SponPlague

We all know the NEC leak. Is this, therefore, a valid reason for not keeping them in the loop?

chikrodah

Keeping them in the loop is one thing. It can be achieved using a minimalist approach when absolutely necessary. It does not require potentially libellous tirades, I would have thought.

A thank you letter stating a reason why somebody couldn't attend an EGM is not necessarily the sort of letter you need to copy in to the NEC. After all, if you're going through a series of issues with your manager at work, you don't tend to copy in the entire board of directors on your emails.

gc

Funny way to run a party, having an NEC. Reminiscent of old Labour...

However, it does enable the leadership to have power without responsibility. Given the current leadership, that may be why we hang on to this old instrument...

Bob FM

The answers to the poll are too vague for me to vote.

SponPlague

What would you consider an example of a more specific answer, Bob? As far as I can see, you either have them in the loop, accepting but deploring leaks, or you don't. Then there are "the NEC are irrelevant" group.

douglas denny

That is nonsense.
You illustrate a fundamental non-understanding of what the NEC is for and what it does.

It is no more than a committee of members who are elected by the membership to perform a representative function in that committee.
It is just a committee nevertheless; but it is the committee where the buck stops.

The committee business happens to be with management of the party (mainly), and with 'official' acceptance of the business of sub-committees, which may be set-up by the NEC; and with the acceptance of policy and strategy of the party - which can emanate from the policy committee or Leader, or Chairman of the NEC.

There is a common fallacy - pushed out by the enemies of UKIP and especially the enemies of N.Farage the Leader, that he can somehow have his own way and do whatever he wants, despite the NEC. This is rubbish. Pure and simple.

The leader gets a lot of what he wants because people in the NEC are pre-disposed to accept what he wants precisely because he is the Leader, and they trust his judgement, and expect his strategy to lead forwards in a positive way. This does NOT mean he can get his own way on everything regardless.
Ultimately the Leader must carry the whole NEC in a majority on an issue - or he looses the vote in the issue - and it does not get done.
Simple as that.
If there was any conflict then the NEC controls the purse strings and can refuse to support anything it does not want. The NEC does indeed have ultimate power - which is why that power is better in the hands of the many than of a few, or, worse, one only.

The leadership has power only on the understanding the NEC agrees. The ultimate responsibility in the party actually is not with the leader but with the NEC. So, if things go wrong - blame the NEC and not the Leader.
That is the way it is.

DED.
-

Niall Warry

Sadly DED there are none so blind as will not see.

Nigel would do pretty much what he wants whether the NEC was on his side or not. We will see how democratic he is if he allows the MEP selection to remain decided by the members.

douglas denny

Are you quite mad Niall?

How can Nigel in any way "decide" the MEP selection - when it is decided by a ballot of the members?

DED.
-

Richard Allen

Do keep up Doug. Everyone knows that Nigel is going select the top 2 candidates for each region regardless of how the members vote.

Now I know the fact that he can only do this if all the other candidates agree to move down the list is a bit of a problem but surely that is only a minor obstacle.

mrabody

I'm not sure how it could be considered a minor obstacle? Are you suggesting he will have intransigent candidates poisoned?

__________________
Drew Belobaba,
UKIP PPC for Lewes
Almost as unelectable as Raymond Finch!