michael mcgough

I would expect any new NEC member to make very sure about what any potential obligations were, so they could resign ASAP if needbe...


When Nigel stated that the questions had been answered satisfactorily I believe Richard replied 'they have been answered.'

Has Richard resigned?

John Page

Has your alleged NEC source resigned?

I'm finding the one-sidedness of your posts quite amusing now, so keep 'em coming

Colin McNamee

Are you implying they left because of the NEC?

Or, as with other members of whom I am aware who have left because of Nigel, Roger etc? ie the Leadership.

As you mention members leaving for Veritas, RKS left claimimg the Leadership was no good (or words to that effect). He was not refering to the NEC. Was he?

There is a difference, is there not, in questions being answered and answered satisfactorily? I made the distinction in my post because that was the exchange between Nigel and Richard.

In his answer it was Richard who pointed out 'bar three of them' whereas Nigel had said 'your questions have been answered satisfactorly.' Inference being all of them and to Richard's satisfaction. I took Richard's answer to mean 'not satisfactory' necessarily but answered, of course I could be mistaken as to the meaning.

Why should Richard resign on the basis of asking questions?

I repeat I have no knowledge of the questions but found the exchange from the platform at Exeter interesting.

michael mcgough

Why should Richard resign on the basis of asking questions?

I was just aligning Richard's apparent lack of satisfactory answers with the comments of sponplague.

I too have no knowledge of what the questions were although I understand them to number about 35 and I believe that some were about matters outside of the Treasurer's remit or about matters long before his tenure.

I wonder if Richard has posed his questions to the new Treasurer?

Anthony Butcher

Not true. Andrew didn't spend any time answering the questions until after he had left as treasurer. Richard's questions had absolutely no impact on the delay.

How many times are we going to hear the same boring, and slightly drippy, complaint? Asking financial questions of the treasurer is not insulting, especially from a new team on the 'board of directors', and especially given all of the rumours and accusations flying around before we got on to the NEC.

And no, the questions weren't answered properly or fully; certainly not to our satisfaction (which is not to say that Andrew Smith would/should have been able to answer them).

One Londoner

Indeed this is the second bogus reason given to explain away the failure to meet the statutory deadline for submission of audited accounts. The first was that branches were late in submitting their accounts, which have nothing whatsoever to do with Head Office accounts.

Since when did asking questions delay production of accounts? What matters is that the auditors give the accounts the "true and fair view" seal of approval. Any delay is likely to be because the auditors are not satisfied with the information supplied to them. One can speculate why, but I suspect the word "Ashford" is figuring prominently in the auditors' list of concerns. And who was the NEC member most closely involved with the Ashford operation? Would that be Nigel by any chance? :roll:

C_steam

If there were questions Andrew Smith could not answer - and perhaps there may be - where would it leave those who were cheque signatories?

Wouldn't they become embroiled too? If so, I'd guess they'd be pushing for farage and certainly not supporting suchorzewski.

michael mcgough

I see One Londoner,ex UKIP Party Secretary Michael Harvey a agrees with me that what matters is a clean audit report as I said on this forum some time ago.

And Andrew's departure isn't a bogus reason for a delay .Period.
If he had been shown more respect HE'd probably have stayed.

"which is not to say that Andrew Smith would/should have been able to answer them)." we've cleared that up now.

"How many times are we going to hear the same boring, and slightly drippy, complaint? " I just love your turn of phrase!

michael mcgough

"If there were questions Andrew Smith could not answer - and perhaps there may be - where would it leave those who were cheque signatories?

Wouldn't they become embroiled too? If so, I'd guess they'd be pushing for farage and certainly not supporting suchorzewski."


You've lost me on this one C-steam---please enlighten me

SponPlague

I believe it's the WHOLE NEC who are liable for party debts - not just cheque signatories... does anyone, e.g. One Londoner, know otherwise about the sigantories liability?