This afternoon the following email was received from the Electoral Commission and is their considered opinion on Vince Cable's attempt to remove Andrew Withers as Leader of the Libertarian Party through the Courts.
The current proceedings taken against you is a matter for the Courts to decide.
If the party makes an application to appoint you as Leader, then we shall consider the application in accordance with PPERA taking account of any implications of the Court decision. If approved, we shall update the party's registered entry.
The current proceedings taken against you is a matter for the Courts to decide.
If the party makes an application to appoint you as Leader, then we shall consider the application in accordance with PPERA taking account of any implications of the Court decision. If approved, we shall update the party's registered entry.
So the considered opinion of the Electoral Commission is that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has the right to determine who shall and who shall not be the Leader or an officer of a political party.
Also that it is the Electoral Commission's considered opinion that it is up a Court to decide whether Andrew Withers will be the elected leader of a registered political party, not the members, and that the Electoral Commission will approve an 'application' from the Party, not a notification from the members that a new Leader has been elected.
Freedom of Association has been the bedrock of our Parliamentary Democracy, under the Coalition that will be decided by the Government.
10 comments:
Every attempt by government to bring down the party. Who is paying the court costs, are they trying to bleed the party dry.
Even in America organisation such as the Campaign for Liberty have been targeted by government.
Government knows very well the libertarian philosophy is very attractive to people, and they consider the Libertarian Party as a possible future threat but can not openly challenge the party.
Is it possible to disband the party, and recreate the party under a slightly different name, to avoid lengthy delays and court costs.
If we, the members of the Libertarian Party, elect Andrew as party leader, he WILL BE party leader.
Its our party.
The courts and Mr Cable can get stuffed. What are they going to do? Trying to stop it would give us the opportunity for so much publicity that can only make them look like idiots. We win even if we lose.
Trying to trap one into their bureaucratic game?
I agree with you Westerlyman. I know very little about the situation other than having read some of the posts.
But as you say, just do what is good, and if the opposition tries to attack, use that to advantage.
I guess one cannot tell "courts to get stuffed" but one can powerfully expose underhand enemy action to good effect?
In the light of Channel 4's Trillion Pound Debt Horror programme, it would seem that not all MSM is averse to the truth.
Andrew will be our party leader from Saturday onwards. That's our business and not the government's. If Vinnie the Rope really wants to take this all the way to court action, he's only going to make himself look stupid - and give us some free publicity into the bargain.
Dear god talk about a desperate attempt to create a mountain out of a molehill.
An why are you writing in the third person?
Not a great trait in a political 'leader' is it.
Ends.
And by the way, it would appear to be you who has made this political Andrew. You signed the deed and are banned as a director, end of. It's nothing to do with politics.
Do you honestly have an ego - in fact all of you - that lets you really beleive that someone like cable or mandy give a shit about you or even know who you are?
It's a letter signed in the SoS's name, he hasn't actually written to you ffs.
If you are innocent, which you may well be, then fight the fight.
But, at the end of the day, you are banned as a director. It's nothing to do with leadership of a political party, no matter how much you want it to be.
Kevin
Whoever is writing the letters is acting without the authority of law to stop someone from doing something. They are acting on the underlying (and presumably unconscious) principle that some sort of force (such as fines and ultimately imprisonment) is available to enforce their will. What sort of ego lies behind that position?
If that ego is acting - wielding force - without due care for the facts then this does not mitigate or trivialise the matter but makes it all the more serious. If more than one ego is involved, and the facts are slipping between systemic cracks then it is more serious again.
Force should not be wielded in this way. This is a key political principle, and everything to do with politics.
Simon,
"is acting without the authority of law to stop someone from doing something"
I hate to break this to you fella, By Andy is banned from being a director for 5.5 years. It's that simple. There are of course all sorts of political issues, for instance he cannot be elected to office if he is declared a bunkrupt etc.
But this boils down to a very simple thing - he is not allowed to be a director because he is banned from being a director.
This has nothing to do with politics, no matter how much you all want it to be. He signed a document agreeing to be a disqualified director, now he wants to be a director. Which is illegal.
Are you preparing Christmas gifts for your loves ,family and friends now ?
Maybe you can choose us , we always provide the excellent quality products and best after-sale service ,
And recently we have a active promotions :Happy Shopping at Dec,
the content of preference:
10%~15% discount
a Christmas gift
Free shipping!
we are accept paypal ,credit card and western union for payment .
New arrival :Power Balance
winter boots
power balance bracelet
Silly Bands
Reebok Easytone
reebok zigtech
efx bracelet
Moncler Jackets
Post a Comment