Pat_Pending

Has anyone seen the minutes of the last NEC, my man down here tells me that Gerard resigned from the NEC.

Nigel put the motion not to stand against BOO candidates, (presumably we're closing our branches in their constituencies), Gerard and one other voted against and the rest noddd it through.

Gerard said that the NEC didnt have a mandate to defy the conference motion against it. He could not sit on an NEC that defied the members wishes.

Can anyone confirm what happened and who voted in favour and against?

C_steam

I can't give you the detail, but my understanding is similar to yours - batten is no longer on the NEC.

I wonder if our sources are the same?

mkpdavies

The NEC is irrelevant now anyway. Everyone knows it's full steam ahead with the Farage agenda. The NEC is all but redundant.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Colin McNamee

I cannot comment on the thrust of the post but the following applies as far as the current Constitution is concerned.

They are advisory and must subsequently be discussed by the NEC. The Constitution states

6.5 Motions carried shall have advisory force and will be listed for discussion by the NEC within 3 months of the motions having been carried.

The explanation for Motions given in the 2006 Conference handbook was incorrect and applied to the previous Constitution.

Motions at Conference therefore, regardless of the majority, are not binding if not subsequently agreed by the NEC.

C_steam

Translation:-

Motions at conference are pointless window dressing for the sole purpose of making a pretence at being democratically led.

Anthony Butcher

But that clause was changed in the recent update and didn't apply when the vote took place in 2004 did it?

Colin McNamee

In 2004 the previous Constitution should have been in force and the relevant clause would have been, as incorrectly used in the 2006 Handbook,

Pages 11 & 12 of the Conference Agenda for Telford, reference Structure of Debate Item 6.


6. Motions and amendments......... ......., or if the motion is passed by two thirds of those voting at Conference. Motions that are........

Then the Motion was binding on the Party.

If less than two thirds, but over, I think 50%, it went to NEC for final decison and under 50% was dead.

However first and foremost should be establishing the accuracy of the Topic and then the position of a Motion passed in 2004 and how that is relevant under the 'new' / 'revised' / modified Constitution 2006, I would have thought.

Anthony Butcher

It is all largely academic though - the members voted Farage in and he has always taken this stance.

It is the crux of the issue though - is UKIP a party or a pressure group? In 2004 the members voted for a party. In 2006 they voted for a pressure group.

Petrina

The debate on whether to stand against all comers or not was not actually a motion as such .I drafted the paperwork for the conference and the NEC specifically decided that it should only be a debate NOT a motion .
If anyone has the pamphlet from the Celebration Conference it should make that point clear .

The NEC can in this case decide whether to stand against BOO MPs or not .
Weactually have no real idea what the bulk of the membership think re this policy.
NF did make it clear that he would not stand candidates against them if elected leader but it was sensible of him to get a vote on it by the NEC.

I hear that there was quite an argument between the two of them .Pity though that yet another member of the NEC is lost ,another step to to it being a "rubber stamp" committee.

Bryan Parry

Yup. This party is a joke and I have left it. It is no longer, in my mind, the best bet for opposing the EU. Don't ask me what is, but UKIP isn't the way to go (imo, of course )