UKIP breaking its own Election Rules

komerad · 12-08-2008, 10:40 AM

We in Wales have just received the postal ballots for the regional list selections for the EU elections.
May I be allowed to quote one of the rules re this election:
"Candidates may apply to two regions, but this must be disclosed to both regional panels(and to members in the regions if any candidates make it to more than one shortlist)."
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/images/stor...tion_rules.pdf

There in NO mention of Paul Wiffen also standing in Scotland as well as Wales on the ballot papers, or in his personal address.
I see that Piers Merchant (Returning Officer) has added an asterisk (on the UKIP website) to the candidates standing in more than one region.
I find this totally inadequate, this is not “Disclosing to members in the regions if any candidates make it to more than one shortlist”
What percentage of the UKIP membership are on the internet and what fraction of that figure actually access the UKIP website or this forum?
I’ll be extremely generous & say 25% - so 75% of the membership know nothing about these carpetbaggers in their regions, because there is no mention on the ballot papers..
All that was needed was a two line sentence stating that " Candidate X was also seeking selection in region Y", stapled/added to each ballot form.
This is grossly unfair to the other 5 candidates standing, as well as a breach of UKIP's own rules.
I believe that the same error has been made in the London & SE region re: a candidate standing in both regions with no notification of the members.
Surely, it is not too difficult for UKIP to organise an electoral ballot within
its own rules? It doesn’t appear so!!!!

Bob FM · 12-08-2008, 12:46 PM

May I then respectfully suggest you report the ballot as void, rather than simply posting on here. If I have a problem with my region I contact them first, not post on an in the main anti UKIP forum. Give them the opportunity to put it right. BY THE WAY I'm back, and make this simple pledge. I will no longer make any comment in response to goading by certain posters on here. They are simply not worth the effort. However to put the record straight. I have consulted a Barrister colleague, who has categorically stated (unusual for a Barrister) that I did not commit libel. That's is his speciality.

SponPlague · 12-08-2008, 12:50 PM

Bob, the issue has been raised with Piers Merchant, the returning officer, who will, I believe, be adjudicating shortly...

Bob FM · 12-08-2008, 01:00 PM

Spon, yes I was aware of that which is why I find it amazing that if these ballots have only just gone out then someone is clearly not on the ball. I took it up with the SW 2 or 3 weeks ago, and was told that.

chikrodah · 12-08-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

... BY THE WAY I'm back, and make this simple pledge. I will no longer make any comment in response to goading by certain posters on here. They are simply not worth the effort. However to put the record straight. I have consulted a Barrister colleague, who has categorically stated (unusual for a Barrister) that I did not commit libel. That's is his speciality.

Now what was the purpose of that addition, Bob?

BTW, how on earth did you manage to find a barrister that specialises in committing libel?

komerad · 12-08-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

Spon, yes I was aware of that which is why I find it amazing that if these ballots have only just gone out then someone is clearly not on the ball. I took it up with the SW 2 or 3 weeks ago, and was told that.

Bob FM - I would say that your comment of "someone is clearly not on the ball" should be replaced by " Someone is guilty of gross incompetence" No?

Geoffrey Collier · 12-08-2008, 01:43 PM

Should a couple of candidates win first and second place, from among those being the elected choices of the regions members, but relegated to third and fourth places, by the leader, as is allowed under the rules, so I am assured, what message will that send to the general public as to our commitment to the democratic process? This was done in the last MEP elections, but it would be an outrage if it were allowed to happen again.

Barboo · 12-08-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by komerad

Bob FM - I would say that your comment of "someone is clearly not on the ball" should be replaced by " Someone is guilty of gross incompetence" No?

Not necessarily, komerad. Don't let's be too hasty in condemning our esteemed colleagues as incompetent. It could equally well be a case of "someone is deliberately flouting the rules because it doesn't suit someone that they should be obeyed".

komerad · 12-08-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barboo

Not necessarily, komerad. Don't let's be too hasty in condemning our esteemed colleagues as incompetent. It could equally well be a case of "someone is deliberately flouting the rules because it doesn't suit someone that they should be obeyed".

Barboo - Are you in any way, shall we say, hinting that these elections are not completely "as they should be"?
I'm stunned!!!

I shall just have to retire to my room & seriously consider these implications.

Barboo · 13-08-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by komerad

Barboo - Are you in any way, shall we say, hinting that these elections are not completely "as they should be"?
I'm stunned!!!

I shall just have to retire to my room & seriously consider these implications.

No, I don't do hinting.

I see that the rules for candidate selection were 'approved' by the NEC, which suggests to me that they were actually drawn up by some other person or body, possibly the elections committee or political committee both of which are referred to in the the rules (does anyone know who sits on these two committees?). The rules were later amended and that amendment also approved by the NEC.

Now consider that part of the rules relating to the disclosure of dual candidacies. The words "and to members in the regions if any candidates make it to more than one shortlist" are printed in italics and surrounded by brackets. Why, when neither is necessary for clarity? It occurs to me that those words may have been added at the insistence of the NEC when the rules were presented to them for approval, but that the intention of whoever drew up the rules originally was that party members should not be informed of dual candidacies. It would not be the first time in UKIP that the wishes of the party's members / elected body have been overridden, by-passed or otherwise ignored, so komerad may like to add that possibility to the implications which are under his serious consideration.

12-08-2008, 10:40 AM	#1 (permalink)
komerad Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cardiff. S.Wales Posts: 632	UKIP breaking its own Election Rules We in Wales have just received the postal ballots for the regional list selections for the EU elections. May I be allowed to quote one of the rules re this election: "Candidates may apply to two regions, but this must be disclosed to both regional panels(and to members in the regions if any candidates make it to more than one shortlist)." http://www.ukip.org/ukip/images/stor...tion_rules.pdf There in NO mention of Paul Wiffen also standing in Scotland as well as Wales on the ballot papers, or in his personal address. I see that Piers Merchant (Returning Officer) has added an asterisk (on the UKIP website) to the candidates standing in more than one region. I find this totally inadequate, this is not “Disclosing to members in the regions if any candidates make it to more than one shortlist” What percentage of the UKIP membership are on the internet and what fraction of that figure actually access the UKIP website or this forum? I’ll be extremely generous & say 25% - so 75% of the membership know nothing about these carpetbaggers in their regions, because there is no mention on the ballot papers.. All that was needed was a two line sentence stating that " Candidate X was also seeking selection in region Y", stapled/added to each ballot form. This is grossly unfair to the other 5 candidates standing, as well as a breach of UKIP's own rules. I believe that the same error has been made in the London & SE region re: a candidate standing in both regions with no notification of the members. Surely, it is not too difficult for UKIP to organise an electoral ballot within its own rules? It doesn’t appear so!!!!

12-08-2008, 12:46 PM	#2 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,150	May I then respectfully suggest you report the ballot as void, rather than simply posting on here. If I have a problem with my region I contact them first, not post on an in the main anti UKIP forum. Give them the opportunity to put it right. BY THE WAY I'm back, and make this simple pledge. I will no longer make any comment in response to goading by certain posters on here. They are simply not worth the effort. However to put the record straight. I have consulted a Barrister colleague, who has categorically stated (unusual for a Barrister) that I did not commit libel. That's is his speciality. Last edited by Bob FM; 12-08-2008 at 12:52 PM.

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

12-08-2008, 12:50 PM	#3 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,400	Bob, the issue has been raised with Piers Merchant, the returning officer, who will, I believe, be adjudicating shortly...

12-08-2008, 01:00 PM	#4 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,150	Spon, yes I was aware of that which is why I find it amazing that if these ballots have only just gone out then someone is clearly not on the ball. I took it up with the SW 2 or 3 weeks ago, and was told that.

12-08-2008, 01:43 PM	#7 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	Should a couple of candidates win first and second place, from among those being the elected choices of the regions members, but relegated to third and fourth places, by the leader, as is allowed under the rules, so I am assured, what message will that send to the general public as to our commitment to the democratic process? This was done in the last MEP elections, but it would be an outrage if it were allowed to happen again.