Monday, February 18, 2008

CF Elections vs Pakistan - What's the difference?

Is there something funny going on at Conservative Future? This is a question I'm wondering tonight as I have just received some rather interesting emails which appear to suggest that CCHQ may have been trying to unduly influence the forthcoming CF elections and parachute in an anointed candidate.

Back in November, there appears to have been plans for a quasi-CCHQ backed launch of a female candidate for the CF chairman position by the CF national organiser Michael Lunn, who said in an email to the potential candidate that he had "reservations" about the current candidates that were running.

In the emails it is made clear by Lunn that he "cannot endorse any candidate" but he later goes on to say that he has "some reservations over the current national candidates" and that the party chairman and David Cameron would welcome a female chair if she was to run. The emails go on to say that "[i]t would be great if you would be willing to stand for cf chairman, the centre is very keen to have a fresh start and attract more women in general, happy to meet you and discuss if u are interested."

A few days later in an email thread where the potential - and unknown - candidate has declined the offer, Lunn says, "[b]e careful how you use me, if you need to consult me can you please do it personally. I cannot afford a whole long paper trail on my involvement or even remote support." This time the email appears to have been sent from a personal account rather than a one.

Now correct if I'm wrong here, but I believe that is what is called a paper trail isn't it? Or perhaps a noose around his neck might be a more apt analogy? I've also been led to believe that an official complaint was made to the party board about this and no action was taken.

Were I still young, and a member of CF I might be slightly annoyed about that. Nay, I would be very annoyed if I was a candidate and I learned that someone was being offered covert help via a CF organiser at CCHQ. I would be even more annoyed that nothing was done about it. Surely, assuming it was maverick rather than Machiavellian action, this sort of thing is a sackable offence?


Anonymous said...

I think it's properly called a 'paper trail' you twat. This isn't quite up there with 'rooves' but it's close and leads me to apologise for calling you a twat when you are in fact an ignorant twat.

dizzy said...

Oh look, Dizzy made a typo, that never happens! Go fuck yourself.

Newmania said...

Quite so Dizzy , such people are vermin and should be exterminated.I `m not sure there is anyhting to this though, I `m sure CCHQ take an interest in CF but I can`t see its important enough to worry much about

Andy said...

Someone's angry!
This has got to be a resignation issue for sure..

Tim Roll-Pickering said...

Ah it's CF elections again. So no wonder we get yet more accusations, based on nothing more than postings on the internet and allusions to things that "can't be shown" but we have to take them on trust.

No wonder so many in the party find CF irrelevant and off putting.

If there is an issue about a staff member, make a formal complaint. Sounding off on a blog is counter productive.

dizzy said...

What things "can't be shown"? I have copies of the emails including full headers showing where they were sent from.

Anonymous said...

Typical CF. I'm beginning to wonder if it's not just a waste of space.