Daffeh, thanks for your input.

UDP's acceptance of the one term limit for the coalition flag bearer was a great gesture. That said; I believe the UDP is advocating a two limit for subsequent Presidents after the five year transition period. So it wouldn't be lost on UDP why most of us here - across party lines would want to see the one term and subsequent two term limits implemented.

For me the major stumbling blocks that scuppered a fully inclusive coalition was UDP's insistence that it's size be taken into account by way of other parties falling behind them as the biggest of the group to form a coalition[Party led]. And PDOIS' insistence that it needs to be voted on through a primary/convention. If this recommendation taking UDP's size into account was adopted it is my contention that Darboe would come out on top and we would've had a filly inclusive coalition.

UDP's size would've counted and the other sides would've be given a chance to vote on it. To me the questin is not who proposed the different components, but how we could've had a way that is fair and seen to be fair by all or at least the majority. I believe this proposal came from Musa Jeng of STGDP.

Cheers,
Jah


Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Nov 2011, at 12:y49, UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> No Edi. The perfect compromised would have been as thus; UDP accepts one component of PDOIS's Agenda 2011 in return for pdois's acceptance of a UDP led alliance. 
>  
> UDP had conceded the 5yr term limit and all the attendant conditions proposed by pdois but pdois, on the other hand, accepted nothing from the UDP proposal. That's why compromise could not be engendered.
>  
> The convention is a pdois proposal that was placed in opposition to the entirety of UDP's proposal. So clearly, what you are asking for is a coalition that is based entirely on pdois's proposals. That is not compromise; that is called imposition. It was the UDP that tried engendered compromise in the face of stiff opposition from pdois who were determined not to entertain any element of UDP proposal.
>  
> Thanks
> Daffeh
> 
> On 9 November 2011 12:17, Edi Jah <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Suntou, thanks for the forward.
> 
> ''It was recommended that proportional representation be introduced to enable the UDP to have its majority and then leave the delegates to select one person among the opposition to be the flag bearer. After the selection of the flagbearer a motion could then be introduced to propose that the delegates make a decision for the flag bearer to contest under a party ticket or an Independent ticket. When the motion is seconded and subjected to voting whatever the delegates decide would be accepted as binding to all. ''
> 
> IMO this recommendation would have been a perfect compromise because it takes two most contentious issues into account - party sizes and putting the flag bearer issue to a vote.
> 
> Folks, If you think this was a missed opportunity please advance some reasons?
> 
> If you think this compromise wasn't good enough please advance some reasons?
> 
> Cheers,
> Jah
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 9 Nov 2011, at 05:23, suntou touray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > Halifa: The flagbearer wanted to run on an NRP ticket while the parties recommended that he runs under an Independent ticket. It took time for the flag bearer to make a decision.
> >
> > Foroyaa: Was this not made clear by the MOU?
> >
> > Halifa: The MOU provides for the delegates to elect a flag bearer and determine candidature which could be either party led or independent candidature.
> >
> > Foroyaa: Is this not confusing?
> >
> > Halifa: It is not confusing if the explanation is clear. The Gambian people wanted everyone onboard so that we could have one candidate within the opposition to contest against the incumbent. It was recommended that proportional representation be introduced to enable the UDP to have its majority and then leave the delegates to select one person among the opposition to be the flag bearer. After the selection of the flagbearer a motion could then be introduced to propose that the delegates make a decision for the flag bearer to contest under a party ticket or an Independent ticket. When the motion is seconded and subjected to voting whatever the delegates decide would be accepted as binding to all.
> 
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
> at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> 
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
> To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
> [log in to unmask]
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> 
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤