UKIP MEPs and conference organiser threatened with disqualification from standing

Populist Lee · 04-04-2008, 03:49 PM

I'm very good at removing Pees from things.
In my opinion!

brian lee · 04-04-2008, 03:51 PM

The matter of selecting candidates to be put on a Party's list is one that I can comment on.

In the run up to the last EU Election I was chairman of a panel of five members appointed by the Eastern Counties Committee of UKIP to help in the selection process. There were 24 applicants as I recall for 7 MEP places, ten of the applicants were from outside the area. We started by disallowing all those from outside the area except one who because he lived close by and had become a member of our area. (There is something slightly wrong with the above arithmetic but I don't have the details).

The 14 left were all interviewed and the panel chose 10. (Two of those who were not chosen felt peeved but as I said at the time, at best only two would be elected anyway).

The 10 remaining were invited to attend four hustings meetings in the area. Following these, there was a secret ballot of all the members and the candidates were placed in order depending on the number of votes cast.

On the whole process, I think the best way is not to have a ballot of all members because most of them know nothing or very little about the people they are selecting except 250 words and a photo.

In my opinion the candidates from inside or outside the Region should be considered by branch committees and given a rating from say one to ten. The results of this first selection to be collated by the region committee and the highest ten selected from the submissions by all the branches. This would be based on a information provided by candidates to a questionnaire in which all candidates were asked the same questions.

These ten to address a regional selection meeting attended by two members from each branch. They would vote at the meeting and select the number of candidates as required for the official ballot paper. The position on the list to be dictated by the number of votes cast for each candidate.

This method saves a lot of bureacracy as well as limiting the final selection to those who will be doing the most work to get them elected.

Whilst stricly this is now none of my business; I am a voter in the Eastern Counties area. Therefore the quality of each party's list is important to me.

Star · 04-04-2008, 06:02 PM

Good ideas Mr Lee

Perhaps other posters will now accept the information I post on this forum is correct. My sources are very good.

Hartlepool · 04-04-2008, 06:11 PM

Jumping through hoops would have settled it much quicker and been much fairer I would think.

Star · 04-04-2008, 09:54 PM

They have not got a clue.

Geoffrey Collier · 07-04-2008, 06:59 PM

Brian Lee: I am not in favour of 'learned committees' selecting candidates. Any candidate on the National List, should be entitled to stand,as of right.
Hustings meetings should co-exist which other 'supporting documentation' in the official party publication.

Members votes should be counted by the Electoral Reform Society and that should be the end of the matter. What UKIP members lack, is confidence in the Party to do things honestly. Lack of integrity is retarding the Party's development. That must now be plain for all to see.

brian lee · 07-04-2008, 08:01 PM

The Electoral Reform Society is too costly, and if the Party cannot put into place a trustworthy system of running elections, which it has consistently proved it can't, it should fall back on the system I have proposed which is to have the elections take place in full view. I.e at a meeting.

Geoffrey Collier · 08-04-2008, 09:17 AM

brian Lee: The Electoral Reform Society, you say, is too expensive. What is your evidence? It would certainly be cheaper than having 're-runs' due to incompetence. A agree with hustings meetings, but too unfair for members unable to attend on a particular night, to form the structure for elections.

The E.R.S. should be used for MEP and Leadership elections. When we are given election forms with Sequential Numbers, boldly written on them, what was the original sequence? Who were the impartial observers of the 'system'? -- that is more important than either the count or administartion. These are the basic issues.

Legin · 08-04-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star

My sources inform me that John West, Gerard Batten, Mike Nattrass and Derek Clark have been threatened with disqualification from selection or reselection as MEP candidates if they speak at Mr West’s law and order rally in May. Complaints have been made by members as it gives them an unfair advantage over other Euro candidates. The matter is to be referred to the NEC following these complaints.

Quite right too! How on earth did Mr West think he could hold a rally in the middle of the hustings period ? Mr West may be the golden green eyed boy of many branches in the East but does that give him the right to indulge in a blatant act of promotion for him and his friends?

I also understand that Mr West may have got more votes in the Eastern Region than the other NEC eastern candidates, Ms Duffy and Mr Smith. No doubt he will be holding another conference to celebrate! His good friends Gerard and Mike will probably be the guest speakers. Perhaps he will also demand a standing ovation at Bar Hill.

Mr West needs to realise there are UKIP eastern region members who have been working for the party a lot longer than him. In my opinion they should have preference over him. Mr Gill take note!

I am also disgusted that Mr West did not invite Jeffrey Titford to speak at his latest rally.

STAR, I am not sure where you obtain your info but it must be a good. I too have heard that Curtis and Reeve have stopped John West from holding the conference although I understand Farage had given it the go ahead. Are they worried that John might get more Euro votes than Duffy?

Legin · 08-04-2008, 11:04 AM

I am also disgusted that Mr West did not invite Jeffrey Titford to speak at his latest rally.[/quote]

I think you will find that Titford was invited but because he lives a long way from the Region he represents he, I am informed, told John West it was too early for him!!

04-04-2008, 03:49 PM	#11 (permalink)
Populist Lee Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,965	I'm very good at removing Pees from things. In my opinion! __________________ ENGLISH POPULISM Stands as the only obstacle in the path of the Plutocrats who seek to reduce all the Peoples of the World to Economic and Political Slavery under Globalism POPULISM MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-04-2008, 03:51 PM	#12 (permalink)
brian lee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Essex Posts: 611	The matter of selecting candidates to be put on a Party's list is one that I can comment on. In the run up to the last EU Election I was chairman of a panel of five members appointed by the Eastern Counties Committee of UKIP to help in the selection process. There were 24 applicants as I recall for 7 MEP places, ten of the applicants were from outside the area. We started by disallowing all those from outside the area except one who because he lived close by and had become a member of our area. (There is something slightly wrong with the above arithmetic but I don't have the details). The 14 left were all interviewed and the panel chose 10. (Two of those who were not chosen felt peeved but as I said at the time, at best only two would be elected anyway). The 10 remaining were invited to attend four hustings meetings in the area. Following these, there was a secret ballot of all the members and the candidates were placed in order depending on the number of votes cast. On the whole process, I think the best way is not to have a ballot of all members because most of them know nothing or very little about the people they are selecting except 250 words and a photo. In my opinion the candidates from inside or outside the Region should be considered by branch committees and given a rating from say one to ten. The results of this first selection to be collated by the region committee and the highest ten selected from the submissions by all the branches. This would be based on a information provided by candidates to a questionnaire in which all candidates were asked the same questions. These ten to address a regional selection meeting attended by two members from each branch. They would vote at the meeting and select the number of candidates as required for the official ballot paper. The position on the list to be dictated by the number of votes cast for each candidate. This method saves a lot of bureacracy as well as limiting the final selection to those who will be doing the most work to get them elected. Whilst stricly this is now none of my business; I am a voter in the Eastern Counties area. Therefore the quality of each party's list is important to me.

04-04-2008, 06:02 PM	#13 (permalink)
Star Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Beds Posts: 87	Good ideas Mr Lee Perhaps other posters will now accept the information I post on this forum is correct. My sources are very good.

04-04-2008, 06:11 PM	#14 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,660 Party: Free England Party	Jumping through hoops would have settled it much quicker and been much fairer I would think.

04-04-2008, 09:54 PM	#15 (permalink)
Star Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Beds Posts: 87	They have not got a clue.

07-04-2008, 06:59 PM	#16 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,006	Brian Lee: I am not in favour of 'learned committees' selecting candidates. Any candidate on the National List, should be entitled to stand,as of right. Hustings meetings should co-exist which other 'supporting documentation' in the official party publication. Members votes should be counted by the Electoral Reform Society and that should be the end of the matter. What UKIP members lack, is confidence in the Party to do things honestly. Lack of integrity is retarding the Party's development. That must now be plain for all to see.

07-04-2008, 08:01 PM	#17 (permalink)
brian lee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Essex Posts: 611	The Electoral Reform Society is too costly, and if the Party cannot put into place a trustworthy system of running elections, which it has consistently proved it can't, it should fall back on the system I have proposed which is to have the elections take place in full view. I.e at a meeting.

08-04-2008, 09:17 AM	#18 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,006	brian Lee: The Electoral Reform Society, you say, is too expensive. What is your evidence? It would certainly be cheaper than having 're-runs' due to incompetence. A agree with hustings meetings, but too unfair for members unable to attend on a particular night, to form the structure for elections. The E.R.S. should be used for MEP and Leadership elections. When we are given election forms with Sequential Numbers, boldly written on them, what was the original sequence? Who were the impartial observers of the 'system'? -- that is more important than either the count or administartion. These are the basic issues.

08-04-2008, 11:04 AM	#20 (permalink)
Legin Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 160	I am also disgusted that Mr West did not invite Jeffrey Titford to speak at his latest rally.[/quote] I think you will find that Titford was invited but because he lives a long way from the Region he represents he, I am informed, told John West it was too early for him!!