Aardvark

It is not the rules of the Electoral Commission, it is the law of the land:

The key sections are as follows:

The whole act can be found at:

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41)

The Electoral Commission is the body which manages the statute.

At local level, therefore, each branch treasurer is responsible for the finances and it is ludicrous to suggest that every branch printing contract should be forwarded to head office. The law allows of autonomy for obvious reasons - the person who wrote the law thought ahead and realised that political parties have local financial arrangements that would be too complex to be incorporated in the main party accounting. If the party were to write a rule asking branch treasurers to copy their tenders to head office that would be fine, but I suspect nobody would do that. I suspect also, but have no proof, that most branches with small budgets use the cheapest sources in any event without going through a formal tendering process - the tried and tested method of 'phoning around.

It is clear also that the rules are not of the Electoral Commission's making and that they are in fact the law. These particular rules can only be changed by Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument. As the scemes are to be adopted there will be the opportunity for some leeway or interpretation by the parties as those who wrote the statutes are probably aware of the lack of qualifications and financial skills that many branch treasurers in both small and large parties actually have.

I think the central party is absolved of responsibility for the actions of accounting units. If a rogue treasurer pockets the cash from his accounting unit then it is branch responsibility to sort it out. That would appear logical.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Geoffrey Collier

Mark Croucher: Printing contracts are more than just economic decisions, they must involve responsibility, liability, security and accountability. You mention in a subsequent posting, your 'inheritance' of the Speedwell Lithoprint arrangements from John Harvey.
You were aware that it was owned by a UKIP member, but couldn't recall the his name.
I wonder if it was a gentleman named- oh, what was it now- Alan Bown: UKIP benefactor, and NEC member? If I am right, has he declared a beneficial interest in those decisions, and has always refrained from voting when such things were being discussed? Transparency dictates that any personal interests which a member has, are known to the decision-makers.

Just reflect on the additional complications which can arise when strict orthodoxy is abandoned. In the past UKIP has received considerable notional donations.
Sometimes it involved rent, othertimes it was printing, advertising, etc. Should VAT have been payable on those donations, was that borne as a separate donation by the donors,
or did it comprise part of the notional gifts? Unless the NEC are able to satisfy themselves of the precise arrangements, how can they fairly be held liable as bankers of last resort?

Let us look at the prevailing circumstances. Only a matter of months ago, the NEC elections had to be abandoned and recommenced due to errors. That was not the first time but the most recent. Nothing has been learned from those mistakes; the same mistakes are being repeatedly; does this imbue the membership and potential voters with confidence? Is suffering incompetence and irregularity with silent equanimity the collective test of loyalty? We must oppose expensive and mistakes, repeated constantly, because it is imposing irreparable damage upon us. That is why the status-quo cannot be defended.


If he NEC members, who have a personal vested interest in making the right decisions are not involved in expenditure and securing assets, are not the right people to control matters, who is? If the present structure