Pirate Party is in Danger

[samgower]

Ok, I'll break the general trend here and be the first one to (very cautiously) say, a mistake has been made, so why not leave the nomination process open until the actual election? It's not as if we'll need to print a different ballot if people enter late in the day, or that formalities ever did anyone any good...

The elections have started!

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/vote/

[simonclifford]

Thanks for your support RP, we at least appear to be on the same page.

By the way did anyone see my post about the parallel with animal farm as it appears to have been clipped. I did not feel it was particularly offensive.

As I simply compared the Jez comments to the actions one of the pigs from Animal farm would suggest.

However you addressed the point more directly RP. My compliments.

[cc]

The elections have started!

Doh, that's true.
Never mind then. Simon C, be quiet.

[simonclifford]

Ok, I'll break the general trend here and be the first one to (very cautiously) say, a mistake has been made, so why not leave the nomination process open until the actual election? It's not as if we'll need to print a different ballot if people enter late in the day, or that formalities ever did anyone any good...

Thanks CC, my thoughts exactly. However an email should go out.

I will happily author it, to save anyone else the effort, just give me the green light.

[simonclifford]

CC now I thought you were coming round. Be quiet you say, I am afraid I must decline.

[cabalamat]

Is it me, or does PPUK attract a lot of people who can't stick to an argument without throwing in a needless jibe?

LOL. This is you, Eric, from the post http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=522&start=20#p4338:

F*ck off.

F*ck off for suggesting I'm not entitled to do that

I don't think you've got a f*cking clue about the job of the officers of the party.

Here's another reason for not wanting to have the meeting recorded and shared with everyone - I don't want the weaker officers on display. That means specifically you.

I understand what copyright is. You had to have it explained to you by the other officers because you didn't understand what it is.

You're full of sh*t.

So instead of acting like a prima donna and blogging in an autocratic way, then resigning when a few people disagreed with you, why didn't you just set up some f*cking votes?

How about you run the f*cking nomination process

So what the f*ck do you mean

Geez, you're stupid.

What the f*ck are you talking about? What the F*CK are you talking about? I won't let them take a vote on the website design? I don't give a sh*t about the website design. I don't care about it. So where does the idea that I'm stopping the members voting on the website design come from? It's f*cking bullsh*t and I'm tired of your crap.

some f*cking nonsense about the design.

f*ck you

So f*ck you for suggesting that flags and badges are the big issue

Badges are f*cking easy

you've given it f*ck all thought

you self-serving, vain oaf

Idiots like you

your clueless lack of political skill and organizational talent is all too transparent

So how many needless jibes would you count in that post?

Why is that? Is there a Jeremy Morton School of Debate that I don't know about?

And you were talking about needless jibes... getting a bit self-referential, aren't you?

[scuzzmonkey]

“And really if you have read my posts, for the umpteenth time I am not expecting to become Party Leader, I think there is more chance that we win the next election than that happening.”

As for my latter point you completely missed the point, or perhaps didn't bother to read.

i didn't feel like it needed a response - I have moved beyond whether it is you, or anyone else that wants to nominate - but frankly I believe we as a party have far more pressing concerns, than going through a process that is purely devoid of point - yes it was a mistake, and i'm sure that it will be fixed next time, but it isn't like there are people in the works to actively contest any position.

Andy did say in the interview that he would prefer a contest - and i'm sure we all would - but what you seem to miss about what he said is that just having him running against 5 other people for the sake of it, is pointless if they are not actually going to contest.

to use a rather badly thought out metaphor - Man Utd could give themselves a cup...or they could make some BS contest between a bunch of conference north teams, and them - they are gonna win anyway, so whats the point? However replacing those teams with Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool might make things interesting.

The latter is what I'm assuming Andy was meaning, rather than the former.

[PeterBrett]

I think there's only one possible response to this thread.

[simonclifford]

Wow Eric, this is not good.

[simonclifford]

Scuzz I am not a Football fan so forgive me if I do not continue with that metaphor.

If I put the point I have made about adding legitimacy to one side for a moment, I think the results of the election will be a poor turn out, even though it is all electronic and only need one click. To only have one nominee requires that they only need vote for themselves and they win. What is the point in voting when it is a forgone conclusion who will win. Its like a Saddam Hussain election.

To create such voter apathy is to damage the community momentum of the party. Less integration of the wider party will result in less being done cumulatively.

Andrew said what he said, and opponents would make their case introducing competition and debate. That is always a good thing in democracy.

[scuzzmonkey]

Its like a Saddam Hussain election.

oh, nice.

To create such voter apathy

so far i've seen 2 people complain...lets not make assumptions now - because we know what happens when you do.

[simonclifford]

I state my case and am prepared to be proved wrong, but I make my case.

You on the other hand have the makings of a great politician, don't say anything so nobody can say you are wrong.

You must concede the membership is not going to feel their vote is needed to get their man? Because only one man can win? The highest turn outs are when there is everything to play for.

[scuzzmonkey]

frankly, I have no idea how it's going to turn out.

As I have stated umpteen times throughout this topic - whether this vote is properly contested or not (as long as we learn from the mistakes we have made and make sure they do not happen again) then I believe we can just move on and get on with actually trying to make the party have _some_ impact during the GE.

simply, we can all sit in this thread and bitch and moan and complain, and we're getting no where at all - and I genuinely believe that we need to actually focus all this tension and sniping at things that will help the party as a whole, rather than something that is evidently a waste of time as the two sides are never going to agree any more than we currently are.

so, once again - is there really any point in us continuing this?

If the votes are re-opened - they re-open, and this is pointless.
If they don't have a high enough turn out - they re-open, and this is pointless.
If we get enough people voting and its all smooth sailing - then you were wrong, and this is pointless.

So regardless of the turn out, the bitching here leaves us in the same place - so why not agree to what we already agree on.

There should have been an e-mail sent to all members are the beginning of the nominations process - the fact there wasn't was a mistake, and we must make sure that it doesn't happen again.

And now - please - let us leave this alone, because I - for one - am out.

[simonclifford]

I understand your comments and we are largely on the same page. The fact is until the voting is over or Andrew or the exec committee have made a ruling on this, I will respond to all.

Your points are well made, and I have some sympathy for them, I certainly agree to learn as we move forward, but when I created this thread it was not to waste focus far from it, I simply wanted the one nominee nonesence to be revisited.

So thanks for your input. But I cannot let this go until there is no further to go, because I do think it is for the benefit of the party in the medium and long term.

[Andy_R]

I think this has gone on more than long enough. Let's all calm down, and work towards a solution.

Simonclifford has every right to express his concerns. I think he's highlighted a potential problem, and I see a clear cut need to clarify the constitution so it defines exactly what constitutes notification of the members, to ensure we don't have this issue next time.

Having said that, the ballot does already have a 'reopen nominations' option, for exactly this reason.

Another fact to bear in mind is that the Officers have a history of trying to be as democratic as possible, a prime example being this very election. The previous vote for Officer roles specified a term of two years. The Officers themselves decided to voluntarily hold new elections after just 1/4 of this term, so that they party could be seen to be even more democratic.

Thirdly, we are due to hold ballots on contsitutional amendments before the end of next month, so we already have a procedure in place for resolving this sort of issue.

Fourthly, we already have a mechanism to remove an officer who has lost the confidence of the members. From the constitution "At any time, members or the NEC may propose a vote of no confidence in any elected officer. Such a vote will be triggered if 25% or more of the fully paid-up membership or over 50% of the NEC members make their desire for a vote of no confidence known to the NEC. The NEC will then organise a vote of party members to retain or dismiss the officer..."

I propose the following as a solution, and invite your constructive comments:

In just 4 days time, we will have the election results, and we will have hard figures on how much demand there is from the members to reopen nominations. At that point we will know if we should treat this as a small technical issue, or as a major constitutional crisis. If the 'reopen' option wins on any officer vote, then Simonclifford's concerns about lack of options can be dealt with by holding the new election with the member mailout calling for candidates that he suggests, and I am happy to commit as either leader or as temporary leader pending a new election, to doing it that way in those circumstances.

If the reopen option narrowly loses any officer vote, then I will treat this as constitutional crisis, and as either leader or as temporary leader pending a new election, I will commit myself to moving the officer's focus away from pressing issues such as the Digital Economy Bill, organising the manifesto, selecting candidates, and so on to work out an emergency constitutional fix, get it approved by the membership and then hold a new election, as our top priority.

If the reopen option loses convincingly all round then we safely can treat this as a technicality, and I will invite Simonclifford to write a constitutional amendment that would remove the problem in future to his and my satisfaction, and I will encourage the members to vote for it. If members do not agree with my post-election assessment of the seriousness of the issue, or my methods of dealing with this, then they are, as always, welcome to gather a 25% quorum and hold a vote of no confidence as provided for in the constitution.

I realise the words 'convincingly' and 'narrowly' in the above proposition are open to interpretation, so I would welcome everyone's input on what percentage levels we should assign to them.

[epriezka]

I propose the following as a solution

What a fine example of leadership. I'm thankful you are leader of this party.

[simonclifford]

Andrew thanks for you post. Your position is clear.

I would personally not characterise this as a major constitutional crisis, and I dare say the rest of the party would be with me on this, you included I suspect. Furthermore in no way do I think this issue is more important than the Digital Economy Bill, organising the manifesto, selecting candidates or indeed libel law reform.

All I was asking for was an email.

I recognise the party is trying its best, but I simply feel an email notification could have been made as an executive decision by the leader or the executive committee by virtue of the fact that it is in line with our core values. It is just an email, and resetting the voting dates and logs.

Regarding your point about the party officers having a history of being as democratic as possible, this thread is in support of that.

Whilst I am sure your recommendations will work, I would have preferred a simple fix, quick and easy rather than long and distracting.

I am sure this is because you are trying to do the right thing by everybody, but in my view we should move on from this as quickly as possible as the Digital Economy Bill, organising the manifesto, and spreading the word are more important. I only felt with our youth, size and openness it would be easier to get things done quickly.

However I suspect this is all academic, for it is most likely that people will not vote for the “re-open nominations” option in large numbers and not for the reasons I am sure people will infer.

For Corporations change is slow, because of their size, small business is more responsive for the same reason, I had just just hoped the same was true of Political parties.

Perhaps not.