MarkR

Training was of extremely low value and for me, frankly, a waste of a day. Some of the candidates on this training day were of such low calibre that I seriously considered withdrawing my own candidacy there and then - and I consider myself to be just about acceptable as a candidate in a low profile constituency.
We should either have good candidates or pure paper candidates (perhaps by having some candidates 'stand' for multiple constituencies as per John Whittaker).
Having someone who fits Cameron's UKIP conception stand does the party more harm than having an uncontested seat.

brian lee

Rosie wroteShe felt that this was patronising.

As one of the dedicated party workers since 1994, I did not find the remark patronising although I would probably not have put it that way myself.

In the history of UKIP many people have gained power without a clue about what it needs to run a party. They have failed to recognise that the Party needs a slick organisation and have been content to rely on well meaning placemen and ad hoc arrangements.

When it comes to action, we have succeeded in spite of the party management not because of it. To that extent I agree that we have many intelligent, educated and committed party workers. (Being well-trained depends on definitions). Many members have years of experience in politics. They have developed a political nose. You cannot train this. However, we do need Chairmen who know how to chair, and organisers who know how to organise. If someone is in charge of election material he needs to have good technical knowledge about presenting the message to best effect as well as political nose so that the material is appropriate.

On the question of candidates, as these have been in short supply we have had to make do in many cases with whoever has been willing to stand. Rarely have we had a choice. Fair play to all the candidates that have given their time and in many cases their £500 at elections. Many of us stood on the assumption that we would not get elected and that makes a big difference to the result.

We need to build up a well organised party, with leaders we can trust and elected members that don't do daft things so that we can attract activists from other parties who share our aims.

Perhaps Richard's comments were based on what he has seen to date, not on the grass roots throughout the country that he has not yet come across.

michael mcgough

For a slick organisation you couldn't make do with a treasurer qualified only by knowing the price of a loaf could you?

Lawrie Boxall

I am sure everyone agrees there is no point starting candidate training 2 or 3 months before the election. It has to be a continual process. The same has to happen with those people that represent and put forward UKIP policy. But first they need to be selected for their talent, energy and media skills and they need to be further trained and briefed and developed because anything to do with policy is also a continual process.

Selection could be done in the form of a competition using live debate. This would be much better than what we have at the moment where it appears everything is done ad-hoc and ad-lib

This is just one of the things that have been most lacking under the leadership of Roger Knapman and Nigel Farage despite the fact that many people in the party and on the NEC 6 years ago were pushing for some joined up thinking in this area. Those calling for progress have been opposed every step of the way by the people running the party and there is still no sign of change.

C_steam

A look at the post, and at the context of the website will show that this comment is taken completely out of context, does not refer to the activists and anyway in no way would richard patronise such.

Just s*** stirring, is all.

brian lee

C_steam wroteI hope the comment was not aimed at me - I shall be voting for him.

C_steam

No, it wasn't.