UKIP: Steve Allison on the NEC

A most interesting report!

Here are a few choice bits!

To be honest nothing of any great importance was discussed at the NEC, which is about par for the course. No papers were distributed in advance of the NEC so once again it was try to listen, read, understand and then make some useful input on the hoof. I personally am just not mentally nimble enough to do this. I am considering sending my apologies to the next NEC when no papers are circulated in advance since that will obviously mean nothing of any importance is on the agenda.

The main NEC was preceded by another Constitution Review Working Party. The draft of the constitution was at least circulated on the Friday so we had an opportunity to scan through it in advance. Unfortunately I didn’t really get the opportunity to do more than scan and so struggled to absorb and understand 18 pages of “notwithstanding” and “aforementioned clauses excepted” and other legal gobbledegook. The review meeting managed to get about half way through the third draft before it ran out of time.

Under matters arising, I gave a report on the Pan European Parties debate. The ballot papers have been printed and the fulfilment house is making up the packs this week. Ballots will be despatched to the members starting from Monday 18th July and votes need to be returned by 15th August.

The cost of preparing for the ballot has been £4,685.00 (based on an eligible voting membership of 15,519). The costs of actually receiving back and counting the returned ballots depends totally on the turn out. If we get one vote back then it will have cost £5,385.31 for that member to have his (or her) say. If we get 100% turn out then it will have cost £10,195.81 for the ballot. The actual amount will be somewhere between the two extremes! Junius says: No wonder UKIP is in the red!

Steve Crowther pointed out that the result of the ballot would be binding on all MEPs. Either all would join a P-EP or none would join. Gerard Batten, attending the NEC as one of the MEP Representatives (the other this time was Paul Nuttall) pointed out he would not join a P-EP that did not have a commitment to withdrawal in its articles. Junius says: And there was us thinking that Gerard would never join a PEP under ANY circumstances!

Nigel gave his leaders report. As per usual, nothing had been circulated in advance. Basically, all’s well with the world and things are going great. Junius says: Ouch!

Legal matters was its usual depressing report. Least said about it the better. Junius says: UKIP face ANOTHER day in court this week. Their costs could be in excess of £30,000. More on this later.

Jonathan Arnott has taken over the management of the introduction of the new membership database. He has only been doing this for a couple of weeks so is still getting to grips with the brief. I would have liked some form of written report and hopefully this will eventually be forthcoming. However, I’m not holding my breath! Junius says: Don't hold your breath. Jonathon 'frightened rabbit' Arnott is about as much use as a chocolate fireplace. If he had just one brain cell, he'd be dangerous.

John Bufton and David Bevan then addressed the NEC. The discussion was a little side tracked by a discussion on whether Wales had a regional organiser and if a dedicated campaign office was essential, (my view on that one is NO it isn't. UKIP spent £50,000 on a "Campaign Office" for the 2009 European Parliament Elections and any value for money analysis would, in my opinion, have concluded it was not money well spent.).

The Welsh discussion then further meandered off the point into a quite interesting exchange of views on UKIP’s position on an English Parliament. Ultimately, the Welsh Question could not be totally lost and the answer was that policy was indeed changed at the last minute and without reference to the Welsh Committee or indeed to the NEC.

The long-standing policy of abolish the Welsh Assembly was changed to one that, in my opinion, fudged the issue to adopt a more populist line which produced a basically reformist position rather than the clear cut abolish. This was justified on the grounds that a majority of those people who bothered to vote supported more powers for the assembly at the referendum which was held just a few days before the elections. UKIP therefore had no choice but to drop the abolish the assembly policy. Junius says: More twisted Farage logic. So as the Welsh voted for more devolution in the March referendum it would be undemocratic for UKIP to abolish the assembly? So what about the 1975 referendum? British people voted to stay in the EEC. Shouldn't UKIP then support continued EU membership using the result of that referendum as the basis for their argument?

This decision was taken by Nigel. As the UKIP Party Constitution currently stands he was totally within his rights and exercising powers he holds under the constitution. Indeed the Party Leader can adopt, amend or drop any policy he likes without any reference to anyone. He can consult IF he wishes to but is not obliged to take any notice of any advice he may receive. (This was the same reason UKIP supported AV. Nigel decided it was the way to go so that was UKIP's policy!)

The Welsh Committee may indeed feel they had their legs chopped from under them and may feel that UKIP should be seeking to abolish the assembly rather than just reform it. Being a reform party does bring UKIP into line with every other party in Wales so are they all wrong? However, the bottom line is that UKIP Policy is set by Nigel. He decided a more populist reform policy was preferable to an uncompromising abolitionist policy. That is the prerogative of the UKIP Party Leader and there is nothing UKIP Wales can do about it. Of course, if chasing populist votes is the name of the game then every other party in Wales supports the EU. So maybe UKIP Wales needs to change from withdrawal from the EU to reform the EU? Junius says: Confirmation that UKIP is a dictatorship under one man.

As usual, there was a lot of talk but very few or more accurately no real meaningful decisions taken. There is no NEC Meeting in August but I’m sure the Party will somehow manage to survive without our guiding hand. After all, if you look on page 18of your Independence News you will see a comprehensive listing of “Who’s Who in UKIP” and the NEC is conspicuous by its absence! Junius says: Why are you so surprised? Fuhrer Farage makes all the decisions! We did warn you!

Here is the full report:

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:47:09 +0100
From: steve.allison107@btinternet.com
To:
Subject: NEC DIGEST – July 2011

DISCLAIMER : You are receiving this e-mail as you have indicated in the past that you would like to be kept informed of my activities as a member of UKIP’s NEC. If you don’t wish to receive these e-mails please reply with “STOP” in the e-mail subject area. These observations are my personal comments and are not an official record of the NEC Meeting. A formal report and the summary minutes will eventually appear on UKIP’s Website. However, I am a great believer in transparency and so write this e-mail in that spirit but I do self censor these digests based on the following guidelines for deciding if something needs to be considered confidential. Regardless of how open I may wish to be I am not going to publish things that could cause problems later on.

1. Information relating to on-going or potential legal action;
2. Information of a personal nature relating to an individual;
3. Commercially sensitive information;
4. Information which could be considered privileged (eg advice of a solicitor or an accountant);
5. Information which could be used to disadvantage the party.

Hi everyone, sorry this digest is a little late but I just couldn’t summon up enthusiasm to type up my notes on the way home on Monday night. I put this down to the pint and a half I had in the Sherlock Homes before getting on the train and I have been very busy with my real life (visiting clients and earning money) since Monday. To be honest nothing of any great importance was discussed at the NEC, which is about par for the course. No papers were distributed in advance of the NEC so once again it was try to listen, read, understand and then make some useful input on the hoof. I personally am just not mentally nimble enough to do this. I am considering sending my apologies to the next NEC when no papers are circulated in advance since that will obviously mean nothing of any importance is on the agenda.

The main NEC was preceded by another Constitution Review Working Party. The draft of the constitution was at least circulated on the Friday so we had an opportunity to scan through it in advance. Unfortunately I didn’t really get the opportunity to do more than scan and so struggled to absorb and understand 18 pages of “notwithstanding” and “aforementioned clauses excepted” and other legal gobbledegook. The review meeting managed to get about half way through the third draft before it ran out of time.

There was some discussion over a clause that defined the NEC as the party’s Board of Directors and, after the Leader, the party's principal authority. The “after the leader” was vigorously contested by several of the working party and the agreement reached was that the NEC had to have final authority on all admin and financial matters and The leader would participate in these discussions as an equal member of the NEC. The NEC was also keen to maintain final authority over the party manifesto, but accepted in principle that the leader was responsible for the political direction of the party. This actually came up in the main NEC after lunch when the Welsh Assembly Elections were discussed. (More on this later).

The main NEC kicked off with apologies for absence. Michael Zuckerman was not present but it was explained that he considered his term of office expired in March and as he was not seeking re-election, he would not be attending any more NEC Meetings. Rachel Oxley was also absent but as the Chairman announced her resignation from the NEC it was not a surprise she was not at the meeting. The NEC wished both Michael and Rachel the best for the future and expressed their thanks for their service to the party. Rachel’s resignation means that there will be six vacancies on the NEC for election in September, not five as stated in the Independence News. Nominations open for the NEC next week and close in August. The candidates will get an opportunity to speak at the Conference and the vote will be by postal ballot after that.

Minutes of the last meeting went through more or less on the nod. I missed the last meeting so I could not really comment.

Under matters arising, I gave a report on the Pan European Parties debate. The ballot papers have been printed and the fulfilment house is making up the packs this week. Ballots will be despatched to the members starting from Monday 18th July and votes need to be returned by 15th August.

The cost of preparing for the ballot has been £4,685.00 (based on an eligible voting membership of 15,519). The costs of actually receiving back and counting the returned ballots depends totally on the turn out. If we get one vote back then it will have cost £5,385.31 for that member to have his (or her) say. If we get 100% turn out then it will have cost £10,195.81 for the ballot. The actual amount will be somewhere between the two extremes!

Steve Crowther pointed out that the result of the ballot would be binding on all MEPs. Either all would join a P-EP or none would join. Gerard Batten, attending the NEC as one of the MEP Representatives (the other this time was Paul Nuttall) pointed out he would not join a P-EP that did not have a commitment to withdrawal in its articles. Currently there is no P-EP that has such a commitment. It may be that in the event of a “YES” vote in the ballot then UKIP would need to set up its own P-EP in order to have such a commitment enshrined in the P-EP’s constitution.

Doug Denny then gave a brief report on Double nomination. This is sometghing I have been trying to push for a while and the NEC accepted the proposal to co-operate formally with residents' associations and local independents using the "dual candidate" route now available to registered political parties (NB Registered parties NOT individuals). If for example an organisation called "Hartlepool Independents" or “Hartlepool Residents” was registered with the Electoral Commission then UKIP could reach an agreement to field joint candidates. The ballot paper could say "Hartlepool Independent and UKIP Candidate" or “Hartlepool Residents and UK Independence Party Candidate” It costs £250 to register a political party and I’ve suggested to my branch committee that it might be a good move politically to get "Hartlepool Independents" or “Hartlepool Residents” registered and under our control. We could then maybe attract people to stand next May who are not going to join UKIP but who would like to join an “Independent” or “Residents” Party. At the very least, we should consider registering these names to deny them to others!

Nigel gave his leaders report. As per usual, nothing had been circulated in advance. Basically, all’s well with the world and things are going great. The Patrons’ Club continues to expand and the dinner that night was oversubscribed.

Chairman’s report covered the London Elections. Ten Candidates have declared for Mayor and an on-line “primary” is to be held. The names were not mentioned but I assume the London Committee are on top of this? Annual Conference in Eastbourne was mentioned. Nothing new really here apart from a suggestion that the EFD Group might use some of their budget to sponsor at least part of the conference. It was also pointed out that each individual MEP could use their allowances to have a stand at the conference show casing the work they do in their region.

A good idea really and one that would legitimately put EU/MEP money into the conference. Interesting to see how many MEPs take up this suggestion?

A new recruitment brochure was flashed in front of the NEC. This has been sent to the Regional Organisers for comment. It was not passed round to the NEC.

Legal matters was its usual depressing report. Least said about it the better

Finance showed we were in the red but not badly so. The cash flow looked worse than it was because all the costs for the conference were known but ticket sales had not yet started so that was making the situation look worse than it really was. The Deputy Treasure explained in his report that this was because the outgoings on the conference were definite items of expenditure we would be making but ticket sales were only a possible income we might be getting. So, prudence said we had to assume we wouldn’t sell any tickets until the money actually started to come in.

Jonathan Arnott has taken over the management of the introduction of the new membership database. He has only been doing this for a couple of weeks so is still getting to grips with the brief. I would have liked some form of written report and hopefully this will eventually be forthcoming. However, I’m not holding my breath!

John Bufton and David Bevan then addressed the NEC. The discussion was a little side tracked by a discussion on whether Wales had a regional organiser and if a dedicated campaign office was essential, (my view on that one is NO it isn't. UKIP spent £50,000 on a "Campaign Office" for the 2009 European Parliament Elections and any value for money analysis would, in my opinion, have concluded it was not money well spent.).

The Welsh discussion then further meandered off the point into a quite interesting exchange of views on UKIP’s position on an English Parliament. Ultimately, the Welsh Question could not be totally lost and the answer was that policy was indeed changed at the last minute and without reference to the Welsh Committee or indeed to the NEC.

The long-standing policy of abolish the Welsh Assembly was changed to one that, in my opinion, fudged the issue to adopt a more populist line which produced a basically reformist position rather than the clear cut abolish. This was justified on the grounds that a majority of those people who bothered to vote supported more powers for the assembly at the referendum which was held just a few days before the elections. UKIP therefore had no choice but to drop the abolish the assembly policy!

This decision was taken by Nigel. As the UKIP Party Constitution currently stands he was totally within his rights and exercising powers he holds under the constitution. Indeed the Party Leader can adopt, amend or drop any policy he likes without any reference to anyone. He can consult IF he wishes to but is not obliged to take any notice of any advice he may receive. (This was the same reason UKIP supported AV. Nigel decided it was the way to go so that was UKIP's policy!)

The Welsh Committee may indeed feel they had their legs chopped from under them and may feel that UKIP should be seeking to abolish the assembly rather than just reform it. Being a reform party does bring UKIP into line with every other party in Wales so are they all wrong? However, the bottom line is that UKIP Policy is set by Nigel. He decided a more populist reform policy was preferable to an uncompromising abolitionist policy. That is the prerogative of the UKIP Party Leader and there is nothing UKIP Wales can do about it. Of course, if chasing populist votes is the name of the game then every other party in Wales supports the EU. So maybe UKIP Wales needs to change from withdrawal from the EU to reform the EU?

There was some discussion on the MEPs code of conduct and the nine points it covered. Nothing really new was said. Basically the argument has now become circular and old ground is being re-hashed. The Code of Conduct signed by UKIP’s MEP Candidates is too weak and not enforceable. Stable doors and bolted horses come to mind. The lesson for next time needs to be learned and the document needs to clearly spell out what is expected.

The concept of “friends” groups was also discussed, as there is a request to recognise Hindu Friends of UKIP Group. As we have already recognised a UKIP Friends of Israel group, it makes it almost impossible to object to anyone who wants to attach the UKIP name to their own particular cause. Personally I would not officially recognise any “friends” groups as I consider them divisive and completely against UKIP’s supposed policy of not pandering to special interest groups. As it turn out the UKIP Friends of Israel have nearly a full page in the next issue of Independence News. Another dangerous precedent in my opinion. However, what do I know?

David Coburn made a brief presentation on why we should hold the 2012 spring conference in Gibraltar but as Steve Crowther informed the NEC that it was going to be in Skegness this made the whole discussion a bit pointless.

We were now running out of time. Nigel had already left to get ready for the Patrons’ Club pre-dinner drinks at 6.00pm and of course the important people on the NEC also needed to be getting over there promptly.

As usual, there was a lot of talk but very few or more accurately no real meaningful decisions taken. There is no NEC Meeting in August but I’m sure the Party will somehow manage to survive without our guiding hand. After all, if you look on page 18 of your Independence News you will see a comprehensive listing of “Who’s Who in UKIP” and the NEC is conspicuous by its absence!

As usual there were many things said that I have not covered but these are my high point recollections. There will be an official report by the Party Chairman posted on the Members forum in due course.