Hustings-Why Now?

brian lee · 27-07-2006, 11:24 PM

There are already two threads under hustings, but I thought I would start another because of comments about the recent meetings.

Surely the hustings should have been set up for when the membership had received their Ballot Papers and the blurbs from the candidates. Then they could decide whether or not they needed to go. It appears to have escaped attention that a large section of the membership does not have computers so they will not know who they will be going to see if they attend. There is another factor that not everybody knows what 'hustings' means.

Those who were members in June received a letter dated 7 June telling them about the Bromley By-election. The so called 'Important Information' about the hustings was on the back of the sheet. At that time the names of the candidates were not known. The letter was also addressed to Supporters, not Members.

The hustings meeting in the Eastern Region was held in Chelmsford, whereas in recent times the regional meetings are held in Newmarket as being closer to the centre of the region. A letter to members from the MEP Jeffrey Titford in June gave the information about the meeting as provisional and liable to change. Again, it was sent out before the candidates were known.

All in all, not a very satisfactory set of arrangements if large attendances are expected.

John Page · 27-07-2006, 11:30 PM

Excellent points, as usual. Looking forwards, what do you suggest - more hustings?

Bluemerle · 27-07-2006, 11:31 PM

I agree, it is only those who have a computer and look up UKIP on the internet who actually know what is going on. It is no wonder they get a poor attendance.

michael mcgough · 27-07-2006, 11:45 PM

Brian,Chelmsford is near to Southend than Newmarket so why didn't you go last saturday?

kernow · 28-07-2006, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluemerle

I agree, it is only those who have a computer and look up UKIP on the internet who actually know what is going on. It is no wonder they get a poor attendance.

Very true! The vast majority of UKIP Members are 60 + and a large section of those wouldn't even know how to switch on a computer let alone use one!

B.A.Ware · 28-07-2006, 12:33 AM

My experience of hustings are they are very superficial, they give the candidates time to have a speech which they cannot be questioned on at that time.
Under Ukip rules you are supposed to submit questions prior to hearing them speak, at Cannock we said this was totally unacceptable and thanks to Derek Clark and the candidates we were allowed to ask questions from the floor which annoyed people who had sent in questions according to Ukip rules.
Once again Ukip couldn't run a **** up in a brewery.

mark starr · 28-07-2006, 07:39 AM

I am sorry but I felt that the Cannock husting worked well. The purpose of sending in /handing in questions beforehand was to allow the Chairman to sort them. The candidates were given no opportunity to see the questions.A couple of noisy and vocal individuals who wouldnt shut up then demanded the right to ask questions from the floor and to keep them quiet it was agreed that the questions would be a mix of already provided questions/ questions from the floor. Time given to questions was 1 hour and half which allowed for some robust questions and the answers demonstrated the different strengths / weaknesses of the candidates, I dont think there was anything superficial about the husting.

The questions from whichever route they came did not relate to anything the candidate's had actually said in their speeches but were sensible questions about the future vision and policy of the Party. Several of the questions from the floor were in fact questions which had been submitted beforehand so the effect of the vocal duo was to waste time and actually probably prevented some good questions which had been submitted not being asked because it became pot luck who was chosen to ask a question whereas Derek Clark had sorted the submited questions into an order of importance and eliminated duplication
However I agree that if you do not have a computer you were at a disadvantage.

John Youles · 28-07-2006, 08:20 AM

For me, the Chelmsford hustings were well worth while. I had not before met any of the three candidates who attended, so my voting decision will be much better informed.

C_steam · 28-07-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

The purpose of sending in /handing in questions beforehand was to allow the Chairman to sort them.

As one of the noisy individuals in question (sorry Mark, would have said hello if I'd known) basically whilst I would agree with you in an ideal world, the problem with the chairman sorting the questions is that the chairman is sorting the questions!

In other words, he decides what can be asked to the candidates. He controls, and therefore influences enormously, the whole content of the discussion. Now, if you're happy with that situation given the history of UKIP....................

mkpdavies · 28-07-2006, 09:41 AM

I sat on a committee meeting last night and one of the committee members didn't have a clue who two of the candidates were and had only ever seen Nigel Farage.

He wasn't aware of any of the hustings, until I told him. Therefore his mind was already made up who to vote for, without having a real clue what the situation is and what ALL the candidates are like.

Lucky for him I was there to educate him a bit that night, along with a special guest.

However, this is why Nigel Farage is so confident of victory. He knows the party has revolved around him for sometime now. He is in the magazine all the time, he is in our press releases, he is the man we put on T.V.

He'll tell you that's because he is the only one who can be trusted not to screw it up and as long as no one else is pushed forward, then that's right. At some point UKIP have to find some more "stars", otherwise we will remain a one man show, which won't win us any power.

Therefore these hustings are essential, yet the turnouts have been poor to say the least. That is bad news for the party, as it means either we will have a membership making a poorly informed decision, or just as bad, hardly anyone will bother to vote at all.

Again organisation from top to bottom is lacking. I had to beg for some information to be put in a newletter and quick at my branch and I'm a commitee member. Where is the information from Surrey level? Where is the information from a national level?

I suspect everyone is leaving it for someone else to do. Just another symptom of a poorly managed and run party.

So it is ironic that we could end up with another four years of poor management, because this election hasn't been managed too well. It's great that we have all these hustings, even if not all the candidates feel they are important. Without even minimal communiction from the centre though, the likelyhood is vast swaves of UKIP branches will go uninformed into an important leadership election.

You can blame each of the individual branches for not doing more if you want. I know who I blame.

27-07-2006, 11:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
brian lee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Essex Posts: 613	Hustings-Why Now? There are already two threads under hustings, but I thought I would start another because of comments about the recent meetings. Surely the hustings should have been set up for when the membership had received their Ballot Papers and the blurbs from the candidates. Then they could decide whether or not they needed to go. It appears to have escaped attention that a large section of the membership does not have computers so they will not know who they will be going to see if they attend. There is another factor that not everybody knows what 'hustings' means. Those who were members in June received a letter dated 7 June telling them about the Bromley By-election. The so called 'Important Information' about the hustings was on the back of the sheet. At that time the names of the candidates were not known. The letter was also addressed to Supporters, not Members. The hustings meeting in the Eastern Region was held in Chelmsford, whereas in recent times the regional meetings are held in Newmarket as being closer to the centre of the region. A letter to members from the MEP Jeffrey Titford in June gave the information about the meeting as provisional and liable to change. Again, it was sent out before the candidates were known. All in all, not a very satisfactory set of arrangements if large attendances are expected.

28-07-2006, 08:20 AM	#8 (permalink)
John Youles Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norwich Posts: 154	For me, the Chelmsford hustings were well worth while. I had not before met any of the three candidates who attended, so my voting decision will be much better informed. __________________ John Youles http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ind-uk/ - the discussion list exclusive to UKIP members.

28-07-2006, 09:41 AM	#10 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,053 Party: Libertarian Party	I sat on a committee meeting last night and one of the committee members didn't have a clue who two of the candidates were and had only ever seen Nigel Farage. He wasn't aware of any of the hustings, until I told him. Therefore his mind was already made up who to vote for, without having a real clue what the situation is and what ALL the candidates are like. Lucky for him I was there to educate him a bit that night, along with a special guest. However, this is why Nigel Farage is so confident of victory. He knows the party has revolved around him for sometime now. He is in the magazine all the time, he is in our press releases, he is the man we put on T.V. He'll tell you that's because he is the only one who can be trusted not to screw it up and as long as no one else is pushed forward, then that's right. At some point UKIP have to find some more "stars", otherwise we will remain a one man show, which won't win us any power. Therefore these hustings are essential, yet the turnouts have been poor to say the least. That is bad news for the party, as it means either we will have a membership making a poorly informed decision, or just as bad, hardly anyone will bother to vote at all. Again organisation from top to bottom is lacking. I had to beg for some information to be put in a newletter and quick at my branch and I'm a commitee member. Where is the information from Surrey level? Where is the information from a national level? I suspect everyone is leaving it for someone else to do. Just another symptom of a poorly managed and run party. So it is ironic that we could end up with another four years of poor management, because this election hasn't been managed too well. It's great that we have all these hustings, even if not all the candidates feel they are important. Without even minimal communiction from the centre though, the likelyhood is vast swaves of UKIP branches will go uninformed into an important leadership election. You can blame each of the individual branches for not doing more if you want. I know who I blame. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27-07-2006, 11:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
John Page Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Welwyn Hatfield (Herts.) Posts: 1,878	Excellent points, as usual. Looking forwards, what do you suggest - more hustings?

27-07-2006, 11:31 PM	#3 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	I agree, it is only those who have a computer and look up UKIP on the internet who actually know what is going on. It is no wonder they get a poor attendance.

27-07-2006, 11:45 PM	#4 (permalink)
michael mcgough Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Essex Posts: 944	Brian,Chelmsford is near to Southend than Newmarket so why didn't you go last saturday?

28-07-2006, 12:33 AM	#6 (permalink)
B.A.Ware Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Birmingham Posts: 4,577 Party: UKIP	My experience of hustings are they are very superficial, they give the candidates time to have a speech which they cannot be questioned on at that time. Under Ukip rules you are supposed to submit questions prior to hearing them speak, at Cannock we said this was totally unacceptable and thanks to Derek Clark and the candidates we were allowed to ask questions from the floor which annoyed people who had sent in questions according to Ukip rules. Once again Ukip couldn't run a **** up in a brewery.

28-07-2006, 07:39 AM	#7 (permalink)
mark starr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 642	I am sorry but I felt that the Cannock husting worked well. The purpose of sending in /handing in questions beforehand was to allow the Chairman to sort them. The candidates were given no opportunity to see the questions.A couple of noisy and vocal individuals who wouldnt shut up then demanded the right to ask questions from the floor and to keep them quiet it was agreed that the questions would be a mix of already provided questions/ questions from the floor. Time given to questions was 1 hour and half which allowed for some robust questions and the answers demonstrated the different strengths / weaknesses of the candidates, I dont think there was anything superficial about the husting. The questions from whichever route they came did not relate to anything the candidate's had actually said in their speeches but were sensible questions about the future vision and policy of the Party. Several of the questions from the floor were in fact questions which had been submitted beforehand so the effect of the vocal duo was to waste time and actually probably prevented some good questions which had been submitted not being asked because it became pot luck who was chosen to ask a question whereas Derek Clark had sorted the submited questions into an order of importance and eliminated duplication However I agree that if you do not have a computer you were at a disadvantage.