Anthony Butcher

That was in 2004 wasn't it?

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

SponPlague

July 2006!

Tim Worstall

Now I've been elucidated, I'd say that trying to delay to hte Ganley whatever is a bad idea. For I'm entirely unconvinced that a deal, whatever one might be, will be hammered out at the first meeting. We'd end up delaying again and again I think, as the negotiations carry on.

As to the people standing in dual regions....despite the fact that a couple of those people are talking about are standing in London and that thus the clarification might help my own efforts, I do thinks it's a fairly trivial point.

Yes, I know that rules are rules and so on, but I certainly won't be suing anyone over it and I'd be astonished if anyone else did either.

michael mcgough

"These was significant capital movement to them"

do you mean capital???????????

"We could give the whole lot to a main-line accounting company, at a cost cheaper than that which we pay at present. "

do you not consider 'registerd auditors' mainline?

Mark Croucher

Letter to all voters explaining the delay: 15,000 members x 30p = £ 4500
Printing of new voting papers = c£ 500
Mailing of new voting papers: 15,000 members x 30p = £ 4500

And yes, you'd need new voting papers, or you wouldn't know who voted before finding out this earth-shattering information, which would mean you'd have an unquantifiable amount of votes which the delay failed to solve.

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

Raymond Finch

It is not a minor breach of procedure. The rules have been broken. Also this was known about BEFORE the voting papers were sent out. What would it have cost to have printed up small Erratum slips and put them into the envelopes?
There would be a benefit as the voters would be given the information they need, under the rules, to make their decision. The rule was made for a reason.

Barboo

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!

Geoffrey Collier

Michael mcgough: I mean 'significant capital movement' a significance emanating from the amount. The accounting methods in the past have not been advantageous for the membership, and one more beneficial and cost-effective is possible.

Mark Croucher: Information about this matter could be disseminated in the Independence. Secondly, only those regions to which the error applies would need new papers. The regions are clearly stated on the voting papers. Differentiating the new voting papers from the original ones, where necessary, could be effected by a change of colour. Incidentally, are we being told that the 'sequential numbers' on the voting papers, have not in the past, been subject to an optical reader? A common piece of office equipment. How have, 'double-voting' risks been monitored in the past?

When the NEC and Political Committee, agreed to allow Christoppher Gill to go on holiday, and not even a replacement was deemed necessary, that was a grievour error, was it not? Wouldn't it have been wise to request from the printer 'proof samples' prior to a full production? Rather than refuting my criticism, you are producing evidence in abundance which supports my case.

mrabody

Mark

You clearly haven't thought through the possible ramifications of the party's failure to follow the procedures that have been set out.

It is entirely reasonable that some, and perhaps many people may change their vote based on the knowledge that some of the candidates are standing in more than one region. Some members may feel that such a candidate is not committed to their region. Others might feel that they are wasting their vote should that candidate choose to stand on the list in the other region.

Secondly, there is a widespread feeling amongst party activists that Marta Andreasen is the anointed of the party leadership. This is reinforced when people known to be close to Nigel lavish praise on her, and even more so when the Chairman of one of the hustings does likewise at the husting, an honour accorded no other candidate.

Like Ray, I have heard that it was known last week, before the ballots went out that the pertinant information had not been included, but that it was decided not to bother in correcting the error

Unfortunately, many members and activists will feel that the rules are being bent in favour of a particular candidate, whatever the truth of the matter. Even if it is simply a **** up it will still leave a cloud over the process, and it will engender bad will. And it is unfair to those involved, including Marta. She is a capable woman and rumours that rules were bent to get her to the top of the list (I happen to think that she is entirely capable of getting to the top on her own merits) will tarnish that achievement.

Now imagine a scenario where Marta comes second on the list, but very close behind her are three other candidates, (lets call them candidates A, B, and C) all separated by a few points. It isn't a stretch to imagine that they will all feel cheated. And because voters may have voted very differently if they knew that Marta was standing elsewhere and because each voter's thought process is unique, we cannot know where these other candidates would have placed on the list if the information had been made available to the members. To some members it might have made no difference and their ballots would have remained unchanged. However to some members it might have been reason enough not to vote for her, thereby moving candidates A, B, and C, up one place each on those respective ballots. It may have influenced some members to drop her one place farther down the list. Since each list is different this could potentially benefit A, B, or C or none of them at all depending on where they were placed on that individual ballot. Some members might not have voted for A, B, or C but in dropping Marta off the list made a space available for one of them. Of course this is all compounded when you recall that Victor Webb is another South East candidate also standing in London and that the same uncertainty affects his votes as well. Basically it is impossible to know what the members would do if all the information was presented to them.

You forget that getting onto the MEP list is not a cheap process. We have paid £250 for the privelege of being able to contest the list and are expected to pay a further £800 towards the election deposit if we make the list. Have you considered that, consideration having been given, a contract has been formed between the candidates and the party and that it is open for any disgruntled candidate to refuse pay the £800 election deposit now because the balloting procedure has been compromised and the contract breached?
Have you considered how much that could potentially cost the party?

Go give your head a shake and think it over a little more carefully.

__________________
Drew Belobaba,
UKIP PPC for Lewes
Almost as unelectable as Raymond Finch!

Aardvark

On the basis of knowing that people were on 2 ballots, from this forum, I removed Mr Webb from my choices, albeit very low down, and favoured another candidate. I suspect I would not have been alone in making that decision.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008