"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Just so we're clear

Not Principal Skinner outlines what passes for membership rules in his party:

"We tried to be as flexible as we could and as open as we could, and the names that Mr. Cabana brought forward to us are not being people that have been engaged in our party or engaged in any of the activities of our party," Skinner told reporters.
One can only hope that one of those reporters asked why those very same people — those who have not been engaged in the party nor engaged in any of the activities of the party — are entitled to nominate PC candidates, but not PC leaders.

And perhaps Not Principal Skinner can outline where in his own party's shoddy constitution the requirement is to be found that links party "membership" to engagement.



At 12:24 AM, January 12, 2011 , Blogger Edward Hollett said...

Oh they asked him and if memory serves he may have gotten it a couple of times.

And he mumbled his way through some comment that electing a leader is different from electing a person to represent the party in the legislature or words to that effect.

Anyway, the whole thing is invented anyway.

If Dunderdale stood on Water Street and collected the first 50 names, they'd all be blessed.

At 4:27 PM, January 12, 2011 , Blogger Mark said...

What was there to be flexible about?

Membership is either a defined term, or it isn't. How does 'flexibility' come into play?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home