Latest from UKIP Daily

The UKIP NEC Election 2016

A very personal view on the election that was finally concluded on 15th December 2016.

 

Well, it’s now allover but does that include the shouting, or is that to come? UKIP has, forthe first time in a long time, elected what amounts to a new NEC. The newly-elected members will, I think, have their own views on the conduct of the election but that is a matter for another article.

However let me first pay tribute to some of those who did stand but did not manage to get elected, some of whom were kind enough to listen to and understand the matters I brought to the NEC during the election: Rob McWhirter, who brought an irritating fact-based analysis to matters but always sought to do what was best; Sebastian Fairweather, a good sensible person who always listened before commenting; Andrew Moncrieff, who worked tirelessly in the weeks running up to the GE making sure that the manifesto was the best of every party.

Then there were three people with whom I worked closely during the General Election: Roger Gravett, George Konstantinidis and Alan Love. They represented what is good in UKIP and whilst we don’t agree on everything, what they wanted to do was always for the good of the party.

So who has been elected from the 85,000 votes cast by 12,000 plus

Steve Crowther

Steve Crowther

members? In alphabetical order; Steve Crowther, Katie Fanning, Fiona Mills, Mick McGough, Paul Oakley, Anish Patel and Piers Wauchope. One interesting point are the votes cast. These seven candidates received just over 16,000 votes from a potential pool of 85,000, so 5-1 votes cast were for other candidates, but I am sure this will be discussed in coming weeks.

So who have party members elected? The group of seven ‘new’ members,

Piers Wauchope

Piers Wauchope

submit, fall into two distinct groups – those who are well known names in the party and those who are less well known. Three of those elected, Wauchope, McGough and Crowther, are clearly the most well known of the pack. The first two have been very active in the party via social media and both have regularly stood in elections including last year’s General Election. McGough was very closely involved in the Better Off Out

Mick McGough

Mick McGough

campaign and has served two terms on the NEC, resigning last year over a point of principle, along with Victoria Ayling. He is a blunt, no-nonsense, straight-talking person and will be an asset to the NEC again.

Wauchope is another person who has served on the NEC for two terms. He is known for his ability to smooth ruffled feathers and stay calm when things get out of hand. It was

Fiona Mills

Fiona Mills

he who proposed the accepted settlement over the difficulty in Wales, allowing members to vote for who they wanted as candidates in the Welsh assembly.

Crowther is a completely different character altogether. He has not held any elected position in UKIP and was a part-time press officer for the South West, where he resides. He was for a time RO for the South West before

Anish Patel

Anish Patel

being asked to become chairman by Farage in 2010. Many people say he steered UKIP through troubled times after the 2010 election; others say he manipulated the NEC, ensuring that they always gave the decision that the leader wanted. In the end he lost control of the NEC in late 2015 and much of the ensuing difficulties could be said to arise from the fact that the NEC finally lost patience with their chairman. History will be the judge of this.

Katy Fanning

Katy Fanning

 

The other group consists of Mills, Patel, Fanning, and Oakley. The first three are very new to the party, having their year of joining 2014 in common. They all joined in those heady days in the run up to the European Elections and have been active since. It is difficult to know why they stood out particularly in the NEC elections. I met Mills before she was appointed to the seat in Carlisle and was very impressed with her as
a potential 
candidate. Her involvement with the NHS gives her knowledge

Paul Oakley

Paul Oakley

of an area vital to the party and I feel she will add much to the knowledge base of the NEC.

Anish Patel is an irritating member of YI whose presence is always seen wherever there is campaigning to do. His enthusiasm is never ending and he never refuses to do anything that is asked of him. Like my friend Alan Love (not elected in Northern Ireland) he is always there. His election, along with that of Katie Fanning, were the two wild cards that will now fill seats on the NEC. Fanning, I have to say, is a person I do not know well. She is also a person whose name keeps popping up and again and her workload is always praised. She was one of the candidates for the NEC who published a full manifesto. She has some good ideas but she also echoes the complaints of others about the format and constitution of the NEC. I hope she will take some time to learn more of the actual workings of the NEC before seeking to wield her axe. Patel and Fanning can probably thank the YI members for their election yesterday.

Finally Paul Oakley. I first met Oakley shortly after taking up the post as Head of Candidates. I then kept running into him at numerous branch hustings which I was required to chair because of, shall we say, little local difficulties. He was and is one of the most able candidates I have met. Why was he not selected? Because UKIP branches are still determined not to select the best candidate but the local candidate. Please do not take that as a criticism but as an observation. Oakley is a barrister and perhaps needs to chill out a little when addressing hustings meetings but he will be a real asset to the NEC.

So going forward, the party is at a crossroads. It lacks a real professional structure, it has finance problems and the members still need to decide whether they are a pressure group or a political party.

I would say one final thing: over my time with UKIP, without the drive that has come together under this banner there would have been no Brexit. Without Farage, with his huge number of faults,
there would have been no Brexit. I don’t believe in conspiracies but I do believe that people on both sides of the divide need to think before speaking and if we are to be a political party, occasionally saying nothing is the best policy.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

68 Comments on The UKIP NEC Election 2016

  1. I haven’t looked too exhaustively but I am unable to find NEC election results. ie Votes cast for all candidates.
    Please send to my email address below.
    Dave Ollier
    Chairman Rugby and Bulkington Branch.

  2. Two points:

    1) Thanks, David!

    2) What happens when a candidate is chosen by a branch but only, say, 5 of the 100 members attend? Could that indicate the bulk of the branch don’t like the proffered candidates?

    • Rob. Re 2. That happened with me. Branch had ceased to operate, neighbouring branch organised PPC selection candidates hustling, only 4 attendees eligible to vote. Eventually I stood, against current Lib Dem leader.

      Local view was something is better than nothing. Thoughts?

  3. The party now has a new Leader and a partially new NEC. Paul simply HAS to forge ahead constantly pushing for votes in Labour areas. We must have a new dramatic Manifesto drawn up, fully costed, with no hiccups and thrust this onto the msm and social media etc.
    Douglas will go before the next General Election and others of his ilk, should follow, along with ANYONE who wishes to cause trouble. and they know who they are! This time round UKIP will only get one bite of the cherry. If we fail to garner enough votes in 2020 then we will almost certainly end up as a “fringe” right-wing, party, to be used by the voters when they feel; disenfranchised.
    I am positive and hope for a dramatic upturn for UKIP provided those in charge act efficiently, morally and use their common sense. Throw the bickerers and control freaks out and concentrate on regaining our former Independence and way of life.

  4. Quite extraordinary how far the comments can drift from the original article.

    David, thank you for posting your thoughts, they offer Party insights which the vast majority, incl myself, lack.

    One question though. Your comment, “UKIP branches are determined NOT to select the best candidate but the local candidate.”

    Isn’t that the point? Of ukip? Who decides who the “best” candidate is? The locals who see and select? Or the central office with its own agenda?

    I do agree with your final paragraphs and salute Nigel as the first honest man in politics since Enoch Powell, but the control freakery of HOffice, which he will have benefitted from under Crowther, is now the ball and chain trying to hold the Party down.

    I am intrigued to know why you think HO can identify the “best” candidate? And why they cannot or will not trust their own (local) membership?

    • Alan.

      With regard to your last but one paragraph, my heart sank when I saw that Mr. Crowther had been elected onto the NEC, bearing in mind as you say his previous record as party chairman. That is why I stated that it could still be ‘business as usual’, resulting in the party becoming extinct.

      • Mine too (heart. Sinking. although I quite like the guy) but I am struck by how few we are, who engage with UK-D , compared to the thousands who voted.
        Thoughts?

        • Alan,

          It is disheartening that so few members interact with this site, perhaps they do not know about it, but they could learn such a lot and we could learn from them how they feel about things.

          With how things are rapidly escalating out of control in the wider World, we really need to communicate and keep in touch exchanging views and keeping abreast of events.

    • First my apology for the late response. I dont mean to offend anyone who was a candidate but i have a great deal of experience and the party allowed for a variety of reasons people to be candidates chosen locally who were lambs to the slaughter. The party in the guise of the then chairman refused to allow a proper training schedule granted we didn’t have the time to do it but even after the election the party decided not to bring in the training regime that I had started to put together. To make matters worse they continue to charge candidates for ineffectual and badly executed vetting procedures and to make matters worse they increased the costs allowing some candidates who had already been refused under the proper vetting system to move forward as long as they paid the fee. The system the chairman ran was a money raising exercise with no concept of producing the very best candidates. As a perfect example in the old vetting system that I originally inherited some people had been allowed to try and pass a very limited assessment panel 6,7,8 times in in a handful of cases in excess on 10. At £25 that means one candidate had been charged £250 not to pass the assessment that was wrong in so many way. On the point of local candidates, I accept that we must strive to produce good local candidates but that will never happen whilst we dont train candidates to do the job. It is very unfair to the candidates themselves to not put them through a rigorous training programme before asking them to stand. That meant that we had good candidates who could not get selected for seats because the local committee selected the local branch member over others who were very much better. That is no reflection on the local person or association but the UK electorate want their politicians to look and sound as though they can do the job. I don’t want to turn out main party clones but an ability to speak well address audiences, be able to handle media interviews. WE are not doing this.

  5. Aidan PowleslandAidan C U Powlesland // December 19, 2016 at 3:08 pm // Reply

    Dear Donald Duck,

    I agree that Nigel represents our members more than Douglas does. This does not mean he represents the electorate more. This is not a bad thing. One function of a party is to lead the people. But Labour is going to suffer, say, a 15% fall in 2020 because they are not listening to the electorate. Mr Carswell’s victory on our behalf in Clacton is not just something to dismiss. It is evidence just as Mr Farage’s popularity in our party is.

    As you know Mr Carswell took special responsibility for the Political Reform part of our manifesto. Whatever you think of more direct and representative democracy there is little doubt that this is an issue close, if not the closest, to Mr Carswell’s heart and it is one where he is in tune with many, if not most, in the party if, say, the relatively large number of votes gained by Mr Rees-Evans in the leadership election is anything to go by.

    I prefer the politics of policy to the politics of person. I understand that people are fascinating and disliking them can easily happen as a result. I am prone to this myself. But I do not want it to matter who personally any of us prefer.

    I would like us to judge Douglas and Nigel on the policies they favour. In important matters I suspect Douglas and Nigel think alike (however much they may or may not dislike each other). Both were committed to taking the UK out of the European Union. Both are sceptical of big government.

    I do see the matter of loyalty differently to Paul. Our party is committed to not having whips. County Councilors vote freely and it would be our policy for MPs to do so too if we had more than one. This I take as a matter at the heart of what UKIP stands for by which I mean freedom of conscience. Our representatives unite around a manifesto. Beyond that I respect those that speak their mind.

    Disagreement can be healthy especially when it is a collaboration seeking the truth as I would wish my dialogue with anyone, including here, to be.

    • Dear Aidan

      I don’t think you’ll find Douglas’ view of direct democracy would satisfy’s JRE’s! And I don’t think we’ve said MPs shouldn’t have a whip – I might be wrong on that, but members and voters do have a right to expect their MPs to be united at national level, don’t they?

    • Aidan,

      Thank you for that, and obviously we are all entitled to our own opinion. I am just stating mine and do not expect everyone to agree with me, but my criticism of Mr. Carswell is not one of personality, that I can handle. But rather about his policy of agreeing with Labour’s Emily Thornberry and Gina Miller with whom he shared a stage recently.

      Let me make this quite clear, I could never agree with what he said that day in accordance with them, it is not why I fought to come out the EU and I thought it was not what UKIP as a party would want either. I accept that I may be wrong and on my own on this. Perhaps, in order to settle the matter someone should consult his constituents and see if it is what they want, if it is then I rest my case and say well done to him, he is doing what is expected of him.

      • Aidan PowleslandAidan C U Powlesland // December 20, 2016 at 4:09 pm // Reply

        Dear Donald Duck,

        I am not aware of the occasion with Emily Thornberry (of whom my opinion could hardly be lower by the way) or Gina Miller. I am curious. What were the policies he advocated to which you refer and which you would oppose?

        Aidan

        • ACUP,

          You need to look it up when Carswell shared a platform with the above and actually agreed with them saying something along the lines of: “We do not want a Farage like Brexit”, in other words he would prefer a ‘soft’ brexit. But when he says ‘we’ on whose behalf is he speaking because it certainly aint mine!

  6. David
    Thanks for the article, interesting analysis.
    It would be helpful I think if ‘the divide’ we keep talking about was defined. I can think of quite a few divides: moderates v radicals, liberarians v nationalists, Tories v workers, left v right, Faragists v democrats, any number of permutations of all elements. What precisely is the great split in your view? It’s important to get clarity on this becasue the average member, let alone the public, is confused about this, which can only continue to be a source of strength to our enemies.
    Any party will always have competing strands, but what we can’t have is confusion.

    • Q. I think you’re spot on about the need to clarify “the divide”, both within ukip and for the public, in words they will understand. Ajax describes the “liberal” establishment as cultural marxists but I cannot see joe public getting that. I barely do myself.

      The UKIP position about Europe is fundamentally one of national Democrats (aka populists) v Globalists but I suggest the only divide the Uk electorate really gets is left vs right and IMHO UKIP’s greatest strength is that it currently draws support from both sides of that divide, and that we have found common ground.

      We don’t seem to be making much of that common ground though, in the context of radical solutions to long standing problems
      And my fear is that our leadership will miss the point if they only target one side of the left/right divide.

      I also think the electorate values democracy and is getting increasingly angry about the way it is being manipulated by the globalist establishment. Which is why I very much hope that UKIP opens both eyes and gets in contact with its own membership to develop policy.

      We will have to wait and see of course but I suggest policies developed with both eyes open is where ukip has most to gain, especially those that impact big numbers of electors. Whether we will ever get that opportunity is another question.

  7. I have two more questions to ask; what has happened to (punched really hard in the face but no bruising) Woolfe and, (I have my team in place but cannot cope)Diane James?

    Are they still drawing down EU money to pay for their staff in UKIP’s name, in other words how are they funding their ‘independent’ activities in Brussels? Seems a reasonable question to ask does anyone know the answer?

    • Aidan PowleslandAidan C U Powlesland // December 19, 2016 at 2:00 pm // Reply

      Dear Donald Duck,

      As an Independent MEP Diane James will continue to be paid circa £80,000 p.a., be able to claim up to £44,000 p.a., for office costs, £215,000 p.a. for staff, circa £47,000 for travel expenses (assuming 182 days in Brussels), an additional travel allowance of £3,500 and a pension contribution which I do not know the value of but, let us say, £8,000 a year so, perhaps, £397,500 in total. This amount is paid from the European parliament budget (1% of European Union expenditure) so not from UKIP at all. However, if Diane had stood down under the regulations this would not trigger a European by-election but instead would have resulted in a different person from the UKIP list being given the seat so by not stepping down Diane has denied UKIP the resources that having a UKIP MEP in her place would have provided. She definitely has not put her ex-party first. Given that we are going to have to get used to not having UKIP teams funded by European tax payers soon enough perhaps we can live with this even if the reason for it is not that Diane is putting her constituents before her party.

      • Dear Aidan,

        Thank you for that, these are shocking amounts of money that I feel she certainly does not deserve, to me this is sheer greed and selfishness. If I was one of her UKIP constituents I would be doing everything in my power to have her deselected, I did not care for her much before she let us down big time, now I feel only contempt for the way in which she has used the party and IMO betrayed her constituents.

        The same goes for Steven Woolfe as I presume he is doing the same.

        • Agreed DD, D James should stand down and let a bona fide UKIP MEP take her place; the same goes for S Woolfe.
          Neither of them are entitled to fill those places now, but lining their own pockets is obviously more important than fair play and regard for people who voted UKIP in good faith in 2014.

          • Panmelia,

            I absolutely agree, in fact, if she had any decency about her she would pay back the £20,000 that was spent on her vain and egotistical leadership campaign, which resulted in her short tenancy. But I guess that greed and selfishness has taken precedence, the very thing we accuse other politicians of committing, others become infected with the same meme.

      • To be fair then there should have been calls for all four MEP’s to step down, Bashir, Atkinson, Woolfe and James. This is were NF failed to understand the problem with the Welsh Assembly elections once elected the party (any party) has no control over the representative

        • David,

          Quite right, they should all stand down, but I mentioned Woolfe and James because so much hope was placed on them and they both let us down badly. However, I suppose the one thing you can say is that that at least we found out in time, that neither of them would have been suitable leaders, so their expenses are worth the price to pay for what would have turned out to be a disaster.

  8. Still far too much bitching in here. We are or should be seeking to be a political party, not a protest group. Only by being elected in big numbers can we form a sufficiently large threat to the establishment to influence events. No party is perfect but we are far better than the old ones. You need to support Paul fully guys, he is the only chance we have to recover from the shambles we went through post referendum and after all his majority is huge. You can’t rebuild Rome in a few weeks, give the man a chance.

    The old parties have one priority only, to get elected. We do not set the rules for the game but we have to play by them and we too must establish the same priority, it’s not as important as our policy positions but it’s close.

    • Icini,

      You may call it ‘bitching’ but I call it constructive criticsm, you do not need to worry too much as no one appears to take any notice. But if all you want is positive comments then there is not much point to this form existing.

  9. David,

    No comment on the omission of Peter Jewell from the results? He did not withdraw before the deadline for voting and so garnered some votes, votes that might have gone to others had his candidacy been know to be insincere or fickle. Members voted in good faith are entitled, surely, to see their votes tallied in the results.

    He was allowed to withdraw at the count when it was clear he would not be elected. This was a contempt, I submit, of votes given in good faith. The returning officer should have siad it was too late to affect the count or nullify people’s votes.

    There was no risk of electing someone who did not want to be on the NEC – the only reason for suddenly removing a name. HAd he been obvioulsy ahead why would he withdraw? It appears to have been done for presentational reasons – a manipulation of the election. The persons who came eight or ninth have grounds for complaint as votes for Jewell could, in principle, gine to them if he had not stood.

    No apology has been issued by Jewell, Oakden or the returning officer.

    • Aidan PowleslandAidan C U Powlesland // December 20, 2016 at 4:21 pm // Reply

      Dear Stout Yeoman,

      In my capacity as Funding Officer for Suffolk South I am rather interested in the practical matter of how the party raises money and as Peter is head of the Patron’s club and known, not least for this reason, to those who provide the party with a great deal of the money it needs I felt his voice on the NEC would be useful and for this reason he got one of my votes. I would certainly have liked my wasted vote to go somewhere else as I did not vote for any of the winners. I can see though that delaying the result to allow a re-vote might have been impractical and just re-allocating the wasted votes according to any particular rule hard to defend.

      I do not know why Peter stood down but his motive might not have been the one you fear. It is presumably the returning officer’s job to rule on matters such as this. In any case you and I will agree his late withdrawal was a disappointment to those who voted for him however bad or good his reasons were.

    • There were 65,138 published votes, given we were told that 12,000 plus ballot papers were returned that is a possible minimum 84,000/85,000 votes to be counted. People who were actually at the count some 10 people who spoke to me about it raid concerns 1) no actual record of ballot paper numbers was conducted 2) The recorded number of votes as issued by Oakden was 65,138 that means 20,000 votes either went missing, were recorded against the two candidates votes who were not recorded Peter jewel and Victoria Ayling or everyone who voted only used 5 or their 7 votes. 3) When the results were read out Jewel’s name was not called 4) Peter Jewel was allowed to withdraw and then help with the count, two people who attend the count say he was placed on counting Steve Crowther’s votes. There are so many anomalies in the process including the delays and the original idea that 40 people could count 85,000 votes in one day. The NEC should investigate this, there may well be very good reasons for these apparent discrepancies but the questions need answering the most important is were are the missing 20,000 plus votes.

      • The ballot papers were returned to a printers near Southampton. Who transported them to the count at Derby? When and how? How were they stored before being taken to Derby?

  10. I have the distinct feeling that Carswell will rejoin the Tories before the next election. He is, in my opinion, a Tory plant and has done nothing to promote UKIP that I have seen. He is also a great friend of Hannan who would like to see the end of UKIP. Deselect him and Hamilton and let them sit as an independent.

    • Ken and Sussex Man,

      I guess all we can hope for is that Paul Nuttall does not forget what a turncoat Carswell is, he has treacherously been riding on our coat tails for far too long. If I was Paul I would have a good clear out in the new year and he would be the first to go on my list without any hesitation. But I do not understand the hostility felt towards Neil Hamilton, am I missing something here?

      But there again I thought Carswell was okay until he recently showed his true colours, I think I am pretty forgiving but realise in politics you cannot afford to be, they just end up stabbing you in the back, or in Carswell’s case he is quite happy to stab anyone in the front. This man has no shame.

  11. If my experience is anything to go by, most members have very little idea who the candidates are unless local to them. Therefore the tendency is to vote for one or two locals, plus the two or three they have heard of but whose track record they are only dimly aware of. Hence the large vote for Crowther and McGough, and the general dog’s breakfast of an outcome. There has to be a filtering system in future, but I’m not holding my breath.
    As for Carswell, I’ve always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but his recent statements on Brexit seem to show that he wants to appease establishment Remainers. Which puts him well beyond our party’s pale. Nuttall’s problem is that decisive action would cause mayhem when stability is required above all at the moment. So he will probably ignore him for now.

  12. The NEC election was unwieldy, to say the least, but I’m glad that some young people were elected, and if that was down to YI, good for them!

  13. As an outsider I don’t know these people but, rightly or wrongly, have gained an insight from postings by Dr. Slivnik and Ray Catlin in his campaign, both people who seem to put the interests of party and country first.

    Sadly that leaves me with the impression that two of the above should have been sacked from their positions and expelled. Of course there is another who you all know promoted a pyramid scheme and now holds an important position in the hierarchy.

    I despair that, with such clear cronyism, UKIP can ever become the party that my country needs. I would be interested to read the views of others on this trio.

    • David,

      Why on Earth people would vote in Steve Crowther again beats me, they must be gluttons for punishment.

      • Dee,

        I am more than gutted, I feel the situation is becoming hopeless and nothing will change. It will just be business as usual and with these people on board we will never become electable.

        • DD,

          That is the root of my concerns. UKIP is failing us when we need it most. That of course is no reflection on the majority of decent members, but they are the only ones who can change it. If I had the resources to start a new party then I would consider doing so.

          • David,

            Perhaps we need to see what Arron Banks does or JRE, but I would rather it was someone else.

          • The party presently has Head Office, Regions, and, Branches.
            I think it is worth raising the possibility of members within branches being allowed to start birthing UKIP Political Wards restricted to members within such Wards at their own £expense. I had raised this as an issue and “await” positive responses. It is not in the party’s best interests to continue as we are!

  14. I’m all for democratic enthusiasm, but so many candidates for a handful of positions was out of proportion, leading to the odd result as detailed above where only a small minority of the electorate chose these people; & diligently reading through the virtual magazine with all their pitches took a long time & was, I found personally, a extended tedious business given how many of the statements were blandly similar to one another, almost apolitical in their content, & instead of political ideas sold themselves mainly on their private employment backgrounds. It made the experience feel like reading 10’s of mini c.v.’s applying for a job in middle management, rather than to play a role in a steering committee of what’s meant to be a radical political force.

    God knows why so many want to do it, after what Slivnik described it as. =/

    • I put a LOT of detail , not only re my CV to date but also a lengthy List of policy ideas I believe in.
      Unfortunately the administration at Head Office for whatever reason omitted the address of the said website
      http://www.rhys4nec.co.uk
      from my 150 words of text.
      so no one had a chance to read it.
      This is particularly unfortunate as because I expected the electors to be able to read the website I did not try to cram all my gubbins into the 150 words !
      I have requested an explanation ( twice ) but the emails have gone unanswered.
      More generally, it is LONG overdue for NEC elections to be Regionally based. Only with that reform will it be possible for the electorate to make a genuinely informed ( and therefore more democratic ) choice.

      • I voted for you R.B., based on your posts here if it’s any consolation. You appear more qualified than most of those actually elected.

      • Aidan PowleslandAidan C U Powlesland // December 19, 2016 at 12:51 am // Reply

        In what way is it democratic for me not to be able to vote for you because you happen to not be from my region? Surely the word you were looking for was arbitrary not democratic? As a member I want to be able to vote for the people I think are best not for the person that happens to live closer to me. You write that being offered only regionally local candidates would make me better informed. I am better informed about your ideas (thanks to the link above) than I am about NEC candidates who were far closer to me geographically. You have made information available online and I have bothered to attend to it and this has nothing to do with the fact that you are in the Midlands. The sorts of thing I want in a candidate are wisdom and courage and virtue and mercy. Such qualities are not defined by geography.

      • Rhys, I too voted for you but, in some regions, members were encouraged to vote exclusively for local candidate(s), even if only one of members’ seven votes was used. Fuller CVs may have helped but not necessarily. What is obvious is that a great deal of much-needed talent is wasted.

      • Rhys,

        If it is any consolation I voted for you as well, but I do not think anyone I voted for got selected.

  15. Cannot wait to see how the newly structured NEC deal with Douglas Carswell, that is if they deal with him at all.

    • I don’t see how Carswell can remain in UKIP given his extremist Libertarian position on foreign immigration & his personality type that goes with it. This is the issue that brought him into such a bitter conflict with Farage, & if Nuttall reaffirms the policy (& if he doesn’t he risks UKIP collapsing from one of its cornerstone being ripped out) I have little doubt that C. will open a personal war with him to in the same way. Either that or he’ll bail & jump back to the Conservative Party.

      • Ajax,

        It is not looking like Nuttall is going to take him to task, unless it has happened behind closed doors. But my opinion of him is that he does what he wants anyway, and there is no whip to pull him up is there? So he will just do enough to get himself elected again whether it be with us or the Cons, he possesses no strands of loyalty or convictions, just about the worse kind of politician you can think of IMO.

        • I knew Carswell was a bit weird when I saw his pic of Gandhi in the Clacton By-election HQ, 2014. To think that I campaigned for that double turncoat (Tory-UKIP-Tory) riles my pips.

          • Panmelia,

            I dare say he was a big fan of Nelson Mandela and Mohammed Ali as well, so that tells us all we need to know about him really.

          • Dear Dee and others, I was hoping to rejoin UKIP and have hung around waiting to see in which direction the leadership intends to take it. I’ve got to say that I don’t think it’s going to be the party for me. This country needs a party with courage to hold the liberal elite to account. I know it ain’t easy to do this as even Trump with all his money and protection found it difficult to do with the MSM and self interested groups against him. I only wish UKIP leadership listen to the writers and commenters on this site, but with the likes of Crowther, Carswell and O’Flynn in the party I don’t hold out much hope. Kassam and JRE seem to have been sidelined. They seemed to have the courage that UKIP needs. My only hope is that Banks will start something new.

        • I believe there are good reasons why Nuttall isn’t embracing DD and this is one of them. He must know there is disquiet about Carswell and his non UKIP views, but he can get away with saying it is just a small number here and on other websites who would like to see some action taken. With DD he might have to acknowledge that there was a groundswell of feeling (if that was the case) and do something about it. I get the feeling that he wants to drive UKIP his own way but am not sure that is the way of the majority of members or the way to get more members.

          • William,

            If he keeps going down this road with Carswell on board and others like him, then he is heading for a car crash because we simply will not put up with it. I am praying for an NEC with teeth and guts (sorry to be so anatomical here), otherwise we will be dragging a torso around and the situation will be hopeless.

          • The point that I believe Mr Nuttall fails to grasp is that UKIP has always prided itself on being unlike the mainstream parties, and it is now becoming indistinguishable from a Brexit supporting Tory party, imo.
            That might be possible if there were enough MPs and members to support a widely diverse spectrum of views. It isn’t possible within UKIP because everyone joined for the reason that it was different.
            The Leaders haven’t kept ahead or even up with the trend, which is evident across Europe and in the USA. Just as the rest of the West has seen what a UKIP type party did under Nigel ( warts and all) and have entheusiastically embraced the concept, our new Leader(s) seem bent on dragging UKIP in the opposite direction.
            It is very frustrating. It is also fatal for the future of UKIP.
            I am staying because Britain has to have something other than Lib/Lab/Con to vote for, and UKIP is still ‘seen’ by the public as a radical alternative at the moment. It also provides a home for young people who don’t embrace loony lefty thinking. But I doubt if I would join if I hadn’t already. If no-one is going to listen to us, what’s the point?

          • Dee,

            My view exactly trying to get through to the PTB is like trying to p…s in the wind, but the biggest losers will not be just us, but the remaining 17.4 million souls that put their faith in UKIP. It is like watching a horse sink in quicksand, it could be rescued but it flails out against it.

          • Oh DD it so could be rescued! There are still lots of members left who know what should be done, if only their voices could be heard.

          • Dee,

            Could you not get them to comment on this forum?

      • Aidan PowleslandAidan C U Powlesland // December 19, 2016 at 1:11 am // Reply

        Our constitution states that we are a libertarian party. It seems safe to conclude from your comment that you would like us not to be and it may be right that we should not be. But whether being a libertarian is a good or a bad thing only UKIP describes itself in this way. Surely if you are right that Douglas Carswell is a libertarian and I am right that you are not then it is you not he who is more out of step with our constitution? I appreciate that historically our party seems to have become less libertarian in the last few years but this does not mean that burning kipper-libertarians would be a good thing for the party. As the formation of the indigo group in 2015 shows libertarianism is alive and well in the party. In the case you got rid of everyone in the party you disagreed with, and you are anything like me, there would not be many people left in the party at the end of the process!

        Unlike every other candidate who stood for us for parliament in the 2015 general election including the redoubtable Mr Farage Douglas Carswell actually was supported by the electorate into office. I know that for political enthusiasts like you and me being virtuous is the most important thing but while you and I could disagree about what constitutes virtue I am afraid you cannot disagree that Douglas Carswell stood for our party’s manifesto and on that basis was elected. Perhaps his personality has more appeal than you think.

        • Aiden,

          I think you have got the completely wrong handle on this, why don’t you go and have a word with Nigel Farage and see what he has to say about Douglas Carswell? then tell me who represents the party more and who you prefer.

          I do not understand your reasoning, like you I was prepared to give Carswell the benefit of the doubt although as a personality he struck me as a bit odd. However, as you say his constituents seem to like him although his majority was less in the election.

          But surely when you are in a party and you are the sole MP representing that party an element of responsibility and loyalty comes with it, Carswell has IMO not demonstrated that.

          In order for me to demonstrate my point let’s go back to what Paul said in his bid for the leader, “Anyone causing disharmony and/or steps out of line will be dealt with”, does this not apply to Carswell because he is our only MP?

          I feel that if he is at least not severly reprimanded for his remarks whilst cavorting with Thornberry and Miller then he will feel he has been given free licence to say and do whatever he likes. This is not a good image for party discipline and anyway, surely he is not representing who we truly are? I do not mind the fact he is a libertarian (something of which I would like to class myself as as well) but he pushes the boundaries too far to the extend we cannot trust him.

          What’s more I do not think I am the only one that suspects that, when the time suits him he will cosy back up to the Tories, more mug them if they have him back I say. But there againperhaps he will fit back in very easily as he has never really become a true ‘kipper’ as he?

        • @ACUP In my view that current constitutional text is being increasingly exposed as wholly inadequate by events & should be re-written. I am not a Libertarian, & with the vast majority of the membership & the Party’s voters aren’t either as far as I can see.

          (As a side-issue, I suspect that it was originally written & approved by people who didn’t really understand what the term ‘Libertarian’ actually means, or its practical political consequences).

          • Have you seen Ray Catlin’s suggestion for a new constitution? It might be a better starting point for discussion than the existing one.

        • The word “libertarian” is open to interpretation as to what it means in practice. Better that the party constitution states what it stands for in clear unambiguous English. That would be a refreshing change in politics.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*