Mike McGough: People who live in glass houses ....

Osric · 28-10-2008, 03:00 AM

Having skimmed the forum, I am in some doubt as to the veracity of Junius' information however these caught my attention:

Quote:

After all, they not only turned a blind eye to Lord Pearson proposing two candidates

Is this true? If so, is it against the party election rules?

Quote:

... but even allowed a non-party member to become Nigel’s running mate in the SE.

Forgive me as I am out of the loop but I believe this is referring to Marta Andreasen, the whistleblower?

Again, is this against the rules?

SponPlague · 28-10-2008, 10:03 AM

Lord Pearson accidentally propsed two candidates in the same region. Marta Andreasen, being a foreigner, is ineligible for full UKIP membership. Piers Merchant, the returning officer, produced a scathing report suggeting a rerun in London, but the NEC demurred.

Read his report here, particularly part 3:

Returning Officer's report, List Elections 20088 - part 1
Returning Officer's report, List Elections 2008 - part 2
Returning Officer's report, List Elections 2008, Part 3 (final and most interesting)

Nyge21 · 28-10-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osric

......... these caught my attention:

Quote:

After all, they not only turned a blind eye to Lord Pearson proposing two candidates

Is this true? If so, is it against the party election rules?

Quote:

... but even allowed a non-party member to become Nigel’s running mate in the SE.

Forgive me as I am out of the loop but I believe this is referring to Marta Andreasen, the whistleblower?

Again, is this against the rules?

It appears there are no rules when it comes to Nigel getting his way!
The issue with the multiple proposer , is probably of less consequence to the result - if everything else is in order - as an alternative proposer could easily be found i expect, however, the more unacceptable issue in my view is the way a candidate can be accepted when they are not a member of the party and they are not even living in the country where they have been selected to represent. The small issue of their real views being incompatable with UKIP policy is also something one might be concerned about, if one were leader of the party, but Farage seems to think otherwise!

Osric · 28-10-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SponPlague

Marta Andreasen, being a foreigner, is ineligible for full UKIP membership. Piers Merchant, the returning officer, produced a scathing report suggeting a rerun in London, but the NEC demurred.

Read his report here, particularly part 3:

Appreciate that, thanks. Interesting reading. This election seems to have been fraught with difficulties but Piers Merchant appears to be handling in a professional manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyge21

... however, the more unacceptable issue in my view is the way a candidate can be accepted when they are not a member of the party and they are not even living in the country where they have been selected to represent. The small issue of their real views being incompatable with UKIP policy is also something one might be concerned about, if one were leader of the party, but Farage seems to think otherwise!

I concur - mostly. The rules appear to bar Marta from membership and, thus, from candidacy. A shame she didn't join sooner, as this could have been avoided.

On the subject of her views - I would not say they were incompatible, merely somewhat different. UKIP would do well merely to force a wider debate about our membership of the EU, and Marta's views are not incompatible with that aim. UKIP would be well served if it had multiple, legitimate and well founded arguments about changing Britain's relationship with the EU, not merely just the absolute EU-withdrawl position.

SponPlague · 28-10-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osric

UKIP would be well served if it had multiple, legitimate and well founded arguments about changing Britain's relationship with the EU, not merely just the absolute EU-withdrawl position.

Maybe so, but the current constitution is clear, on this at least:

Quote:

2 AIMS
2.1 The principal aim of the Party is that the United Kingdom ("UK") shall again be governed by laws made to suit its own needs by its own Parliament, which must be directly and solely accountable to the electorate of the UK. The second aim is to preserve the integrity of the UK. To this intent the Party's objects are to withdraw the UK from the European Union and to resist membership of any other international organisation, or grouping, the membership of which is incompatible with the above aims and to oppose any form of government within the UK, which may undermine its integrity.
2.2 On withdrawal from the EU, the Party will seek free trade agreements with the EU and other countries (and /or trade blocs.)

etc.

Osric · 28-10-2008, 10:50 AM

Constitutions can be changed, however I don't see anything in there that is incompatible with what I wrote.

Geoffrey Collier · 28-10-2008, 11:01 AM

Osric: The Constitution can be changed, but those changes cannot be used to alter specific decisions retrospectively. Marta Andreasen was not eligible to stand and should be removed from the list. There are not only problems concerning the UKIP Constitution which affect her, but also British Electoral law. Unless we take action, there must be a good chance of Andreasen will be seeking compensation when the problems become apparent. Are we being told that Zuckerman has advised the NEC that all is well, and he anticipates no problems with this candidate?

SponPlague · 28-10-2008, 11:04 AM

If UKIP accepted alternatives to the "absolute EU withdrawal position", half the remaining members at least would probably walk. That's a big problem for the leadership...

Nyge21 · 28-10-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osric

On the subject of her views - I would not say they were incompatible, merely somewhat different. UKIP would do well merely to force a wider debate about our membership of the EU, and Marta's views are not incompatible with that aim. UKIP would be well served if it had multiple, legitimate and well founded arguments about changing Britain's relationship with the EU, not merely just the absolute EU-withdrawl position.

Yes, I see where you are coming from, and there could be some merit in it, if only the EU was not so blinkered itself in its need for survival through a single course of power-grabbing of sovereignty from its members.
It's just that I think some of the arguments for changing Britains relationship with europe through cooperation, do not take sufficient account of the evidence of EU membership - that reform of CAP, CFP , for example, (just to mention a couple) is a pipe dream - the EU is hell bent on taking control centrally in people's lives - and getting national puppet governments to act as "civil servants" only.

Osric · 28-10-2008, 11:15 AM

Geoffrey: I was not proposing that such a thing should be done, I wouldn't advocate that at all. I agree with you that she should not be allowed to stand for UKIP. It is a shame but necessary.

Sponplague: perhaps so. I am not an expert on the party, nor a member. However I do feel that it has promise, if it sorted out it's act. I wasn't suggesting that the party should immediately change it's stance, rather merely that the party tolerates some difference of opinion in it's representatives views on the EU.

Nyge21: Certainly the EU represents a dangerous, anti-democratic and beauracratic future for our country. I personally am of the opinion that the UK should leave the EU as soon as possible, but the reality is that UKIP must first win power to make that happen. UKIP will not win any power unless it becomes more attractive to, and more inclusive of, different strands of political thought.

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

28-10-2008, 10:03 AM	#12 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,400	Lord Pearson accidentally propsed two candidates in the same region. Marta Andreasen, being a foreigner, is ineligible for full UKIP membership. Piers Merchant, the returning officer, produced a scathing report suggeting a rerun in London, but the NEC demurred. Read his report here, particularly part 3: Returning Officer's report, List Elections 20088 - part 1 Returning Officer's report, List Elections 2008 - part 2 Returning Officer's report, List Elections 2008, Part 3 (final and most interesting)

28-10-2008, 10:50 AM	#16 (permalink)
Osric Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Gloucester Posts: 38 Party: None	Constitutions can be changed, however I don't see anything in there that is incompatible with what I wrote.

28-10-2008, 11:01 AM	#17 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	Osric: The Constitution can be changed, but those changes cannot be used to alter specific decisions retrospectively. Marta Andreasen was not eligible to stand and should be removed from the list. There are not only problems concerning the UKIP Constitution which affect her, but also British Electoral law. Unless we take action, there must be a good chance of Andreasen will be seeking compensation when the problems become apparent. Are we being told that Zuckerman has advised the NEC that all is well, and he anticipates no problems with this candidate?

28-10-2008, 11:04 AM	#18 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,400	If UKIP accepted alternatives to the "absolute EU withdrawal position", half the remaining members at least would probably walk. That's a big problem for the leadership...

28-10-2008, 11:15 AM	#20 (permalink)
Osric Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Gloucester Posts: 38 Party: None	Geoffrey: I was not proposing that such a thing should be done, I wouldn't advocate that at all. I agree with you that she should not be allowed to stand for UKIP. It is a shame but necessary. Sponplague: perhaps so. I am not an expert on the party, nor a member. However I do feel that it has promise, if it sorted out it's act. I wasn't suggesting that the party should immediately change it's stance, rather merely that the party tolerates some difference of opinion in it's representatives views on the EU. Nyge21: Certainly the EU represents a dangerous, anti-democratic and beauracratic future for our country. I personally am of the opinion that the UK should leave the EU as soon as possible, but the reality is that UKIP must first win power to make that happen. UKIP will not win any power unless it becomes more attractive to, and more inclusive of, different strands of political thought.