GTFC_Adam

http://www.vote-nikki.com/index_files/Page592.htm

Could we seriously do this? Many Lib Dem councillors have defected to us over the last few years - but the Lib Dems haven't tried so get those seats back through the courts.

TomPhil

There's a difference between a council election, where you vote for the candidate, and the European of London Assembly elections, where all of our candidates were elected on a party list basis; ie. on people voting for the party, rather than the individual.

Morally the seats should return to us if someone defects, as nobody voted for RKS or any of the others, and by no longer representing UKIP, the party that people did vote for, they no longer have any mandate to be where they are. Legally I sincerely doubt that we would be successful in reclaiming the seats. It could be costly and embarrassing.

__________________
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

In Labour we trusted and now we are busted... again. It's the economy, stupid.

Independent UKIP

I don't have a copy of the ballot papers but strongly recall that the candidates for each party were listed on it in order. Therefore it was very clear that in London (where I am) a vote for UKIP would lead to first Hockney, second Hulme-Cross, third easily checkable but don't currently remember. Point being that no voter knew how many UKIP candidates would gain seats but every UKIP voter knew that Hockney would get the first seat etc. Any voter who opposed Hockney as a candidate could not have voted UKIP as a party as their vote directly led to him being elected.

This issue has of course been endlessly debated on this forum a long time ago. I don't have any particular views on Ms Sinclaire but this sounds like a bit of electioneering on her part that will be quietly dropped when she employs a better lawyer if she wins.

Petrina

The NEC have already looked into this question in detail .We obtained a silk`s opinion (QC) on the matter .

The fact is that it is we could not be in any way certain that that such an action would succeed.
We also inquired of the Lord Chancellors Dept ( or whatever they call it these days ) and their lawyers took the view that once elected to these offices the holders can hang onto them come what may.

Not very promising .Indeed if we had taken action we could have bankrupted the Party if we had lost .

Nikki is not a qualified lawyer .the action which she took against the Party was on a straightforward point which the Party`s lawyers unfortunately got wrong .She had Zuckerman advising her so she wasn`t all alone .

Whilst I think we all agree that morally these people should have handed the posts back unless we want to take a leap in the dark it will have to stay as it is .

SponPlague

Miscarriages of justice are complicated - here's a recent example...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm

Nikki Sinclaire

It is my strong beleif that this action could succeed. The 1999 European Elections Act clearly states that an elector would vote for a 'party'. The ballot form in the 2004 election clearly said 'vote for one party only.' Unlike a Westminster/Coulcil election where the legislation/balot paper says vote for a 'candidate'.

I have sought opinions from various lawyers and legal academics who all support my view. Remember legislation is interpreted in certain ways for years until it is challenged then it can take a whole new meaning.

It is my opinion that there was not the political will in UKIP to take such a action. If this action succeeded the MEP's could be removed by the party therefore significantly shifting the balance of power.

Petrina, no doubt, unintentionally has given incorrect information. I was not advised or assisted in anyway by Mike Zuckerman. I am a law graduate.
Indeed in that particular case the party sought Petrina's advice - which proved to be way off the mark.

Petrina

Sorry Nikki it is you who is way of the mark .

I advised the party not to appeal your case because I knew we would lose ,it was such an obvious point .

The case was already over in the High Court by the time I came on the scene. I believe that Nattrass understandably quibbled at paying the solicitors who advised the Party.
Michael Zuckerman himself told me he advised you on your case so you had better take it up with him .

Perhaps you would like to ask Michael Z to look at your lawyers` advice.

chikrodah

Before this thread turns into a highly entertaining bitchfest regarding historical internal party matters, could both candidates remember that we are communicating in an open forum.

:roll:

I am not convinced that Ms. Sinclaire has been best served by her legal advice. Notwithstanding the interesting academic point raised here,

it also appears that the Secretary of State could call for a by-election:

I'm not sure if UKIP is best served by pressing the point.

There's also the issue of how Ms. Sinclaire's 'victims' are likely to respond. Mote is unlikely to give in gracefully; he has an application (published in the Official Journal) which challenges the waiver of immunity.

Perhaps there are other things Ms. Sinclaire can be judged on insofar as her leadership qualities are concerned?

Mikeuk

There is no substitute for counsel's considered opinion, as opposed to vague talk about what some unspecified lawyer may or may not have said. Election law is an extremely specialised area.

Unless a formal opinion has already been obtained I think it is very dangerous for promises of this sort to be made by any candidate.

If UKIP were to embark upon the legal adventure in uncharted territory now proposed I suspect the end result would be an enormous bill which the party might not even be able to meet. :twisted:

C_steam

boo hiss! I was hoping it'd turn into the mud wrestling option.... ops: