mrabody

I have no objection to paying the money, but having kept my part of the bargain by paying the money it would be nice to see the party keeping their part of the bargain by running the process as promised.

As for your suggestion that it was not feasible to put right, the fact is, the deficiency was noticed before the ballots were sent out. Therefore it would have cost little extra to print/photocopy a slip of paper to go in the envelopes.

In fact in a worst case scenario, the details of the dual candidacies could simply have been printed on stickers and stuck to the cover letter of the ballots.

Yes it might have cost a few days, but given that the letters containing the ballots were posted around the 4th of August and needn't be received back until the 26th of August, I doubt it would have made any difference.

In my experience in Canada, political parties tend to farm out the running of internal elections to outside, non-affiliated parties such as Accounting or Law Firms - then, if problems arise it isn't the party that wears it. They also don't have perenial questions asked about vote-rigging/fairness etc.

If I recall correctly, there were offers from members of the party to pay for the costs (at least in one of the regions, perhaps more) of the MEP selection ballot to be run by Electoral Reform Services. Given that it (a) wouldn't cost the party any money (b) create a contract whereby ERS would be required to fix any mistake at it's own cost and (c) put the party's leadership beyond criticism, I find it amazing that these offers weren't taken up. I expect that some of the additional cost could have been offset by increasing the application fee paid by prospective MEP candidates £350 or £400. Most would probably have been happy to pay it.

Unfortunately, these perenial problems with internal elections suggest that UKIP couldn't run a Las Vegas whorehouse at a profit! They are a running sore within the party and they could easily be fixed.

__________________
Drew Belobaba,
UKIP PPC for Lewes
Almost as unelectable as Raymond Finch!

Bob FM

Spon the two things couldn't be more different. Surrey is doing all the work on the newspaper, including local Headers, and then supplying the number of papers ordered to be paid for in arrears, no paper no payment. But GC didn't make his post in the context of Ashford anyway, it was a direct reference to the paper. Many other posters who formally had respect are now openly criticising GC he is out of control, but is allowed far more leeway than most. Take him having twice repeated the lie about me and the BNP at what point do moderators actually intervene.

SponPlague

This is about Ashford, or at least its long shadow:

John helped run Ashford, I believe, and John is collecting payment for the newspaper. Rightly or wrongly, Geoffrey is saying that John here has previous.

douglas denny

Well I bow to your and Raymond's more intimate knowledge of the problem's and apologise if I seemed too dismissive.

This business is clearly important to you and Raymond, and you do at least offer solutions/alternatives.

I am getting too grumpy in my old age; and this election has spawned too many serious irritations which should not have occurred. It reminded me of the confounded nuisance of the problems which occurred when I had to deal with the Leadership contest. They were not of the organisers/NEC/party making, and were difficult to resolve without acrimony.

I will offer in mitigation though that knowing the staggering costs involved in even quite simple things - like just having an extra page in Ind.News. for example, or sending members a letter; I am sure the costs of amendments which you suggest can be done easily and at low cost, are more likely only possible at high cost and with great difficulty when the process is already under way.

As to how practical those solutions would have been and how easily implemented - well that is to be discovered from those that were dealing with it. What then is the response of Piers and/or Chris Gill to this and their explanation of the decision taken?

The real question has to be, (viewing it from 'outside'): has the dual candidacy problem been shown to be highly significant to the point the election is compromised without correction, or is it unlikely to affect the result significantly?

A similar question cropped-up in the Leadership election which I had to answer as returning officer and had to make a decision. It was clear that although the 'problem' was there, and was to be regretted and desirable it did not exist, it was unlikely to affect the results significantly therefore was not likely to compromise the election, so the election proceeded. In fact the results were very clear and no one ever queried the preceding 'problem' at all. It was cause for concern at the time however - and caused a Hell of a lot of trouble.

A final point: I think the entrance fee was far too high for this election, extortionate in fact, and favoured those more well-off; which is NOT as it should be. It should have been less than half that asked, or at least a 'sensible' figure to allow 'poorer' candidates to consider joining the contest.

I refused to enter the election (though I have stood in every election in UKIP which was available to me since I joined - until this one), and a large factor for consideration was the exorbitant cost. There were other reasons of equal merit .. but they were more practical/personal.


DED.
-