I've been receiving this correspondence too. I can't believe how rude the party chairman is being. Here's the rest of them -
Quote:
Petrina,
Many thanks for your reply. Of course if you assure me there have been no secret deals, I accept that. Very glad to hear it!
I'm afraid I still have some serious concerns, though. When we voted in the last NEC elections, we were told that we were voting for the party's highest managing body, and that all party undertakings had to be approved first by the NEC. Now you say that information is being witheld from the NEC by the leadership.
Can you clear up a very straightforward question - how can the NEC be responsible for approving party undertakings if they don't know what they are?
Regards
|
To which she replies -
Quote:
I am delighted that you accept that there are no secret deals, perhaps in future you will learn not to scare monger in this fashion.
As to your last question , as I said in a previous email ,those who objected to the information being
kept under wraps were in a minority in the NEC.If it were ever the majority who so objected then David Lott`s Campaign team would have to discuss the matter with the NEC .For the moment the majority appear content to leave it to David Lott.
An outline of possible tactics has already been given to the NEC by Michael Harvey.
We are probably about 5 months away from the General Election maybe less.A lot can happen in that space of time ,plans have to be kept flexible ,and kept quiet.
We are only at the planning stage ,there are no undertakings for the NEC to approve as yet.
yours sincerely,
Petrina Holdsworth
|
Then he replies, very reasonably -
Quote:
Petrina,
Thanks for your reply, which unfortunately fails to answer my question. Obviously the NEC has to approve of the Campaign Team's plans before they can be put INTO phpbb_action. So again my question is - How can the NEC approve of the Campaign Team's plans if they don't know what they are?
You claim that the party leadership are entitled to withold information from the NEC because only a minority have objected. As Party Chairman you should know that the leadership must provide any information requested by any member of the NEC. It doesn't matter if it's one member or all fifteen. Why was the information refused?
You said "an outline of possible tactics has already been given to the NEC by Michael Harvey". I work with Michael Harvey at the London Assembly, and he doesn't know what you're referring to. Do you mean John Harvey?
Regards
|
Then this outburst -
Quote:
thank you for your continued concern on behalf of the NEC. I have no doubt that they can look after themselves, if there are any questions re this matter on Monday then I am sure we can deal with that without being lectured by you on what we can and cannot do.
I have a question to ask of you .Have you circulated the fact that you have accepted the position that there have been no secret deals?This is after all what this exchange of emails is primarily about or are you happy to leave people with the impression from you that urgent action is still callled for to stop these imaginary deals being hatched by us with our phantom Tory friends?
yours sincerely,
Petrina Holdsworth
|
This is the last one I got -
Quote:
Petrina,
As I said in a previous email, I accept your assurances that there have been no secret deals. All our correspondence has been sent to the people my original email was copied to.
I have very serious concerns about information being unlawfully witheld from the NEC, I thought the Party Chairman would be prepared to answer my questions. As you chair NEC meetings I assumed you could clarify the rules on witholding information. I'm deeply disappointed that you have failed to answer my questions, and by your very insulting tone throughout. I now realise there's no point continuing this correspondence.
I said in an earlier email I wasn't part of any campaign for a leadership election. I am now.
|
The guy's name is Daniel Moss.