesty of justice. What you propose would make that worse not better.The deposed Leader must now be allowed to stand within 90 days, in a new leadership contest,before the tire membership not a cabal of misinformed individuals with no qualifications to judge in a fair and neutral manner.

    • Derek Walker says:

      Well said Barrie

    • Roger Turner says:

      Sorry, I don`t agree that Bolton be allowed to stand again, in fact he should be expelled.
      He has clearly brought the party into disrepute not just by his original association and dealings with that woman, but also for his doctoring of his CV claiming spurious degrees, and his willingness to attempt to take his own party on more than one occasion to law.
      I attended the meeting and I felt he finally cooked his own goose in the last 4 minutes when he plainly “lost it”and was roundly boo -d by the audience.
      I also believe the finding regarding his tardy performance were proven

  4. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    Hi Rhys, and Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The rules of the Party will never be accepted by everyone, due to the fact that this Party, as well as others, are made up of individuals, and Thank The Good Lord for that !
    Our NEC on one hand, could be saddled with rules that makes it supine and somewhat irrelevant. It could also have rules that give it way too much power ! I would suggest that rules should be slightly in favor of NEC power, but that we grass roots members have as a right, the ability to over rule, in an orderly fashion, the power or decision of the NEC. If it were considered to raise membership fees too high, then a local branch could talk it over, and if in agreement, have the decision signed up, and reported in our pages here. A call for support from other branches might top a given vote requirement, ( numbers or percentage ), and the NEC would be required to either action such request, or demand a meeting with the heads of branches.
    The good point to this would be involvement by the membership, with direct accountability. Due to the speed of the social media, and our very able Kipper Central, delay would be minimal. All that is required is an agreement about numbers or percentage, and the NEC would have power only within membership agreement !
    My salutations to our UKIP friends in Bishop Auckland, Rhys.

    • Rhys Burriss says:

      Thank you for your kind comments.
      To quote you : # I would suggest that rules should be slightly in favor of NEC power, but that we grass roots members have as a right, the ability to over rule, in an orderly fashion, the power or decision of the NEC.
      That is more or less a description of what I am proposing.

  5. Rob McWhir says:

    JREs proposals were poorly thought out.

    BB of the rulebook effectively removes the 150 word restriction.

    As for regional reps, again, I want the best talent, irrespective of where they’re based.

  6. Pat Bryant says:

    I cancelled other arrangements to go to the EGM. Without that attendence and the ability to hear both sides of the argument on the day I may well have come to a different decision. Postal voting may be very well in theory but to be properly informed one has to hear the up to the minute arguments – something not achievable by postal or electronic voting. Every member was invited to the meeting which is the best we can offer. No it is not perfect but then what it?

    With regard to the idea of regional representation to the NEC – I would be very happy to see that happen but would not find it acceptable for those represenatives to be elected in the fashion described.

    It seems perverse to me that it is suggested that members are being disenfranchised by the physical EGM and at the same time recommend that they not be allowed to vote for members of the NEC.

  7. George Lloyd says:

    There is virtually nothing in this paper that I agree with, except that the selection and composition of the NEC members needs a total rethink. If the NEC is all powerful (as it has proved) the members should be elected by district and hold hustings etc like those for the party leader, after all they are more powerful. Otherwise this paper is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and justifying the NEC’s removal of the constitutionally elected leader by approximately 1,000 members.

    The question we should be asking is; Why do we need a leader? He/she has no power, they are just an ‘Aunt Sally’ to take the flack for NEC decisions. The Chairman of the NEC should stand up and be responsible for the bad decisions and lack of progress in producing radical policies to take the party on from Brexit.

    Much more radical reform of the NEC is necessary. At the moment they are secretive, not communicative, overseen by no one, and tend towards the very Dictatorship they accused Henry Bolton of wanting, but with less oversight. The irony is they are very like the EU Commission, the people the party is fighting to get away from.

Leave a Reply

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