Mark Croucher: Should UKIP decide, that the two areas which have caused considerable
problems in the past, election management and Party accounts, should be resolved, that would be quite possible. Employing the Electoral Reform Services, and allowing an accounting company of good reputation to prepare all our financial statements, would be cheaper than the method we employ at present. Furthermore, it appears that Marta Andreasen is not happy in her post, after only a few months with us. She now wants to leave us via the Strasbourg Parliament, and she is being encouraged to do that, by those who lauded praise on her when she was originally employed. There is a clear problem concerning the relationship of UKIP to Marta Andreasen. The present arrangement concerning the accounts cannot be justified on economic grounds, and good empirical evidence to justify it is virtually non existent. Should you disagree with what I say, Mark, what would you produce as evidence?
We have two immediate problems with the pending selection process. The first concerns the matter of dual-region candidates. The maldistribution of the votes cast, within those particular regions, is so patent that we should not risk potential litigation from an aggrieved candidate who believe s/he has suffered harm by that arrangement.
The other matter concerns the planned events, following the declaration of the election results. In theory, we will have our 'voting order', so to speak, the reality may be quite different.
Nigel Farage told the Winchester hustings meeting, that next month (September) UKIP and Declan Ganley, will sit down for serious discussions, with the view to negotiating a mutual agreement between us, for the 2009 elections. Despite Sunday Telegraph reports, (July 20th. 08), Nigel believes that Ganley has no intention of contesting the MEP elections within the UK. He may be wrong, NF admitted, but Ganley may leave it to us. We are further advantaged by the friendly and cordial relations which already between Farage and Ganley. This is 'good stuff', but at this stage it is only founded on presumptions. Ganley may not withdraw, what then will be the implications for UKIP?
Perhaps an accommodation can be agreed, but it could be one which is inconsistent with our present candidate-selection process.
Presumably our UKIP negotiating team already exists; our bargaining positions will be in place, and our list of possible options identified. Surely, reason must dictate that we halt our candidate- selections, until after the UKIP/Ganley meeting. That would provide time forany reflection and adaptation, considered necessary, to our chosen method. It could also provide a means by which possible litigation will be avoided. It would only require a delay of three or four weeks, but the benefits could be significant. What do our candidates believe, what are their views on this matter?
|