C_steam

Intbel, I think no-one is impugning any Ashford employees or making any accusations of impropriety to those at the centre.

Ashford was succesful in raising money and increasing memberships - no argument.

The issue, as I understand it, is at a higher level, and regards income in V income declared and given to the party. There may be a gap. There may be a shortfall - the trouble is no one knows as nothing appears to have been audited.

That, I think, is the only issue. If you could point an internet finger, metaphorically speaking, at the location of a set of audited 'books' then so much the better, at least it would put paid to rumours such as "the fact that out of over £110,000 collected in memberships fees less than £15,000 ever reached UKIP during one period"

Intbel

I'll have a word tomorrow and find out what I can.

Though I don't see a problem, for even if no funds reached UKIP that would not be a problem for it was set up to generate members, not funds.
Any funds passed to UKIP were a bonus.

There is no gap; there is no shortfall.

Whatever, I'll find out what I can and see if this matter can not be laid to rest once and for all.

One thing of which I am certain: Ashford was NOT closed due to inneficiency or unprofibility.

Colin McNamee

Thank you for the explanation. Not previously aware of much of your explanation.

Will watch this thread for your response to your above reply to C_steam..

One Londoner

The problem is, Intbel, that this is not how Ashford was sold to the NEC, who were under the impression that Ashford was to be a major source of income for the party in the run-up to the 2004 Euro-election. The London telesales operation was closed down in October 2003 on the grounds that, although it was profitable, we were told it was not profitable enough. We were paying comnmercial rates for office space and agency rates for telesales staff. Ashford was rent-free, kitted out free of charge (courtesy of Alan Bown) and a limited company was set up to act as the employer, thus saving on agency fees. Of course the other unstated reason for closing the London telesales operation was that it was under the control of the Party Treasurer, so profits were flowing direct to Head Office.

The other problem, which is now coming home to roost, is that members cost money to service. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that if membership trebles (as it reputedly did between 2003 and June 2004), so will your postage costs. We pointed out at the time (and were vilified for it) that membership subs for three and five years in advance needed to be accounted for correctly. There are accounting conventions for these situations which need to be complied with. I suspect that the current hiatus in getting the accounts audited may have something to do with this.

John Page

If that was the basis on which it was set up - and it seems from One Londoner's post that there is room for dispute - then Ashford should only have dealt with the hard cases, where approaches by post and by branch chairmen had failed.

And that wouldn't exclude the NEC from revisiting the business case and reviewing the criteria.

So the retentions do become relevant, and I look forward to you publishing the numbers.

One last thought - did you argue in an earlier post that phone was a more cost effective way of obtaining renewals than post?

That would obviously be affected by how much the phone operation sent in to UKIP.

One Londoner

John, it was never envisaged at the outset that telesales would be used for renewals. The call centre set-up was purely for "new business", so apart from the cumulative effect on the cost of servicing new members I mention above, there would have been no immediate impact on current income.

On the other hand, renewal subs formed the bulk of the party's regular income. It is no wonder that the party has run into financial problems if this source of revenue was diverted away from Head Office. When assessing any figures it would be essential to differentiate between the two distinct income streams.

Intbel

Okay, some facts:

In two and a half years Ashford took eleven thousand memberships.

It totally funded its own operation including telephone costs.
Every expense it incurred it covered by/with its own efforts.

18.67% of income raised went to party/campaign funds.
That 18.67% = £100,000 give or take a few pounds.

(Incidentally, John Whittaker's report on Preston - September 2005 - showed that Preston sent only 15% of its income to party/campaign funds and this in spite of its income not funding its operation.)

Accounts for the Ashford office were both internally and externally audited and were, up to the end of August 2005, incorporated into the South East accounts.

From September 2005 the accounts are/will be incorporateded into Head Office accounts.

Ashford was never set up as an accounting unit with regards to the Electoral Commission.

All the above information has been freely available to anyone who cared to ask.
Indeed, Anthony Butcher, among others, received this information some time back but for whatever reason commented not.

To anyone concerned about non-compliance with accounting conventions all necessary conventions have been observed.

For further information call 01233 631133 where you can speak to someone more knowledgeable than I.

Several times I have suggested folks actually call Ashford and get the facts first hand - they do not.

Mebbe they don't really want to hear the truth, preferring to go along with and repeat unfounded rumours?

Certainly, from some of the inane questions being received at Ashford it seems folks are seeking dirt where none exists.

I repeat, Ashford Call Centre was run down and closed not for reasons of efficiency or profitability.

C_steam

Good, informative answer IB.

Hartlepool

Thats first rate,thank you.

Colin McNamee

Interesting, thank you.

I understand that responsibilty for Ashford was taken on by UKIP. Went 'through' the NEC retrospectively. Wonder why that was ?