Time to rethink NFU election process
This is Ian Pigott’s Opinion piece, which will appear in Farmers Weekly magazine on 17 February.
Unlike Vladimir Putin, Peter Kendall’s election campaign hasn’t seen him wearing a skimpy white vest and riding bareback across the plains of East Anglia.
It’s a shame in some ways – because it can’t be entirely healthy for the NFU that Mr Kendall doesn’t need a campaign. Let’s face it, even Putin has a “challenger”.
Next week (22 February), the NFU holds its election for the three top spots.
New faces or not, the next “Cabinet” will have to perform well to emulate the success of the past two years.
But are future presidents being groomed? Critics accuse the NFU of being like the Roman god Janus, being of one body but with two faces looking in opposite directions. In other words, what is good for the arable sector is usually bad for livestock farmers. “Up horn, down corn”, as the saying goes, makes it impossible for the NFU to be all things, to all people, at all times.
But this shouldn’t matter. The president should be the person who is best suited to lead the union in the best interest of farming. And not, as some old stagers have said to me in the past, when an arable president hangs up his boots, his successor should pick up their shepherds crook and head for the top table in Stoneleigh, because it will be a stock farmer’s turn. What a ridiculous predilection.
So where does the NFU hierarchal pyramid falter? In the first instance, NFU council – which is the feeder for top office – is cumbersome. How can any governing body have 80-plus members? No FTSE boardroom seats more than 25.
Because of its size, NFU council plays into the hands of the person with either the most mates or the loudest voice (which is seldom synonymous with the most wisdom). This either stifles aspiring young turks from saying anything, or puts them off getting to the top table in the first place.
Members of the NFU, of which I am one, need to realise that we are not the French. A powerful lobby and being the biggest pain in the backside known to politicians is not the same thing. Considered and articulate reason is a far more effective political weapon than chest-beating or fist-banging. It is, therefore, imperative that they groom the strongest candidates and not the noisiest ones.
Perhaps it is time to do away with the “county” tier and move to a regional forum. Many younger members regard the role of county chairman as more of a millstone than a stepping stone to Stoneleigh.
A regional forum may stimulate competition in the caucasus, making it dynamic and appealing to ambitious younger members. It would also make for a more manageable council. Two representatives from each region would number 16.
In future, perhaps the NFU should consider a maximum presidential term.
This would remove any ambiguity and demand a succession plan.
They should abolish the 75% majority that any president who has served two terms in office requires if he or she is to be re-elected. This is madness.
It makes the usurping of an extremely capable incumbent a possibility and enables the opportunist maverick to profiteer on an unpopular policy. Why on earth would any organisation run that risk?
Of course, none of this answers the age-old question of who looks after their business while a president is in office – a quandary which stands in the way of some candidates. But that is a whole different conundrum for the NFU to consider.
• What do you think about the NFU election process? Have your say on our forums.
