What changes would you make as leader? - new thread

[Millennium3]

Originally Posted by John Page

No because

1. I wouldn't have a prayer of winning; and

2. I wouldn't be a good leader.

My impetus for posting this came from your suggestion yesterday that I wanted the party to stay where it was. I don't. So I knocked this up overnight.

If any candidates want to adopt it, I'll obviously be delighted!

Any comment on the (deliberately provocative) substance?

John, presently your opponent is Vikki Sinclaire. I think you would have a good chance of winning - good or bad leader.

[Intbel]

Originally Posted by Millennium3

John, presently your opponent is Vikki Sinclaire. I think you would have a good chance of winning - good or bad leader.

Nikki has a sister?

[John Page]

If the leadership election turned out to be between Nikki and me, I think UKIP would be in big trouble!

I'd definitely enjoy the campaign, though

[John Page]

Originally Posted by Lawrie Boxall

John - I think that is very good and would not argue with any of it because it would get the party moving again and there would be plenty of time to argue points once that is underway.

Thanks. Yes.

You could say you will not entertain prima-donnas, something about the general election, how you would prepare for it and the EU elections in the same year probably, particularly candidate selection and target seats, would you expect to be paid, are you going to insist on standards for the MEPs and discipline for anyone who steps out of line, where will the money come from, how would you improve the quality of UKIP spokesmen ...

As I said, I knocked it up overnight. It's already out of date (because of Petrina's sad circumstance). I take many of your points, but I wouldn't want to make it much longer. It's important that candidates' statements are short enough for members to be prepared to read and absorb.

I'm really hoping a credible candidate will adopt some/all of this, and if they want my help they know how to message me

[brian lee]

John Page's ideas are about right. You certainly don't want a manifesto that is too detailed. It is the broad picture that matters, and equally an NEC, etc. that goes along with you.

[Petrina]

I believe that about 15 people have requested the leadership application form ,so even if half of them stay the course there will be quite a wide choice when the time comes .Too wide perhaps .

If a large section of the Party do not want to continue as before then it will have to decide on one main" opposition" candidate otherwise they will all be driven into the ground.


We really only have a year to get the party up and running and making an impact otherwise it will disappear into obscurity .

[mkpdavies]

15 :shock:

Choice is good, but if there is half those candidates, then there needs to be a process to narrow that down over a few rounds (like the Tories, spit), only member driven.

[brian lee]

I should think getting 51 signatures from 10 different banches is a daunting task for anybody in the party, considering that if they get the job it will be nothing but grief for themselves and the rest of the Party unless they have at least 51% of the support of the NEC and MEPs.

I have not yet found anybody who is wild for enthusiasm about any of the potential hat throwers amongst the present "leadership". Realistically it now comes down to only two possibles, Nigel Farage and Gerard Batten.
Gerard has previously said he doesn't want the job, and we don't know if either would be supported by the NEC and MEPs.

Any leader will also have to face the prospect of loosing at least 50% of the current MEPs at EU Election in June 2009.

Whatever anybody feels about UKIP, they would need an ego like RKS to take on the job.

[John Page]

Whatever anybody feels about UKIP, they would need an ego like RKS to take on the job.

As does any leader of any party. That may be one of the shortcomings of our present titular leader!

The next leader has to be sure s/he can turn the party round and determined that s/he is going to.

[Britannist]

I hope the leader (or next leader if Mr. Roger Knapman does not seek re-election - and I've seen no official announcement from him yet) starts to target seats.

Targeting should be priority number one for whoever is leader after Mr. Knapman's present term ends on 10.9.2006.

About half a dozen parliamentary seats (in the Commons) needs to be picked and concentrated on. Within those, there should be two or three where the majority of efforts (and party funds) should be utilized.

The leader of UKIP should channel all the efforts on the party to start getting councillors elected in the key target parliamentary constituencies and to building up support. Tens of thousands of homes in those constituenies need to be mailed, canvassed and telephoned.

Leaflets, party logo, website and other party literature needs to be updated and 'modernised'. Party policy needs to be widened - with EU withdrawal remaining the central core.

More could be done by UKIP to get press attention regarding the anti-ID campaign. It was the europhile Liberal 'Democrats' who pushed themselves to the front and got photographed by the press outside the entrance to the London passport office the other day (in their campaign to get people to renew their passports now). Europhiles should not be taking over campaigns like anti-ID. UKIP was against them long before LD. The leader of UKIP should have been photographed outside the passport office last week - not the discredited Simon Hughes and some other LD MP's most people have never heard of.

Publicising the massive cost of the EU (to British taxpayers) and the gigantic trading deficit with the EU, Targeting seats, anti-ID, modernising UKIP literature, seriously considering a party name change and fighting the EU ban on the UK Government reducing VAT on energy bills (unless 24 other EU nations agree first) and sharply reducing immigration levels to the UK should all be priorities for the UK leader (whether its Mr. Knapman or someone else).