Peterc

Report on Eastern Counties Hustings meeting

Eight out of the nine candidates managed to turn up, the 19 year old Amy O’Boyle was conspicuous by her absence. The first thing I noticed was that 4 of the candidates were divorced; if a marriage partnership cannot be obtained I wonder how the team work necessary in the party would work!

George Curtis, the unelected chairman of the Eastern Region Committee took the chair, the rest of the candidates were scattered in the audience, and Peter Reeve was given the mammoth task of tapping on a glass when the speakers’ time was up. I was surprised that he spoke to me, as last time, when we were both speakers at a meeting he would not sit at the same table as I was sitting!

Stuart Gulleford, one of the divorced candidates, was the first to speak; all he appeared to do was to tell us how wonderful Mr Titford was and how much money he had given to promote Gulleford’s paper which few people want to buy. At the end of the meeting I asked him direct,”are you and your office under any investigation” He replied sharply “no, it is all rumours”.

Stephen Scott-Fawcett was next up, an excellent speaker but seems to think that his exploration to the pole is of interest to UKIP! Perhaps Nigel Farage should go with him on his next trip but only buy him a one-way ticket!!

David Campbell-Bannerman spoke next telling us how hard he was working on the party’s policies, still the same six as I have heard for the last twice I have seen him. I also understand that he has promised Peter Reeve and the Chelmsford office, jobs if he is elected!

Councillor Marion Mason said that she had never been to either Brussels or Strasbourg and did not know much about them. Seemed very embarrassed to stand up and speak. It is my personal opinion that this is another ‘YES’ person, and I think there are far too many of them in the party.

Michael Baker had the right idea in my opinion, of what ought to happen within UKIP but – he owns and runs a family business which has been in the family since 1732!! Will he have time to be an MEP of help to the region?

Michael McGough thinks that the more MEP’s we have the better chance of getting out of the EU. Not in my opinion, Westminster is where we should be concentrating, not wasting money on the Euro elections. There is a fund for the Euro’s but not for the General elections.

Stewart Agnew stated that he, if elected, would make it a full time job, presumably giving up his farm!! He also implied that Tom Wise MEP is not a member of UKIP, he is, the membership card he holds expires at the end of March 2009.

Andrew Smith, now here, in my opinion, is a man who considers he has a right to become an MEP! He boasted about how important he is in the Insurance market in the city yet this is the same man who has cost the Party £18,000 and this figure could rise to over £400,000. Do you feel confident that he should be an MEP?

During Question time Martin Harvey, asked “Would any of you consider giving a percentage of your salary to fight for Westminster”. All but 2 became politicians and did not give a direct answer, the exception was Stuart Agnew who said he would give 10% and Michael Baker who said “No”, Stuart Gulleford mumbled that he thought it was not legal to do so, confused yet again, he does not understand that one can do what one likes with one’s own salary, it is EU expenses that must be used to the letter of the law!!

Who would I vote for? I am still debating; first I have to decide which party!!
Peter Cole 15-07-08

Hartlepool

Probably none of the above?

Tony Bennett

All of a sudden, the word 'shedloads' springs to mind

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gumshoe

Assuming the report from Peterc is reasonably accurate, what a collection to choose from? If the candidates read his posting pehaps they will do better at the next hustings. But mentioning the number who have been divorced is a bit unfair considering that these days divorce is almost as common as marriage.

It is great spectator sport though.

Geoffrey Collier

Peterc: Let us go from generalities to the specific. When asked at his interview, 'Have you anything in you background which could harm the Party?' did Andrew Smith reply nothing, or did he tell the truth, but it was deemd unimportant to his interview panel.

When The Electoral Commission was investigating impermissible donations, made and accepted by UKIP, Andrew Smith sent advice to senior UkIP officers on how to deal with the matter. It subsequently became known to the El.Com. and they raised it in court to the disadvantage of UKIP.

I quote verbatim as reported in the Sunday Times in 2006.

Quote: An e-mail, sent last April by Andrew Smith , then the party's treasurer, to various senior members, reveals the degree to which it intended to mislead the commission. 'We need to give the Electoral Commission every reason to believe we are serious about compliance, in order to provide the next party treasurer with a good story to tell when we next fail to meet the statutory requirements', he wrote.

Obviously, these standards were acceptable to the Eastern Region's interviewing panel, but do you want such a man in public life representing YOU. This has been an appalling error by the Selection Panel, and it must be reversed by the NEC WITHOUT DELAY.

Failure to act, would leave the NEC without any moral authority to seek future donations from the membership. When members make generous donations to the party, they must do it confidently that they are giving it to people who can be trusted. The Electoral Commission must regulate and scrutinise carefully all future donations, and inspect carefully the final destination of those previously received.

Peterc

[quote=Geoffrey Collier;524581]Peterc: Let us go from generalities to the specific. When asked at his interview, 'Have you anything in you background which could harm the Party?' did Andrew Smith reply nothing, or did he tell the truth, but it was deemd unimportant to his interview panel.

]A very good question Geoffrey, unfortunately I was not there, perhaps Peter Reeve the Regional Organiser would like to answer that one.

michael mcgough

UKIP have a code of conduct for prospective MEPs which requires elected MEPs to "provide substantial financial support to the central party out of income"
nb
1)prospective candidates agreed to the code at interview stage
2)note the word income ie not expenses
3)in answer to the question posed I mentioned this

mrabody

Oops, it would seem that perhaps Peter C's account is not as reliable as I expected...

Quelle Surprise!

Peterc

Mrabody, which part of my account is not reliable, I do not understand your statement, please tell me, I will then try to explain.

mrabody

Well according to you Mr. McGough and others waffled on this question. In contrast it appears that Mr. McGough gave a pretty straightforward answer - that as MEP candidates they had all agreed to contribute a portion of their income to the party.

Unfortunately, the infantile and malicious campaign mounted by you and your sockpuppets on this forum leads me to doubt the credibility of your account when faced with contradictory evidence from someone else.