One Londoner

I am not criticising you or the staff at Ashford, Intbel, but these figures illustrate the sheer folly of what you were asked to do - ie. to massively increase membership numbers in a short space of time without proper financial provision being made (again, not your fault). This is a classic case of overtrading and has led to the downfall of many small but rapidly expanding businesses.

Assuming these figures all relate to NEW members, Head Office now has to service 11,000 extra members and received £100k. I don't know how many signed up for three or five years, but even on a conservative estimate that the average membership period is two years, this means less than five pounds per annum per member. And this assumes that all the £100k went into general funds, which clearly it did not, as you say some (I suspect most!) went on campaigning.

Add to this the fact that these people were called repeatedly for donations so were naturally unlikely to cough up to local appeals for funds (and don't forget that branches also have increased costs in mailing this influx of new members).

You may well say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but these things were predicted (indeed papers were written on the subject) by several of us (curiously no longer in the party) throughout 2003 and early 2004.

Intbel

The figures demonstrate how successful was the operation.
£100,000 to UKIP funds (how UKIP allocated those funds, whether to campaigns or whatever is immaterial) plus 11,000 members.

Considering taking memberships was the goal and not fundraising I consider it a complete success especially as Ashford covered all its costs.

What is the point you are making here, please?

I still do not understand what is the point you wish to make here.

I am still at a loss to understand what you are driving at.
Anyway, as you have dissasociated yourself from UKIP I don't even understand what concern it is of yours?

One Londoner

Members cost money to service, Intbel.

I don't know how to spell it out any simpler.

According to Mark Croucher, Independence News costs £20k per issue. Where do you think the money comes from if not from membership subs?

Local branches do mailouts and pay for the printing and postage out of branch funds. If the membership more than doubles the cost of a mailout also increases. If there is no increase in donations there is a problem.

I'm not sure which bit you don't understand.

Intbel

Now we have our own printing press costs should be less.
Subs can not pay for everything - it is impossible, no matter how they are allocated.

It is up to branches to do their own fundraising.
Of course, if they think an operations such as that which was at Ashford inhibited their fund-raising efforts then perhaps they could be left alone and also increase their own memberships?

To get 11,000 membeships costs money - prior to Ashford branches were not increasing memberships and were not raising much in the way of funds either.

No doubt you may be able to cite one or two examples - there are always exceptions. I am talking overall.

What I don't understand is how you can say it was not successful.
Sounds like sour grapes from the London Mob to me ...
Anyway, no longer any of your concern, is it?
Re-joining UKIP and being useful would have more value than sitting outside passing ill-informed judgement one might think.

Dunno why I am even responding ...

Intbel

Something to do with ends and means and justification?

From the moment it was under the control of UKIP ... that is, as soon as it became part of the Head Office function, its ability to operate was severely curtailed, bit by bit, until its demise.

The driving force behind this coup?
Ask the NEC ... I don't feel able to answer the question with any objectivity.

Alternatively, ring 01233 631133 ...

__________________
We are all free to choose - every step of the way - no exceptions.

Colin McNamee

Thank you.

John Page

I don't understand what this means.

Were there some renewals or were they all new memberships? Did Ashford pro-actively recruit these people, or did they convert incoming enquiries?

So Ashford retained some £430,000? Even after expenses I suspect that's quite a profit.

I had a call from Ashford a few months back soliciting a donation to support the "successful petition campaign" (whatever that was). So if I had given £100, UKIP would have got under £19?

If that's correct, I don't call it success. I call it a scandal.

Intbel

Good grief.
Ashford didn't "Make a profit"
Funds over and above expenses were given to HO.

Call the number given for any more info.

__________________
We are all free to choose - every step of the way - no exceptions.

John Page

It spent £435,000 in two and a half years and only made £100,000?

Good grief indeed.

I still think £19 of a £100 donation going to UKIP (if I have understood correctly) is a scandal. Have I misunderstood?

Intbel

Knock of six months.
Since Ashford being taken over by H.O. with the relevant restrictions immediately placed upon it, there was a rapid decline to the point of Ashford being literally unable to operate - by design.

It's better than Preston's percentage (15%) which didn't even have to cover all its expenses out of income.

Go hassle Preston, or even Birmingham or have you a particular problem re Ashford?

Call 01233 631133 to have any remaining queries, you may have, resolved.

__________________
We are all free to choose - every step of the way - no exceptions.