Bob FM

The vote was 10 each for myself and Tolstoy, but 7 members hadn't followed the voting instructions and their votes were discounted leaving the vote at 7-6 to Tolstoy. The branch chairman had not voted as he intended, in the event of a tie, to cast a unique vote (as opposed to exercising a right to 2 votes). The Chairman would have supported me. The result is that Tolstoy won the candidacy by one vote where had all votes been accepted and had the Chairman's vote been cast in my favour I would have been the candidate. You lost, isn't that democracy.

chikrodah

Bob, 20 votes were cast and a third were discounted. That's an indictment on either the management of the election, which I happen to know was conducted properly by an experienced and ethical branch chairman, or on the aging membership's ability to follow simple instructions.

If a third of all votes were discounted in an election monitored by one of the international groups, such as the OSCE, there would be condemnation. If one candidate's supporters campaigned illegally and spread damaging lies in an election monitored by the OSCE, there would be condemnation. If Cameron lost a leadership election because a third of votes were discounted, there would be hell to pay. If Brown won a leadership election because a third of votes were discounted, there would be condemnation.

Aardvark is one the UK's most experienced international election monitors, having monitored 16 elections' processes in countries as far flung as Kazakhstan, Belarus, Albania and Georgia, as well as those closer to home. He's got 34 years experience of political process at local, national and international level.

It seems that there's one rule for UKIP processes, despite the determined efforts of the decent grassroots activists, and one rule for everybody else. I'm sure the UKIP hierarchy is well aware by now of where you stand on the issue, Bob.

Bob FM

chikrodah, what you say may be true, but it was a democratic vote. The failure of members to correctly fill in the ballots or whatever, would have been a serious breach of procedure had they been allowed to stand. (I happen to know was conducted properly by an experienced and ethical branch chairman) Or do I take it old people should be excluded from the electoral process just in case, they are senile, have failing eyesight, or shaking hand syndrome. He lost FAIRLY, by your own admission. His so called international electoral experience is totally irrelevant.

chikrodah

Bob, you really need to network more both within UKIP and without.

The election was managed, as far as possible, in accordance with correct procedure. The votes that were discounted were correctly discounted, in accordance with the predefined process. Nobody (including Aardvark) ever suggested otherwise.

You really need to learn to moderate your verbal spasms, though. Defining Aardvark's electoral experience (whether international or otherwise) as "so-called" is mean-spirited and petty-minded in the extreme, adjectives that I'm sure you wouldn't recognise if applied to yourself.

Aardvark's electoral experience is relevant because it is that which has shaped his reaction to the Witney PPC selection. Contrary to your supposition, I did not admit that he lost fairly. I would suggest that you reread my previous post and spot where, in fact, I suggest otherwise.

I also note that, despite the direction of this thread turning naturally in another direction in the 6 posts following Aardvark's description of the PPC selection in Witney, you chose to make your next post on this thread a potentially inflammatory choice of words. One might almost suggest that you've chosen to align yourself with Aardvark's favourite stalkers.

Bob FM

It seems to me you cannot have it both ways, if it was conducted according to the rules, as you have repeated, then the result is a fair and just result, or should we say that if x thousands of people hadn't voted for other parties in the Henley bye-election, UKIP would have would have won so the result was unfair. 'So called' was not in any way a derogatory adjective, merely a reflection on the use by you of his experience being some how relevant to the result. You see the difference seems to me to be that some of us who are PPC's would have accepted not being selected and got on with life. There was no one more surprised than I when I received the most votes in our PPC selection and election process, given that the other 2 candidates were both officers of the branch (Chairman and Secretary/Treasurer) and long standing members. I also of course had to go to a regional vetting panel interview. So you see I do view the type of reaction to the democratic process as just Sour Grapes. As for stalkers, I have no idea to whom you refer.

chikrodah

It must be wonderful to always be right, don't you think, Bob?

Had you stood before as PPC for your seat, Bob? Were you determined to stand in North Swindon or would you have been happy to stand elsewhere as no more than a paper candidate? How many years had you spent building up your networks, your political reputation, your expertise and your skills base in the constituency for which you are now PPC? 6 months? 1 year? 5 years? 10? Were you widely known elsewhere? Did you have to contend with other candidates for your PPC slot choosing to jump ship from a constituency where they were losing votes to one where they were persuaded they would be welcomed by the electorate?

I'm not "trying to have it both ways", Bob. Neither is Aardvark. Nor is this a simple case of "sour grapes". The chairman did his best, despite the behaviour of those branch members who had their own agendas and vendettas to pursue, to run a fair election in accordance with due process. If Tolstoy had been the recipient of all 7 of the non-compliant ballot papers, Aardvark would have accepted the result with his usual equanimity. If a branch member had not chosen to wage his own personal campaign against Aardvark, Aardvark would not have questioned the result.

Bob FM

You still don't get it, we live in a first past the post democracy, he lost. End of story all the rest is just irrelevant history, and if his attacks on me are anything to go by I suspect, it may well be a case of the pot calling the kettle, as an email to me implied last week.

chikrodah

No, Bob, you still don't get it.

Firstly, let me address your misunderstanding of the UK electoral systems. Note the plural - there are currently 6 in use in the UK, all notionally conducted in accordance with the Copenhagen Document of 1990, as indeed are most other national and local elections worldwide. Amazing, isn't it, that an experienced international election monitor knows and understands that, but a (IMHO, of course) self-opinionated, petty-minded MP wannabe doesn't.

Had UKIP's election processes been easy to understand, mistakes would not have been made (as they have been made in many other UKIP elections) and the system would not be open to misinterpretation, dirty tricks and potential fraud.

If Witney's 2005 GE results had seen the same proportion of votes discarded due to the voters misunderstanding the procedures, 18,000 voters would have been effectively disenfranchised.

But no matter. You have determined the rules of this particular battle and the terrain has been terraformed so as to be favourable to your viewpoint only. You really ought to read Clausewitz or Sun Tzu, Bob. It's never good to underestimate those who may later declare themselves to be your enemy (at least in your own mind).

Aardvark listened to the advice of a number of forum members (including me) and chose to stop responding to your unique view of the world. He is a highly ethical individual, albeit human, and is always prepared to see things from another's point of view.

Quite frankly, I (and I suspect others may feel the same) now feel that expecting you to communicate with the rest of the forum on the same intellectual, psychological or educational level as the rest of us is a complete and total waste of time.

Aardvark may have been "baiting" you, to use his own phrase, but to consider that "baiting" as a series of attacks suggests, IMHO, that you do not have the intellectual perspicacity, let alone the psychological stability, to act as anything other than a parish councillor of a Rotten Borough.

You know nothing about him, or Geoffrey Collier, or myself, or any of the others you choose to believe are "against" you, UKIP or some mythical set of eurosceptic beliefs, but you are willing to believe the contents of an email that might well contain libellous statements. No doubt you know nothing about the sender of the email either, but that doesn't seem to matter, does it?

If you were honourable (note my avoidance of the word "gentleman") rather than demonstrating your notoriously parochial mentality, IMHO you would have contacted Aardvark on receipt of this oft-quoted email, to determine the veracity and accuracy of its contents.

But no. You made up your mind about Aardvark and others before receiving the "evidence" that supports your hypothesis. Even a Foundation-level GSCE candidate knows better than to make projections on such a shaky basis. Congratulations for demonstrating, IMHO, less maturity and ethical behaviour than a 16 year old.

You sir, stated that you had no idea as to who Aardvark's stalkers were, but you've just confirmed that you've received an email from an individual who has a particular perspective shared by those stalkers. Are you disingenuous or do you subscribe to being economic with veracity when it suits you?

You are not worthy of contempt, because you are not capable of learning from experience (how many other fora have you been banned from, Bob? Bear in mind I've done my research). You are not capable of listening to others, you are not capable of competing on level terms with others. You state your points of view as fact and then shy from responding when others demolish the foundations of your argument.

You are not worthy of pity, despite your obvious (again, IMHO) insecurities and lack of interactive capability.

You are, however, worthy of being ignored. How long will you survive without the oxygen of debate? Or will you stay smug in the certain, but IMHO, completely deluded knowledge that you have "bested" an opponent who is worth 100 of your ilk?

Bob FM

Lets just say I have been well briefed about you all. Just get over it he lost. Two forums, and both bans were for attacking the very people who were destroying my industry, the difference of course was that they paid the wages of the Newspapers concerned. I could like some on here still make posts under an assumed name, but I value honesty and integrity and do not do that. The very fact that you can track my background is evidence of that. Some 10 pages on google at the last count. I am not embarrassed by those bans, it have given me a very high standing with the majority of my industry peers, and those who do not value honesty and integrity I could care less about. I was told by the way whenever Paul is in trouble you come to his defence, how write that email was and it came 3 days before you started on at me. Someone must have you sussed.

chikrodah

Bob, I'd say res ipsa loquitur, but you wouldn't understand.

Two forums (sic), two bans, both for attacking others, and you're proud of the fact. I've been a member of fora since 1997 and despite arguing robustly on occasion, I've never been banned. It just suggests my opinion of you may have validity.

You appear to discount your temporary ban from this forum. I wonder why?

If you bothered to actually read and understand this forum's dynamics, you'd know that I post when I want. Occasionally, I support Aardvark. Sometimes I support others. Sometimes I go out on a limb and risk losing a friend. Not a concern I have with yourself, I hasten to add.

Don't flatter yourself by claiming, falsely, that Aardvark's "in trouble" because of your obsession with him. An obsession fuelled, apparently, by the machinations of others.

I posted purely because I wanted to. Aardvark has chosen to stop responding to your posts as he is a gentleman and no gentleman spars with a less worthy opponent once said opponent's weaknesses are known. Try reading threads other than the ones you subscribe to and you'd discover his reasoning. I'll give you two clues: Complaints subsection, Independent UKIP. Go on, I can wait.