'Aye Aye Daffeh. Do not be sidetracked. Continue to head due-north. The UDP-led alliance is the alliance of choice by the most Gambians.'- Haruna. Allez! With this advice, I am bolting out of this conversation. Thanks, Haruna Daffeh On 10 November 2011 09:26, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Aye Aye Daffeh. Do not be sidetracked. Continue to head due-north. The > UDP-led alliance is the alliance of choice by the most Gambians. > > Haruna. > > -----Original Message----- > From: UDP United Kingdom <[log in to unmask]> > To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 11:02 am > Subject: Re: [G_L] Hamat Resigning from NRP and going Independent....He > has Rolled Over > > > Edi, > > The UDP insisted on leading any coalition that they would partake in as > the biggest opposition party because that is the conventional room. We also > take cognisance of the fact that coalitions are always formulated on the > basis of compromise; meaning prospective constituents would have to > accommodate some element of each others' view or positions on issues. > > The UDP never asked for a proportional representation for it is already > our position that based on our status as the biggest party who consistently > pulled far more votes than the other parties in every elections since the > birth of the second republic, we have already acquired the legitimacy to > lead any coalition in which we are to partake, and this is an entrenched > democratic principle in the world that we live in. The PDOIS > primary/convention proposals were specifically designed to reject the > legitimacy that the people have given to the UDP as the official opposition > time and time again. > > Before you start talking about proportional representation which, by the > way is a pdois proposal, you need to ask yourself what component of the UDP > proposal did pdois accommodated? The answer is nil. The next question you > need to ask yourself is whether it is reasonable for pdois to insist that > the coalition would be formulated entirely on the basis of their proposal > and in total contempt and disregard to udp proposal, who are, in fact, the > convenors of the unity talks? Well, that's exactly what pdois has done and > who said nothing about it. > > The size factor you alluded to is only there to demonstrate that the UDP > already got the legitimacy to lead. Therefore, submitting ourselves to a > convention regardless of whether or not we can win it, especially in that > unconventional format; will only invites malicious and insincere challenges > to UDP legitimacy to lead a coalition. That is not acceptable to us as long > as we remain the biggest opposition party or become the incumbent party. > The UDP is the biggest opposition party in the country, and more people > elected Ousainu Darboe to be the leader in the 2010 Jarra congress than the > 189 delegates who elected Hamat at the PDOIS engineered convention. > > Also, if you believe that forgone conclusion, if UDP had partake in the > convention, was a UDP victory, why a convention then. You also need to > acknowledge that Hamat has explicitly stated on several occasions that he > was not going to be part of any alliance that is not led by him. Thus, even > if UDP had partake in the convention and won as you predicted, that would > not have resulted to unity but mere waste of money, further polarisation > and disharmony in the opposition. > > The intransigence that pdois has exhibited against anything udp would > also mean that even if the UDP had partake in the convention and won, we > would that be able enlist the support of pdois wholeheartedly. > > In any case, the primary/convention among different contenders who do > not belong to the same party is unheard of and without precedent. The norm > is that coalition leadership is always given to the party with the largest > followership with questioning, and that party is the United Democratic > Party. > > The sheer hypocrisy being exhibited by so-called elites is both > ungambian and ungodly. > > Regards > Daffeh > > >> 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. >>> >>> いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >>> 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] >>> いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >>> >> >> いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい 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]いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >> >> いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい 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]いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい >> > > いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい 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]いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい > いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい 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]いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい > いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい 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] いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい