Lawrie Boxall

Paul, I have never said that Roger's election was not valid only that it was not an election in the normal sense, which it was not. To merely state that he was elected does not tell the whole story and to say his election was unopposed does indeed imply a strong mandate. It is is exactly for these reasons that I think it is important, especially for new members, to understand what actually happened.

Paul Birch

Because it is crucial (a) that people who are engaged in electioneering know what an election is; (b) that people are not deceived INTO phpbb_thinking there is something unfair about elections where only one candidate chooses to stand; and because (c) people who claim that so-and-so is unelected are almost invariably attacking the legitimacy of so-and-so's position (vide "the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels").

Paul Birch

So tell them what happened. Who's stopping you? Just don't lie about it by pretending there was no election, or that the election was abnormal. It was a normal election, in the normal socio-political sense, under the rules of UKIP and the laws and usages of the UK. It is even the norm in a statistical sense; a greater number of elections take place with a single unopposed candidate than are ever contested. In most societies and voluntary organisations - and at least at branch level within political parties - that is the rule rather than the exception.

Tom Wilde

Forgive me for intruding, but this is purely a debate about terminology at present, and not worth the passion it is apparently stirring.

1) All agree about the facts of Knapman's elevation to the leadership. Paul calls it an uncontested election. Lawrie is more inclined to say that an uncontested election isn't an election at all. But so long as the facts are clear, who cares about the label?

2) All agree that Knapman's elevation to the leadership was in accordance with party rules.

3) All agree that uncontested elections are (unfortunately) not uncommon, inside or outside the party.

4) All agree that Knapman would probably have become leader even if there had been a contest.

5) Most of us agree (and nobody seems to be strongly disputing) that despite (4) above, it would have been better if there had been a contest.

We agree on so much, it is astonishing! 8) Can we not put aside the point about what to call an 'election' with only one candidate? If Paul and Lawrie want to fall out, there are so many substantive issues about which they could have a real slanging match, and that would be far more intellectually stimutlating for the rest of us.

Incidentally, I propose (6) that in future we should ensure that there is ALWAYS a contested election whenever the leadership is up grabs, even if it means a no-hope candidate standing. Anyone want to dispute this?

Paul Birch

No, I don't think we can. Elections are our business. We must understand the correct terminology. If we don't we make ourselves look as stupid and ignorant as the farmer who claims that all milk comes from cows or that Granny Smiths' aren't really apples - the sort of thing that seriously damages our electoral chances as our rivals sneer at our amateurishness.

Look at it another way. Why should anyone continue to resist the use of the correct terminology, if no substantive issue is affected? Is there some merit in being stubbornly wrong? Now, if the law's usage were ambiguous; if there were legal or even literary precedent for denying that anyone can be elected unopposed, then we might have to re-think the definitions; but I know of no such precedents, and I do know that the standard usage is as I have stated; single candidate elections (as distinct from appointments or co-options) are indeed elections, in law and in substance.

How? Should the rule book dictate who is to be forced to stand against his will? Will it be every member's duty to stand - and if so how do we enforce this or cope with the thousands of candidates? Or are you just hoping that some conveniently small number of people will independently decide to stand? Or is the NEC or some high-up cabal to fix it up between themselves to put forward a few token candidates? Sorry, but there are good reasons why elections are run the way they are, with the number of candidates unknown in advance and thus not infrequently numbering only one.

Anyway, I don't agree that a contested election is better than an uncontested one; I think the opposite may be closer to the truth.

B.A.Ware

I agree with tom what you are arguing about is a personnel difference on views of what is an election and what it isn’t who the bloody hell cares. move on and argue about something that is relevant that we can all participate in.

eublues

I can't say I remember any experienced politicians or journalists referring to Michael Howard at the time being 'elected' as leader of the Conservatives - or did they?

Bluemerle

Michael Howard was chosen by the Parliamentary Party to lead the Conservatives. They deliberately got rid of IDS as he was heading UKIP's way.

They went against the Constitution which Hague brought in whereby all members voted for the leader.

Incidentally, I had supper with Oliver Letwin around the time of the Leadership election and I asked him why they didn't give the membership the choice of all 5 people standing, then they might have had a different result. He told me they had made a mistake. He also said they he couldn't work with Clark, but he didn't think IDS was electable although they were great friends. I told him they didn't give us much choice, perhaps an extra line with "NONE OF THE ABOVE" would have been a good idea. He just laughed.

Tom Wilde

I think I'm with Shaky Bill on this one: "A rose by any other name doth smell as sweet."

If we're dealing in an official capacity with returning officers etc we have to use their terminology correctly. If we are just discussing things here, among ourselves, then all that matters is that we are clear in what we say.