Mark Croucher

If you accept an offer to pay for the ERS to run the election this time, what happens next time when there are no offers to pay, and yet the precedent has been set?

The accounts of the party are already audited in accordance with current legislative requirements. The same applies for such corporate bodies which are associated with UKIP, including Ashford Employment Ltd. With the exception of the Electoral Commission complaint regarding donations (which in reality is a compliance, not an accounting issue), there are no problems, legal or otherwise with the accounts, except for ill-informed or deliberately misleading speculation such as that which you peddle. UKIP has been late in presenting accounts, but this has not resulted in its failing to do so.

As regards the Ganley stuff, it is possible that any negotiations will not result in an outcome until the day nominations close, so delaying until the deal is announced would prove problematical. Also, delay pending a resolution to the negotiations would also neatly signal to the EUrophile opposition the precise day when a deal was reached, greatly aiding their own campaigns and strategy. We have a leader for this sort of thing, and the point of having a leader is that we trust their political judgement, surely, otherwise what would be the point? I am confidant that Nigel will reach the best resolution possible in the prevailing political circumstances. You can't negotiate by committee.

As for the 'maldistribution' of votes, how are they maldistributed? Those 'maldistributed' to one of the candidates in question are simply removed from the equation, and everyone below them moves up one place, exactly as they would have done had the candidate in question not stood at all. The 'maldistribution' you are talking about appears to only occur in a specific set of circumstances, ie where you would vote Andreasen (say) 3rd if she was only standing in the SE, but 7th because she isn't, and would have voted for different people between 4th and 7th dependent upon the circumstances.... hardly the sort of nitpicking to make a huge difference in any case.

I don't know whether the rules of the election were sent out individually to every member, but if not, then one assumes the internet is where they can be found, and posting dual candidacies there meets the same requirement as that which makes the rules public. Regardless, the idea of suspending the election, reissing the ballots and informing each member individually for something of such minor import is nonsensical. Of course, it would have been better to have met incontrovertibly the exact letter of each rule, but these things happen, largely because nobody noticed until it was too late: this is generally the cause of such things. In 2004, nobody noticed we didn't have a manifesto until 3 days before its launch, which is how I came to write it in about 30 mins lol

Of course, it's all far more exciting to ascribe ****-ups to conspiracy theories within the leadership, but the reality is as I posted in my previous message: the few managers are overworked and understaffed, reliant upon inexperienced volunteers of often dubious quality. But no-one wants to comment on that, do they, because it spoils the fun.

M

Mark Croucher

Oh, and regarding Andreasen, what is this 'problem' of which you speak? She has been overseeing our accounts, and now she wishes to stand as an MEP: that hardly speaks of problems in the relationship, in fact just the opposite.

Are you suggesting that she should be debarred from candidacy for some reason? And what are the cost implications of which you speak? And exactly what empirical evidence of accounts oversight do you have in mind in the relatively short period since her appointment? Would she cease to perform these functions if selected and subsequently elected? Methinks your arguments are made of straw.

M

michael mcgough

"problems in the past, ------- Party accounts, should be resolved, that would be quite possible.----------, and allowing an accounting company of good reputation to prepare all our financial statements."Geoffrey Collier

The party accounts are audited by 'Registered Auditors------are you unhappy with using registered auditors Geoffrey? Are you suggesting that the firm used is not of good reputation?
I feel sure they would be most unhappy ,for that is what you imply by your scurrilous remarks.

Barboo

Nobody noticed? That's why you have a returning officer, to 'notice' the rules and ensure that the election for which he is responsible complies with them.

It makes no difference whether members were aware of the rules or not; or why they were put in place; or what their practical implications are. The NEC decreed that the selection process should be carried out according to certain rules. It hasn't been, therefore the selection process is invalid and no amount of irrelevant waffle can get away from that fact.

A political party which is incapable of conducting its internal procedures in accordance with its own rules isn't competent to run so much as a parish council, let alone the country.

Geoffrey Collier

Mark Croucher: Your arguments are as false as they are fatuous. We would not be dependent on donations for either auditing the accounts, or having our elections organised by the ERS. The actual size of our party account, is not much larger than those of the social club in a large company. Many golf clubs are richer than we are. What is the true cost that we actually pay? Andreasen's professional fees, plus her travel and accomodation costs whilst in England. We could give the whole lot to a main-line accounting company, at a cost cheaper than that which we pay at present.

UKIP do not have a good history where mony is concerned; that is irrefutable. When we were given an extension to produce the accounts by the Electoral Commission, we exceeded that extension by seven months and incurred two lots of fines for our misdemeanour. THAT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD. When a previous party treasurer became actively involved in orchestrating a deception against El Com, that was not deemed sufficiently serious to preclude him from being placed on the prospective MEP list. Do these kind of things imbue the membership with confidence?
I say, and have been saying it for years, that these things must change. You say that these things are acceptable and should continue. The two central problems, accounting and election organisation remain, and the evdence is so conclusive that it cannot be denied by any intelligent person.

You mention in your posting, Ashford Employment Ltd; that subject has still lagely unexplained. These was significant capital movement to them, from money raised by donations, and transacted by staff whose conflicting interests should have precluded them from any involvement whatsoever in UKIP'S affairs. In some instances their very employment status seems obscure. Why should this be? Redundancy money, termination grants, or whatever you like to call it, have been paid to various people under what appear ambiguous circumstances.

People, good people, try to change these things, but even when elected to the NEC, find that their questions, often about mundane matters of fact, are just ignored. They despair, and walk away. Would you deny that isn't true? Members write to seek answers to their concerns- I know from personal experience - but they are either ignored or given answers which are untrue. Again, that couldn't be denied. The answer is change, radical change, or we have no future. What we have been subject to over the years, is not only wrong, but no longer viable. You, obviously, are of a different opinion.

Tim Worstall

"but may not have given due consideration to their own status as, 'bankers of last resort', should the Party's resources not be sufficient when the 'bills come in'. Many are just ordinary individuals of modest circumstances, with young children and older ones who are students. Have we not also a duty to consider their circumstances?"

Apologies but I don't understand what you're talking about here. You're being too elliptical for me.

You seem to be saying that because of the risk of the party not having enough money we should therefore delay the internal elections and cost the party more money.

An idea that is so odd that I clearly haven't understood what you're actually saying.

Geoffrey Collier

Tim Worstall: I think most will understand what is being said. If a potential risk is arising, and the ultimate consequence could become a financial liability to NEC members, or for that matter the party, but avoiding that risk is also possible, by correcting that which could provoke the action, there is a strong case for taking those remedial measures. That would be particularly justified, if the pending negotiation could change the landscape entirely.

Delaying the elections wouldn't cost the party more money. Option one; at least delay them until the voting papers in those two or three regions, where those dual-candidates exist, have been changed. Option two: wait until after the September UKIP/Ganley negotiations have taken place. In reality the time-delay, in either case, will be very short.

If you think this idea is odd, acquaint yourself with what this party has paid in legal fees and costs over the years. People like you, don't know enough about party matters to make much contribution to these debates.

Tim Worstall

"People like you, don't know enough about party matters to make much contribution to these debates."

Quite possibly true, although you did ask the candidates what they thought of this idea.....

Geoffrey Collier

Tim Worstall: Is the idea still beyond your understanding, or is further elucidation needed?

SponPlague

The issue of the NEC being liable for party debts was put to all leadership candidates.
Nigel's reply, IIRC, was that the issue needed to be revisited.

I would hope that the NEC have made progress since then...