C_steam

ROTFLMAO

Brilliant one liner.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

C_steam

I'm struggling to see spon and JW's point here.

The above is pretty clear and leaves, rightly, some wriggle room - "NORMALLY comprise" and "who MAY be elected members"

There are, currently, 12 members plus 2 ex officio (who don't count for this discussion). The 12 are NF, Bannerman, Oxley, Z'man, Bown, DED, Del, Gill, Abbott, Edmond, Seymour, Duffy.

So in this case the fact that the party leader is an elected member AS WELL as being the elected party leader falls squarely into the first sentence of the above, surely, and so no problem.

The fact that the elected leader of the party is also an MEP is, in my view, not a problem and the precedence of the rules as written should apply. The alternative is that the party leader would not be on the NEC because (only) he is an MEP - which would clearly be nonsense.

Judgement - on this one JW is on a loser.

__________________
--------------------------------------------------

Users on ignore list: None. I've got to have people to laugh at.
Cowardly Posters* list: BobFM, Bellatrix.*People who post personal insults then refuse to reply

.

SponPlague

Firstly, the objection to Lisa, as I understand it, is that her candidacy made no mention that partner is a UKIP RO - and the name didn't give this away either. If people had known who her partner was, it might have affected voting intentions. That's how I read what John and co. are saying, I may be wrong.

As for Nigel, he was elected, as I have posted, under the old constitution. Undser the new one, he wouldn't have been, because of being an MEP. If the intention was that members serve their term of office and drop off, then the NEC should be between 12 and 15 strong until people rotate off.

The history page on ukip.org says

but we can all start by agreeing that's wrong, can't we

People are claiming that it's 12 members now, that means the transitional period should be over by now. I strongly suspect that some NEC members were unhappy about the state of the revised constitution as put to members - but that's water under the bridge; they voted on it.

Remember, i am not suggesting Nigel should be off the NEDC, merely that he should not, under the new constitution, be depriving an elected member from 2007 or 2008 theie due place.

It's sloppy thinking like this by the NEC that led to all the 2000 nasty business, with a vote of no-confidence in the whole NEC being passedm and I do not want to see that again if it can be avoided!

SponPlague

Sorry, C_Steam, Nigel is not there "only as an MEP" - he's there under the leader section:

A copy of the constitution is is there for reference at the top of this area - why do people find it so hard to follow?

Independent UKIP

If that is so and I have no evidence to the contrary then it is even worse than I had previously conceived. Persons, West and/or others, are seeking to have Duffy's election to the NEC disqualified not because of any rules concerning NEC elections or rules within the constitution of the party but because a certain relationship exists between two human beings. If true I am disgusted. Of what relevance is the surname of an NEC candidate to the UKIP of 2008 that it could result in persons suggesting that a successful NEC candidate should be disqualified?

What is your view on this Spon Plague?

That is your personal view which is perfectly legitimate. Where does the UKIP constitution or the internal party rules say that?

I've said nothing on this before but we appear to have John West using your personal views on what you think should happen as part of an official submission by him to the UKIP Party Secretary which he, Dr Whittaker is meant to take seriously.

The next paragaph of what Dr Whittaker is meant to take seriously says,

It is not the job of Whittaker to try to make sense of verbiage such as this, in my opinion. Reading between the lines it is the duty of West to provide the proof for these claims or apologise if he is unable to do so.

Anthony Butcher

The same happened in 2006 (I think), but there were indeed supposed to be five and not four people elected. Hence I wouldn't read anything in to that - UKIP is not noted for being on top of the details.

I think that JW should give up now. Even if he has an arguable case, it will be a cold day in hell before Farage lets him on to the NEC. As DD has said many times before, UKIP's constitution is only regarded as a guide and the NEC can vote on whatever and whomever they like (and they do - RS for example), so JW will never be on the NEC. All that can happen from here is more arguments and stress for those involved.

__________________
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

I recall Fanny Craddock changed her name so it was quite clear she was with Johnny, even if not married. I see noreason why her election address could not have mentioned or clarify that she was RO Peter Reeve's partner. That would have stopped this whole argument dead. I don't bother about such things, but some voters do. That's life.

I'm not the one seeking to challenge her election - with her YI work, I thought she'd make a good NEC member, and have seen no evidence to doubt that, yet...

They don't. Because the NEC at the time made no clear rules for how the NEC formulated under the old constitution should migrate to that under the new. Nigel's place is safe, as I'm repeating ad nauseam, and we all know the NEC are overworked, so two years after the new constitution was voted on, I think it's fair to say they should legally take on an extra member.

SponPlague

BTW Nigel could have said: "If elected, and the new constitution is ratified, as I am an MEP, I will remain on the NEC, but give up my elected place for the next on list". Easy and unambiguous, that

Mark Croucher

Rob, I've got no problem with you, and as far as I recall we've always got on, but with the best will in the world, IF my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle. What declarations should people, in your opinion, be required to make because it may have an effect upon people's voting intentions? Their race? Sexual orientation? Whether they are a single parent? Surely this can not be right. Voters must, as in any election, make their choice on the abilities of the candidate as presented in their blurb and their performance at hustings, not based upon who they sleep with, or what colour they are. She is either a good candidate or she isn't: that is surely it.

rgds

Mark

SponPlague

I never said otherwise, Mark. I clearly said it was no problem for me. I'm merely saying, having been specifically asked my opinion, that some people take a contrary stance. I'm not one of them...

BTW I recall we always got on, too - you're sadly missed...