UKIP Uncovered

UKIP Uncovered
What motivates the leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party?

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Constitutional Implications of Extending N. Sinclair's Term

On Tuesday we reported on the NEC voting to extend Nikki Sinclair's membership of the body for another year. That post is linked here.

We received a response to this post from an NEC member stating such was permitted under the constitution. It seemed bizarre to us that such a process could be allowed in an elected democratic body and sought guidance from Barbara Booker who has previously been of great help when other mysteries of the UKIP Constitution have arisen. We received this reply:-

Quote

To extend Nikki Sinclaire's term on the NEC would of course be unconstitutional because members are elected for a term not exceeding three years, and hers expires in February 2004. However, party members who voted her on to the NEC in 2001 will have had the benefit of her input to it for only three months out of the three years they elected her for, so it could be argued that extending her term is morally justified and no more unconstitutional than disbarring her in the first place. If this is the reasoning behind the NEC's decision, then logically her term should be extended for two years, not one. I think whether Nikki goes or stays, her position is not going to be strictly constitutional.

More significant is the effect extending her term will have on the number of places up for re-election.

Normally, at least five members must stand down each year and if Nikki is counted as one of these (as she should be), but because of the unusual circumstances is returned automatically without election, then an election will need to be held for four other places only. I think that would be the correct procedure following a decision to extend Nikki's term. If, however, a fifth NEC member is forced to stand down in place of Nikki, I think that would be wrong.

As I understand it, the position of individual NEC members is as follows:

Farage, Booth, Lott, Nattrass - elected 03, serve until 06
Stride, Gillman - elected 03 for 1 year, with maximum extension to 06
Mackinlay, Stone, Moore, Batten - elected 02, serve until 05
Scholefield - elected 02 for one year, with maximum extension to 05
Sinclaire - elected 01, should stand in 04 but now extended to 05
Hockney - elected 01, must stand in 04
Clark - brought on in 01 when Nikki disbarred, should have re-stood in 02 but didn't; must stand in04
Beaman - brought on in 03, must stand in 04

There were two resignations in 03:

Brown - elected 02, would have served until 05
Longman - elected 03, would have served until 06

If Scholefield and Stride replace Brown and Longman, and Sinclaire is re-elected automatically, then I believe members standing down should be: Hockney, Clark, Beaman, Gilman. If extending Sinclaire's term forces another member to stand down in her place (wrongly, in my view) I think that would be Scholefield.

Unquote

Following today's lock-out of Head Office Staff, reported below, there is now, no doubt, a large body of opinion within the party of the view that the entire NEC should be dumped forthwith . If there is not, then such is certainly the view amongst the growing body of ex-UKIP members from whom we are receiving much comment.

posted by Martin |3:46 PM