Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Croucher
So, for a mere ten grand (wouldn't cost the party more money) you can correct a minor breach of procedure. You may think its worth it, but most will take the view that the cost far far outweighs any benefit, and that's assuming there is any benefit whatsoever. I'd rather see the money spent on the campaign, as, I suspect, would Tim, even though people like him don't know enough about party matters to maintain an air of studied though ill-informed pomposity.
M
|
Yes, well, Mark would know all about the costs involved in delaying internal elections since he was central to the shenanigans surrounding the 2004 NEC elections.
Quote from the returning officer's report to candidates 23.2.04, explaining why the elections were being delayed:
"Matters took a turn for the worse upon the issuance from David to the NEC
of a document on 4th February, written by Mark Croucher making very serious
accusations against a number of NEC candidates; for these implications to
be disseminated on the eve of an election is even more serious without
incontrovertible proof. I cannot repeat these allegations as they are
subject to legal action.
My ability to allow the NEC election to proceed diminished still further as
I was receiving reports of telephone calls being made by at least one NEC
member and an MEP employee to various branch officials further embellishing
the findings of the Croucher ‘report’".
How much did that cost to settle out of court, Mark? The Evening Standard (15.6.04) seemed to think £10,000!