John Page

This thread is odd. You offer to get information, provide us with titbits (some of them criticising other operations), and when your numbers raise questions you don't seem to have the answers immediately.

I'm guessing therefore that you don't have the full facts but are being fed selected bits of information. So why not ask

1. Repeating a question I asked before, when you say "In two and a half years Ashford took eleven thousand memberships", do you mean it recruited 11,000 members through its own initiative? If not, what do you or your source mean?

2. How much of the £535,000 Ashford raised came from new members it recruited on its own initiative?

3. You say Ashford was set up to recruit new members. It solicited me for a donation and I can't have been the only one. Why? How much of the money it took came from renewals and donations?

4. If you have the full figures, how did Ashford manage to get through £435,000 in costs?

You said

But you also said

But you'd said above that the centre was unviable if it couldn't call existing members. That sits uneasily with your view that it was "a major UKIP asset". Which is right?

Clearly you don't want an operation calling up members if the party is going to get under 19% of the money raised. You say Ashford were told not to call members - but they called me a few months ago.

You are the one calling Ashford "a major UKIP asset". If I understand your case correctly, "it was set up to generate members, not funds". It "took eleven thousand memberships" [new memberships?], so on the face of it that's just over £48.50 per "membership", and it passed roughly £9 of this to the party. Is that right?

I didn't have a problem with Ashford before you started demanding that the NEC should publicly justify its closure decision to you. Thanks to your explanations and the selected numbers you have revealed, I now do.

However, unlike you I do not expect the NEC to provide line by line justifications. Indeed, it seems to me the burden of proof lies with the person challenging the decision of the elected NEC. It is not up to me to make phone calls to make your case! Indeed, the information you've presented suggests to me a pretty strong prima facie case for closure.

This turns on

- How Ashford raised its money; and
- How the costs were made up.

I think you have been unwise to bring your numbers into a public forum, but they're out now.

I wonder - was Ashford a success, a muddle, or a scandal?

Intbel

Maybe - I'll not fear saying what is true.
At the same time, some details are most definitely not for public consumption which is why I suggest calling the Ashford office.

You want to make a case - get the full details first.

John Page

No, you're the one who set out to make a case. I accept the NEC's closure decision.

I'm inviting you to explain some apparent gaps and contradictions in your case!

Intbel

I have no further input..
As far as I was concerned the matter was closed some time back and I only posted in response to summat someone wrote.

The N.E.C which is, we are told, responsible for making the decision to close, has yet to give a reason for the closure.

I think we are entitled to a reason, don't you?
If not, then the N.E.C. can do wtf it likes with zero accountability, can it not?

This is what I find unacceptable.

Tell folks why it was closed ... then I'll be a li'l happier ...

Colin McNamee

deleted

SponPlague

Here's my maths 101:

11,000 mmberships in 2.5 years raised £100K for party coffers.

So pro rata, that's an average of 4,400 members/ annum and £40k / annum.

One of the promises of annual membership is 6 issues of Independence. I'm sure our own printing press isn't up to producing it, so I accept we need external help, and therefore Mark Croucher's 20K/ issue cost.

Around 20K/ issue, with around 20K members = 1£/ issue/ member.

4,400 new members means £4,400/ issue, therefore, and with 6 issues/ year, that's £26,400 - more than half the 40K for Independence alone.

So, If the memberships are multi-year, i.e. you don't get the £40K for them next year but they're still members, then we've made a loss, and no wonder the NEC are gunning for Ashford. No wonder, also, that the party treasurers were reportedly unhappy... :roll:

QED? Over to you, Intbel...

Intbel

I refer you to my previous post ...

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

Akebono

Correction and the wording of Bell (inter) is a not to be embraced.

Some fax (facts)

1.) The fax machine WAS not on lease and all of the paper and ink was paid for out of HO coffers and co-signed by Smith even though he thought it was a BT slip!

2.) The carpet was grey.

3.) Telephones were manned on a regular basis from 8.30 until well, well - if the election was in the offering then Nigel would say to Pellina, "Hello Chair can we do something to improve the way things may be done ?" They get together with DD and he was and is MOST confused. They chuckled and gurgled and the meeting was rarely ajourned.

4.) Point 3 was on Sunday.

5.) The 12 MEPs were elected.

6.) Er, that's it.

Live long and prosper to be inside the tunnel on Maida Vale.

Britannist ,Sir (?) you have a vote and may use it. Lippy.

Akebono

Katie is and may be right to say, Enough and Listen"


She wore the best scarf and in the annual winner and best-runners up the speech she thought of giving was a better way to get on the platform at the conference in Bristol and see RKS say "I am a man who has a suit and freshly-cleaned shoes that Rodney likes"

It may be over but 12 MEPs will be on the gate in 2009.

On the way and Bellatrix you like Pulp Fiction.