list of prospective ukip MEPs in the West Country

Mikeuk · 30-06-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex McKee

I've never even heard of Rachel Tingle. Nonetheless, I will look forward to meeting her at some point in the future.

She used to be a YC activist and must be a bit older than me - in other words nearing 60. Nice girl; unfortunate name.

She was rather religious if I remember correctly and very much pro Mary Whitehouse etc.

(Looking back through this thread I see much of this has been said already. Her husband was in the Monday Club and I think she was also. Just the type of activist UKIP needs)

HULKMAN · 01-07-2008, 12:53 PM

Is it true that one of the women on the list is related to Graham Booth and only joined the party a few weeks ago? I am quickly coming to the conclusion that we should not be fighting the EU elections. It clearly brings out the worst in people.

Geoffrey Collier · 01-07-2008, 01:12 PM

HULKMAN: Don't ask me, ask those who said it was just a wicked rumour that I was spreading.

HULKMAN · 01-07-2008, 01:15 PM

If true it stinks. How the hell did Booth think he could get away with this?

Geoffrey Collier · 01-07-2008, 01:15 PM

AB: I'm sure the votes were genuine, what we must question was the relationship of the membership numbers to the sequential ones. That idea, I was told from HQ, was devised in the N.W. Region. Perhaps John Whittaker can tell you.

HULKMAN · 01-07-2008, 01:20 PM

I don't think that Whittaker will do anything. I was present at the business meeting. He refused to allow serious issues to be raised. He is clearly part of the problem. A weak man without the guts to tackle the serious problems surrounding this party.

Anthony Butcher · 01-07-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

AB: I'm sure the votes were genuine.

Maybe, maybe not. I am not saying that they weren't, merely that I find it astonishing that there wasn't an independent inquiry or even an inquiry by the returning officer when the numbers were so massively out of sync with any previous election. Alarm bells should have been ringing everywhere.

All it needed to remove any doubt was a couple of dozen phone calls to members who were recorded as having voted... if there was any fraud it would soon have been uncovered.

The standard of electoral integrity within UKIP is absolutely appalling. Last year's NEC election had to be rerun due to irregularities and every previous NEC election was also plagued by complaints. Even the leadership election had its issues.

Now we see internal elections happening again, this time with some very large sums of money for individuals potentially at stake. Is everyone here 100% certain that someone doesn't have a method of fiddling the votes and remaining undiscovered?

gawain · 01-07-2008, 03:32 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Whilst I am pleased, of course to make it to the short list I feel honour bound to step into what appears to be an attempted smear campaign against one of the others on the SW shortlist.

I met Julie Harrison, Mr Booth's niece for the first time at the interviews. It was not hidden knowledge that she was related to him, but it was clear that she is a woman of considerable abilities who would be an asset for the party. At no point did I get the feeling that the selection committee where favouring her, nor indeed did the media team over her familial links.

How long she has been in the party is not irrelevant, but should surely be an aspect of the selection process just as other strengths and weaknesses of all candidates should be, myself included.

That is why we have the one member one vote system. It is up to the membereship to rank the candidates. It is in their power to either select her if she performs well and impresses or not. This sort of chracter assasination before she has been even officially announced as on the short list is mean spirited in the extreme.

On the whole the shortlist looks pretty good to me and the South West membership should have fun choosing between the candidates. Go along to the hustings, ask awkward questions. Get involved. But don't try and attack people early when they do not have any way of defending themselves. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Geoffrey Collier · 01-07-2008, 04:05 PM

Mr Towler: What work for the cause has his lady done in the past? In which branch was she an active member? Is it equally true that one of the other ladies, selected in the S.W, is/was the secretary of Lord Harris who, ideally, wanted to be a Conservative Party, prospective MEP, but was unsuccessful?

What trade, profession or calling was Mr Booth's niece engaged in previously? Why, when asked whether she should obtain local credentials by being a PPC first, she gave a smirk as her repy? What political experience has this good lady demonstrated in any political party or in the community? What is her academic attainment? We have nothing, Mr Towler, about which we should feel ashamed. The panel chairman, being in the employ of her uncle, is not transparent selection.

I am being informed that some members in the SW are considering standing as 'Independents', as a protest against the graft and corruption at the top in UKIP.
Surely you cannot be wholly unsympathetic to them!

gawain · 01-07-2008, 08:52 PM

Geoffrey,

Come off it. I haven't the faintest idea about any of your questions. Of course these are all relevant questions to ask at a hustings. Lord Harris's sectretary? You are ahead of me there. I just do not know.

I can see it now. We are standing outside waiting to be called into interview and I, on being introduced give the poor woman the fourth degree. That is to my mind, not how normal people act. Or if it is then I am not normal.

You are obviously far better informed than I am and seem to have axes to grind. Is it possible that she acted in good faith? You know, she thought that by putting her hat in the ring she could be doing something to serve her country.

I don't know, but I always think one should think well of people until proven otherwise. Untill there is any evidence of bad faith - and no, I do not believe that having the RO as the non-voting chair of the selction committee amounts to bad faith - then people should be given a fair crack of the whip.

What seems to be going on here is a deliberate campaign of vilification before the act. By all means ask us all as many difficult questions as you wish. After all we have put our head above the parapet and are asking for the members to support us, therefore we must be subject to scrutiny. Good.

But please wait until the hustings, or at least until the formal announcement of the shortlist. After all I am sure that the forum will have reports from the hustings and therefore any answers to questions will be available to all.

In answer to your final question. I am quite unsympathetic. Indeed I cannot say I am wildly supportive. If they are members they have the right to grill us in public. To stand against UKIP as Independents would only damage the party, and in my opinion the cause. If their concerns are real and candidates are shifty in response, then those candidates will not recieve the votes and will not be selected, why the need for such antagonism and political egotism?

01-07-2008, 03:32 PM	#28 (permalink)
gawain Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 257	SW Shortlist Ladies and Gentlemen, Whilst I am pleased, of course to make it to the short list I feel honour bound to step into what appears to be an attempted smear campaign against one of the others on the SW shortlist. I met Julie Harrison, Mr Booth's niece for the first time at the interviews. It was not hidden knowledge that she was related to him, but it was clear that she is a woman of considerable abilities who would be an asset for the party. At no point did I get the feeling that the selection committee where favouring her, nor indeed did the media team over her familial links. How long she has been in the party is not irrelevant, but should surely be an aspect of the selection process just as other strengths and weaknesses of all candidates should be, myself included. That is why we have the one member one vote system. It is up to the membereship to rank the candidates. It is in their power to either select her if she performs well and impresses or not. This sort of chracter assasination before she has been even officially announced as on the short list is mean spirited in the extreme. On the whole the shortlist looks pretty good to me and the South West membership should have fun choosing between the candidates. Go along to the hustings, ask awkward questions. Get involved. But don't try and attack people early when they do not have any way of defending themselves. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

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

01-07-2008, 12:53 PM	#22 (permalink)
HULKMAN Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 92	Is it true that one of the women on the list is related to Graham Booth and only joined the party a few weeks ago? I am quickly coming to the conclusion that we should not be fighting the EU elections. It clearly brings out the worst in people.

01-07-2008, 01:12 PM	#23 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 863	HULKMAN: Don't ask me, ask those who said it was just a wicked rumour that I was spreading.

01-07-2008, 01:15 PM	#24 (permalink)
HULKMAN Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 92	If true it stinks. How the hell did Booth think he could get away with this?

01-07-2008, 01:15 PM	#25 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 863	AB: I'm sure the votes were genuine, what we must question was the relationship of the membership numbers to the sequential ones. That idea, I was told from HQ, was devised in the N.W. Region. Perhaps John Whittaker can tell you.

01-07-2008, 01:20 PM	#26 (permalink)
HULKMAN Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 92	I don't think that Whittaker will do anything. I was present at the business meeting. He refused to allow serious issues to be raised. He is clearly part of the problem. A weak man without the guts to tackle the serious problems surrounding this party.

01-07-2008, 04:05 PM	#29 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 863	Mr Towler: What work for the cause has his lady done in the past? In which branch was she an active member? Is it equally true that one of the other ladies, selected in the S.W, is/was the secretary of Lord Harris who, ideally, wanted to be a Conservative Party, prospective MEP, but was unsuccessful? What trade, profession or calling was Mr Booth's niece engaged in previously? Why, when asked whether she should obtain local credentials by being a PPC first, she gave a smirk as her repy? What political experience has this good lady demonstrated in any political party or in the community? What is her academic attainment? We have nothing, Mr Towler, about which we should feel ashamed. The panel chairman, being in the employ of her uncle, is not transparent selection. I am being informed that some members in the SW are considering standing as 'Independents', as a protest against the graft and corruption at the top in UKIP. Surely you cannot be wholly unsympathetic to them!

01-07-2008, 08:52 PM	#30 (permalink)
gawain Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 257	Geoffrey, Come off it. I haven't the faintest idea about any of your questions. Of course these are all relevant questions to ask at a hustings. Lord Harris's sectretary? You are ahead of me there. I just do not know. I can see it now. We are standing outside waiting to be called into interview and I, on being introduced give the poor woman the fourth degree. That is to my mind, not how normal people act. Or if it is then I am not normal. You are obviously far better informed than I am and seem to have axes to grind. Is it possible that she acted in good faith? You know, she thought that by putting her hat in the ring she could be doing something to serve her country. I don't know, but I always think one should think well of people until proven otherwise. Untill there is any evidence of bad faith - and no, I do not believe that having the RO as the non-voting chair of the selction committee amounts to bad faith - then people should be given a fair crack of the whip. What seems to be going on here is a deliberate campaign of vilification before the act. By all means ask us all as many difficult questions as you wish. After all we have put our head above the parapet and are asking for the members to support us, therefore we must be subject to scrutiny. Good. But please wait until the hustings, or at least until the formal announcement of the shortlist. After all I am sure that the forum will have reports from the hustings and therefore any answers to questions will be available to all. In answer to your final question. I am quite unsympathetic. Indeed I cannot say I am wildly supportive. If they are members they have the right to grill us in public. To stand against UKIP as Independents would only damage the party, and in my opinion the cause. If their concerns are real and candidates are shifty in response, then those candidates will not recieve the votes and will not be selected, why the need for such antagonism and political egotism?