Paul Birch

I take your point, but your claim isn't actually true: ordinary members were not "denied a choice". Each and every one of them had the option of contesting the election by standing themselves or nominating another candidate. Instead, they chose unanimously to elect Knapman rather than put up another candidate. If anyone regrets that choice they should contest the next election in due season, not moan about the last one.

Lawrie Boxall

Maybe an uncontested election is "an election in the normal sense" in some peoples view of the world. It is not in mine. To just say Roger was elected leaves out quite a bit of information so I think a qualification is necessary. I can accept that Roger was "elected by default because others withdrew".

I agree it would have been better to have an election. Had the NEC acted wisely we would have remained nuetral and not signed his nomination.

Paul Birch

You are still refusing to face up to the truth: there was an election. Knapman was elected unopposed.

If you won't believe that the normal sense of election in politics is as I have stated, ask the Electoral Commission or the Standards Board for England. They will give you long lists of local councillors who have been elected unopposed. I am one myself. A "quality council" must be composed of elected, not coopted, members; uncontested elections though are entirely acceptable.

Anthony Butcher

Do we agree that Roger Knapman would most likely have been elected even if their had been other candidates?

Paul Birch

In preference to prospective candidates like Damien Hockney or to some random grass-roots activist, certainly. Maybe Nigel Farage (if he had wished to stand) or Maggie Thatcher (if she had joined UKIP) might have had a better chance!

C_steam

As far as I am concerned Knapman became Leader fairly under the circumstances. How much behind the scenes manouvering went on is a matter of conjecture - this is an issue where opinion seems to hold more weight than fact!

Anyway, leader he became, and UKIP undoubedly moved forward.

The issue is whether that momentum was carried on - I think the answer has to be 'no' and hence the main cause of the issues with Kilroy. Other factors contribute - the attitude of the NEC, poor organisation and visibility and so on. Many have left, perhaps reading more INTO phpbb_these amateur errors than was justified, or perhaps reading between the lines and discovering the truth. Time will tell.

The ones who remain, if only for the time being out of a sense of loyalty, await action and, failing that, the blood bath that will ensue after the next election if (when??) UKIP do poorly.

Either way, UKIP will be a very different animal come October of this year. (and yes, 'dead' is one way for the animal to become different - but let's hope not)

Lawrie Boxall

Quite a few points to answer.

Paul, even you have now had to use the terminology that Roger was elected unopposed - as opposed to just saying he was elected. That's progress I suppose but hardly tells the full story. Not to worry because I have been able to do that even though I hold myself partly to blame for not making sure there was an election back then.

And it's not the case that I don't believe you when you say it happens all the time. I do believe you - in fact I even know through personal experience that it does happen regularly on Parish Councils for example. Not that I have ever stood for a Parish Council or ever would. However I would not agree that makes it normal. Common maybe but not normal. Call me old fashioned but I believe a normal election is one where 2 or more candidates put forward their views and the electorate casts its vote. Even you would have to admit that would be the normal course of events I think - for an election.

Whether you agree or not, I am going to be terribly boring and will continue to point out to anyone who believes that Roger was elected, the actual circumstances of that election. So we can look forward to more of these discussions.

It's nice to know that you don't think I am lying. I'm not, I am giving you my opinion. I have no personal vendetta against Roger or Nigel but this is politics and we must be free to express our opinions. I left UKIP so that I would be free to do just that and I see no reason why I should not from time to time place my views on their stewardship of UKIP before the members. (Actually I am getting rather bored with it so their may be a break in transmission).

As to whether I am an ignoramus or not Paul, all I can only say is, it takes one to know one.

In reply to Anthony, yes I agree that had there been a normal election Roger would almost certainly have won. There always has to be that small uncertainty though - but I would probably have voted for him.

Paul Birch

He was elected. And he was elected unopposed. Both statements are true. Any statement that there was no election would be false.

If anything, to be elected unopposed implies a stronger mandate, since it implies unanimity (at least the unanimity of no contest).

There was an election!

Then why are you refusing to accept the fact that an election with only a single candidate is still an election? It seems to me that you are obdurately trying to distort the meaning of the word in order to cast undeserved doubt on the legitimacy of Knapman's election, out of pique at what (rightly or wrongly) you consider his faults as a leader. An unopposed election is wholly legitimate - in no way inferior in law or justice to a contested election. In my book it is ethically and pragmatically superior, because there are no losers. But whether better or worse, both forms of election are valid.

I don't call you old-fashioned (single candidate elections have been known throughout history). I call you wrong. In error. An election is merely a process whereby one or more candidates put themselves forward (or are put forward) for selection to an office (or for a purpose); that is the normal sense of the word, and the sense used in law for political office. Consequently it is the sense we ought to be using. There is nothing remotely abnormal about elections in which there is only a single candidate and in which the electors may therefore forego voting (in some such cases the electors may still be asked to vote to approve the selection, but such a procedure is a lot less common, since it leads to difficulties if the single candidate is not approved).

Bryan Parry

So Batten admits that Knapman is weak and we would have had Kilroy effectively controlling from the shadows. I am not twisting his words, it merely takes actually reading what he says to come to that conclusion. what can I say? Rather disappointed on reading this to be honest.

Bryan Parry

Paul, why are you being such a pedant for? Surely your argument is side-stepping the issues being raised by Lawrie.