Question NEC leaks

Bob FM · 23-08-2008, 07:44 AM

Spon, all communications to the NEC should go to the Chairman, who then decides their circulation, in that way one assumes anything that really shouldn't be in the public domain doesn't get leaked to GLW, that is assuming of course the Chairman is not the link.

SponPlague · 23-08-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

Spon, all communications to the NEC should go to the Chairman, who then decides their circulation, in that way one assumes anything that really shouldn't be in the public domain doesn't get leaked to GLW, that is assuming of course the Chairman is not the link.

1. UKIP has never stated that formaly, so you can't blame John for not following that.
2. What if you don't trust/ agree with the chair? Are you cutoff from access to our highest body?
3. What if the chair decides to onpass, anyway, and it still leaks? Do we then discipline the chair for having the temerity to inform the NEC?

douglas denny · 23-08-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Allen

Do keep up Doug. Everyone knows that Nigel is going select the top 2 candidates for each region regardless of how the members vote.

Now I know the fact that he can only do this if all the other candidates agree to move down the list is a bit of a problem but surely that is only a minor obstacle.

MINOR obstacle you say? For all the other candidates in a list to unanimously agree?

And I doubt Nigel will want to get his fingers burned to try to do anything like that knowing it would be highly conroversial.

This is a non-issue. It won't happen anyway most likely.

It is only there as a stop-gap if some highly placed, well-known, big-time political player comes onto the scene at the last minute and is willing to support us. You all know what this is about - people like Robert Killjoy-Silk.
Now it might be unfortunate with the past history with that particular gentleman ... but just suppose someone like, say, John Redwood ,or the Pope, wanted to come on board at the last minute ....(not that I am suggesting he would) ... but that is what this is all about.

DED.
-

Raymond Finch · 23-08-2008, 01:04 PM

Maybe Redwood, Fields or Hoey. Anyone short of that would have to be a no-no.

Anyway it doesn't matter.

The way that certain candidates have been allowed to stand on multiple lists without informing voters, AGAINST the rules, points out what the leadership desires to happen. The fact this was known BEFORE the voting slips were distributed and was ignored tells me at least that certain candidates are favoured.

douglas denny · 23-08-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond Finch

Maybe Redwood, Fields or Hoey. Anyone short of that would have to be a no-no.

Anyway it doesn't matter.

The way that certain candidates have been allowed to stand on multiple lists without informing voters, AGAINST the rules, points out what the leadership desires to happen. The fact this was known BEFORE the voting slips were distributed and was ignored tells me at least that certain candidates are favoured.

Not so Raymond.
You are suggesting a deliberate pre-arranged agenda by someone to do that - which is silly.
It is a simple c@ck-up in that was not foreseen before the arrangements had been made.

What was thought to be good cast-iron arrangements (usually incorporating corrections to the previous errors experienced in previous elections) was brought before the NEC for discussion/amendments - and none of these problems was seen then, so it was passed. It has not been challenged before to the best of my knowledge, for example, about overseas members wanting their voting rights allowed for. And here we are seeing a fundamental problem before us and not being able to do anything about it now for the usual legal difficulties if you tried to amend the set-up now.

In every election I have witnessed there have been anomalies which have cropped-up and caused some problem or other. It seems to be par for the course. Regrettable, but there we are. All one can do is "better next time".

DED.
-

Raymond Finch · 23-08-2008, 01:53 PM

Douglas.

I know for certain that the dual candidacy issue was known before the voting slips were sent out. A mutual friend was at the meeting where it was discussed and the decision was made to ignore it. What would have been the time and cost implications of inserting a small "Erratum" slip stating the dual candidacies? I could have knocked them up in a couple of hours using my printer.
I believe this is unacceptable and do not accept it.

Geoffrey Collier · 23-08-2008, 01:55 PM

A Party Chairman, chosen by the leader, is not the right person to decide what the NEC is told. Furthermore, the NEC members are the 'Bankers of last resort', and should be told everything. Should any of the pending court cases result in every member being held personally liable for a nominal £10-12000, that may be the introduction to the real-world that some of them need.

Information which is communicated to others via the NEC, is no more justifiable than information passed by any other leadership-group or individual. I am more inclined to blame those others, than the NEC; blaming the NEC is a slur to provide an excuse for
for keeping them in ignorance. Has the NEC, for example, been given the forthcoming agenda for that important meeting with Declan Ganley?

Geoffrey Collier · 23-08-2008, 02:02 PM

Dougals D: Just seen your last posting. The MEP selctions process was entrusted to Christopher Gill, who failed for want of competence in those duties. You are like the perpetual 'excuse-machine'. Remember, this is not our first MEP selection process; excuses like, 'we'll do better next time', no longer suffice.

Niall Warry · 23-08-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas denny

MINOR obstacle you say? For all the other candidates in a list to unanimously agree?

And I doubt Nigel will want to get his fingers burned to try to do anything like that knowing it would be highly conroversial.

This is a non-issue. It won't happen anyway most likely.

It is only there as a stop-gap if some highly placed, well-known, big-time political player comes onto the scene at the last minute and is willing to support us. You all know what this is about - people like Robert Killjoy-Silk.
Now it might be unfortunate with the past history with that particular gentleman ... but just suppose someone like, say, John Redwood ,or the Pope, wanted to come on board at the last minute ....(not that I am suggesting he would) ... but that is what this is all about.

DED.
-

So by your own admission Nigel has the power to alter the list. and so much for democracy if some existing self seeking politician queue jumps.

I didn't know you could read Nigel's mind so are you really so sure it won't happen????

SponPlague · 23-08-2008, 04:32 PM

Are the NEC Laputians, Doug? Gulliver recorded:

Quote:

I observed here and there many in the Habit of Servants, with a blown Bladder fastned like a Flail to the End of a short Stick, which they carried in their Hands. In each Bladder was a small Quantity of dried Pease, or little Pebbles, (as I was afterwards informed.) With these Bladders they now and then flapped the Mouths and Ears of those who stood near them, of which Practice I could not then conceive the Meaning. It seems the Minds of these People are so taken up with intense Speculations, that they neither can speak, nor attend to the Discourses of others, without being rouzed by some external Taction upon the Organs of Speech and Hearing; for which Reason those Persons who are able to afford it always keep a Flapper (the Original is Climenole) in their Family, as one of their Domesticks; nor ever walk abroad or make Visits without him. And the Business of this Officer is, when two or more Persons are in Company, gently to strike with his Bladder the Mouth of him who is to speak, and the right Ear of him or them to whom the Speaker addresses himself. This Flapper is likewise employed diligently to attend his Master in his Walks, and upon Occasion to give him a soft Flap on his Eyes; because he is always so wrapped up in Cogitation, that he is in manifest Danger of falling down every Precipice, and bouncing his Head against every Post; and in the Streets, of jostling others, or being jostled himself into the Kennel.

View Poll Results: Should people email the NEC given they are known to leak?
Yes, they are the party's highest body, and must be kept in the loop	7	36.84%
No, they leak like a sieve which only damages the party	3	15.79%
The NEC are irrelevant, so who cares?	9	47.37%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

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

23-08-2008, 07:44 AM	#11 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,150	Spon, all communications to the NEC should go to the Chairman, who then decides their circulation, in that way one assumes anything that really shouldn't be in the public domain doesn't get leaked to GLW, that is assuming of course the Chairman is not the link.

23-08-2008, 01:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
Raymond Finch Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 515	Maybe Redwood, Fields or Hoey. Anyone short of that would have to be a no-no. Anyway it doesn't matter. The way that certain candidates have been allowed to stand on multiple lists without informing voters, AGAINST the rules, points out what the leadership desires to happen. The fact this was known BEFORE the voting slips were distributed and was ignored tells me at least that certain candidates are favoured.

23-08-2008, 01:53 PM	#16 (permalink)
Raymond Finch Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 515	Douglas. I know for certain that the dual candidacy issue was known before the voting slips were sent out. A mutual friend was at the meeting where it was discussed and the decision was made to ignore it. What would have been the time and cost implications of inserting a small "Erratum" slip stating the dual candidacies? I could have knocked them up in a couple of hours using my printer. I believe this is unacceptable and do not accept it.

23-08-2008, 01:55 PM	#17 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	A Party Chairman, chosen by the leader, is not the right person to decide what the NEC is told. Furthermore, the NEC members are the 'Bankers of last resort', and should be told everything. Should any of the pending court cases result in every member being held personally liable for a nominal £10-12000, that may be the introduction to the real-world that some of them need. Information which is communicated to others via the NEC, is no more justifiable than information passed by any other leadership-group or individual. I am more inclined to blame those others, than the NEC; blaming the NEC is a slur to provide an excuse for for keeping them in ignorance. Has the NEC, for example, been given the forthcoming agenda for that important meeting with Declan Ganley?

23-08-2008, 02:02 PM	#18 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	Dougals D: Just seen your last posting. The MEP selctions process was entrusted to Christopher Gill, who failed for want of competence in those duties. You are like the perpetual 'excuse-machine'. Remember, this is not our first MEP selection process; excuses like, 'we'll do better next time', no longer suffice.