Now that we can all sit down, relax and have a comforting cup of tea after the appalling shenanigans in Strasbourg it's important to reflect once more on the perennial leadership contest. Anyway I'm pleased that Steven Woolfe MEP is back sitting up despite nursing a sore left jaw. The perpetrator of this intrusion should be banned from the party forthwith. No investigation, no fuss, just a simple exclusion and expulsion for the culprit.
In the '70s & '80s the England Cricket XI had serious leadership issues itself following the successful captaincy bestowed by Mike Brearley. The selectors stumbled from choosing raw talent to randomly choosing a Captain by placing a tail on a donkey competition. The upshot was that various credible cricket professionals were given the chance of captaining England despite having relatively no experience or idea of what it entailed. Some of the great names of that era failed dismally including David Gower and Sir Ian Botham. When the crisis came to a head the England selectors chose a Kent classroom colleague of mine who by all accounts should have had the job years before. Anyway he was chosen for the 4th & 5th Tests v. WI and the inaugural Test v. Sri Lanka. He was chosen because he, like Brearley and many others from other ages, understood teamwork, tactics and man management,etc. The England soccer team has gone through similar upheavals and arguably with much less success than recent cricketers. So what is the issue (& qualities required) with choosing the right leader for whatever scenario and brief outlined ?
I've thought about this much over the years, usually whilst watching the dynamics of Mainwaring, Wilson & Jones in Dad's Army but I've seen the same dynamics and characteristics with Partners on the London Stock Exchange. Leadership in a nutshell is about being the first over the top (as the old officer classes used to do), taking a firm position, ensuring you're not alone, cajoling all and sundry and ruthlessly ensuring that the game plan is adhered to and the objective gained. Once achieved only then does a Leader gain the respect of those around him. It's the same for a Colonel, as a 2/Lieutenant with a small platoon and the NCO's within that platoon. It's all relative at the end of the day but of course all leaders must be liked and have a sense of fun too.
With politicians these days the basic principles of leadership are often ignored by the MSM and importantly voters. In the last few decades UK has been blessed (sic) with PM's like Major and Brown who had dubious leadership or other good qualities at best. Parties everywhere have had their fair share of failed leaders. Probably the only exception to the rule was Screaming Lord Sutch of MRLP who professed to maintaining clear and concise (& amusing) policies despite few actually voting for him.
So the big issue for UKIP since 23rd June has been - who should be the next UKIP leader ? One candidate has stood out from the pack as yellow as mustard but due to some oversight and politicising within the NEC his application was rejected. The last incumbant was albeit a highly gifted politician and loyal UKIP MEP but failed the litmus test on Leadership qualities.
Let's all think about what Leadership really is. Listening to one's colleagues, party Members and prospective voters is essential but listening to all those opposing a Leader or Party is equally important. The MSM is ruthless in disturbing any contest or campaign. They will unpick any squabble and find any chink. The last incumbant found that out to her cost.
Oh ! What happened to that Kent clasmate. Well, he lost the 4th Test, got injured, never played for England again and more surprisingkly never got sacked as England Captain. Work that one out ! Have you noticed how MSM have tried to make hay about Nigel Farage being back as Interim Leader. Not processing the paperwork properly can often cause this sort of hiccup and many Co Directors over the years have discovered the same to their cost.
Choose well, choose someone with spirit and leadership qualities ! I have.
