 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Feb 2010 : 11:37:11
|
culled from the Freedomnews paper.
A Rejoinder- The way forward for Democratic Change
On the 25th September 2009, the spokesperson and former flagbearer of the opposition National Alliance for Democracy and Development [NADD] published an article in the Foroyaa Newspaper under the above heading in which he made the following statements;
‘The split confirmed that a party led alliance or a divided alliance is not the way to bring about change in the Gambia. A divided NADD became extremely weak. The UDP party led alliance also showed its weakness. Instead of adding votes from the NRP and GDP, the UDP led alliance lost approximately 80,000 votes. In short, while UDP had approximately 145,000 votes in 2001presidential elections, in 2006 it ended up with approximately 104,000 votes. NRP had approximately 35, 000 votes in 2001. This did not feature in the votes of the UDP led alliance in 2006. Hence putting the three parties together did not lead to more votes; on the contrary it led to a lower number of votes. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that the same tactic will yield a different outcome.’
This is a complete glib and forms part of Halifa Sallah’s subterfuge to conceal his personal longstanding reluctance to rally behind a UDP led alliance and/or candidate. The UDP led alliance did not lose 80,000 votes in the 2006 presidential election neither is it tenable to attribute its defeat in that election to the type of alliance they had adopted with the National Reconciliation Party [NRP] and the Gambia People’s Democratic Party [GPDP.] Here are the facts;
In the 2001 presidential election, UDP had 133,590 votes. This was reduced to 104,000 votes in 2006 thereby registering a drop of 28,782 votes. The claim of approximately 80,000 lost is therefore outlandish and completely unfounded. Even if the NRP’s 2001 votes [32,198] are put into the equation, votes which Halifa himself posited did not feature in the UDP votes, the figure is still less than 80,000. It would be 60,980.
UDP’s drop in votes has to be put into the right perspective if one is to avoid misreading the result and distorting facts. The voter turn-out in 2001 was almost 90% [89.71%]. This figure had dwindled down to 58.58% in 2006 amounting to a registered drop of 31.1%, and this is notwithstanding the fact that the national voter register had been updated with 219,630 new voters. This is clearly a significant drop and has undoubtedly affected the general performance of the opposition in the 2006 presidential election. This is the conventional wisdom and it also explains why UDP had fewer votes in 2006 than in 2001. It is therefore untenable to use this as some kind of empirical evidence to the suggestion that a party led alliance is unsellable. It wasn’t like if these votes were lost to another party[s]. These are votes which weren’t in the pond for any party to fish. In other words, they did not participate in the electoral process. There is no evidence to the suggestion that this is due to the type of alliance adopted by the UDP or some form of protest specifically directed against it. In fact Halifa’s own view was that the low voter turn-out was due to the NADD fall-out while the UDP blame it inter alia on the harassment and intimidation tactics employed by the incumbent.
It has always being known that a low voter turn-out would most likely benefit the incumbent. Therefore, it shouldn’t be a surprise to have seen the main opposition party getting fewer votes in 2006 than in previous elections where voter turn-out had been extremely high just as it is not a surprise that NADD barely crossed over the 5% threshold.
Another factor responsible for UDP’s drop in votes was lack of adequate prior preparation. While the incumbent was using the ample time [five years] at their disposal to effectively prepare themselves for the 2006 election, UDP had itself bogged down in an endless dogmatic political wrangling within NADD. They attempted to start preparing the ground two years before the presidential election by embarking on a tour of the North Bank Division in their own right but this was suddenly called short after a request to that effect was made by NADD’s Executive Committee. They ended up being politically frozen within the NADD bubble which took them nowhere but the gutters of smear and being conspired against. This was a very expensive mistake which cost the UDP dearly and eventually hindered their ability to effectively mobilise and prepare the ground for a successful campaign and election in 2006.
The lost of NRP leader’s Upper Saloum parliamentary seat in the 2005 by-election which was by the way necessitated by Halifa’s clandestine registration of NADD as a political party against every sound legal advice and in contravention of the Preamble and Part1[1] of the Memorandum of Understanding that explicitly established NADD as an alliance, has had a demoralising effect on the party’s base particularly in the Central River Division, and due to the dogmatic wrangling within NADD, they too have not had a chance to adequately prepare their base for the upcoming election. Even when the party contested the Upper Saloum parliamentary seat again in 2007 and in their own name, they still lose albeit narrowly. This was another factor that affected the UDP led alliance’s votes in 2006. However, to construe the effect of this problem as some kind of empirical evidence to the suggestion that party-led alliance does not work without taking into account all the inherent factors that inhibited UDP led alliance’s vote maximisation strategy is a superficial assessment that has no chance of flying across the face of diligent scrutiny. Despite all the unfair criticisms and accusations of all sorts that were levelled against them in the run-up to the 2006 presidential election, the UDP and NRP were absolutely confident that in the light of the existing circumstance, a party-led alliance was the best option available to all opposition parties at the time and that position had been vindicated by the results of that election.
The Misrepresentations
Halifa’s claim that he had proposed a party-led alliance before is not strictly true. What happened was that PDOIS like all other parties knew very well that UDP’s position was to have a party- led alliance with the rest of the parties. They also knew that none of the parties including the NRP were at the time ready to support this proposal. As the chairperson of the meeting that was convened to discuss possible proposals for the creation of a coalition/alliance of all opposition parties, Halifa then felt obliged to put this proposal to the meeting alongside his own, the NADD option. At the end, the UDP position could not earn support from the other parties and that is how the NADD option ended up being adopted. This does not however reflect Halifa’s support for a Party-led alliance. In fact, he has a history of opposition to this type of alliance. In 2001 when the idea of a UDP led alliance first surfaced, Halifa openly rejected it in a radio talk show saying that when the first republican parties were banned under the terms of Decree 89 saved for PDOIS, the proponents of the UDP refused to join them to fight the junta in the 1996 presidential election but instead decided to form their own party. When he was invited to a meeting in 2006 that was to discuss UDP’s proposal to create a party-led alliance that was to include NADD, Halifa didn’t even bother to show up.
His claim in a Daily News interview of 28th October 2009 that the UDP was better served by NADD by reasons of the former’s past electoral boycotts is not borne by facts. The UDP ended their boycott well before the signing of the MOU that established NADD and had successfully sponsored, in their own name and under their own banner, a candidate [Ousman Rambo Jatta] in the Bakau Old Cape ward bye-election ever since. Kemenseng Jammeh too contested and won the Jarra West bye- election of 2004 under UDP ticket and represented his constituency in parliament as a UDP member until when his seat was declared vacant in 2005. That was the time he contested under the NADD ticket. Therefore, to suggest that UDP somehow owe their return to the electoral process to NADD is palpably absurd and disingenuous. The UDP has always being a force to reckon with and the near lethal effect of their withdrawal on NADD is a clear testimony to that.
Halifa’s own diabolical electoral performance
Rather than merely questioning the viability of the UDP led alliance and hyping on its setbacks, and in the interest of fair and balanced factual reporting, Halifa should have been kind enough to elaborate on his own political failings and that of the party [NADD] he led into the 2006 presidential election as a flag bearer. This would have given the readers a broader perspective of the issues before us. Not doing this is cheap politics and Halifa should have risen about it.
In 2006, Halifa scored less than thousand [1,000] votes in 43 constituencies out of a total of 48. In ten of them, he scored less than hundred [100] votes namely; Foni Berefet [67 votes], Nianija [65 votes], Foni Jarrol [62 votes], Jarra Central [55 votes], Kiang Central [51 votes], Kiang East [51 votes], Foni Bintang [45 votes], Foni Bondali [23 votes], Janjanbury [16 votes] and Foni Kansala [13 votes]. In his own constituency of Serrekunda Central where he was a sitting member of parliament, Halifa’s votes [2,182] were doubled by the UDP candidate’s 4,908 votes. His national score was only 23, 473 representing less than 6% [5.98%] of the total votes cast. This raises very serious questions about the political viability of NADD and the kind of political weight and pedigree Halifa often associates himself with. The level of political narcissism he has displayed in this unity debate is certainly not matched by his electoral records. It would therefore be very helpful to the unification efforts if Halifa, PDOIS and PPP-OJ take it upon themselves to immediately dissolve NADD without precondition. This will enable its leaders to easily return to their original parties thereby providing an opportunity for a fresh start that is untainted with the venom of the NADD debacle of 2006 and thereby closing the chapter of misinformation and slender that has poisoned relations between the UDP and leaders of certain fringe parties including PDOIS.
While remaining steadfast in their determination to work with any party and/person[s] to build a strong and genuine coalition against the APRC in 2011, the United Democratic Party will not allow itself to be hoodwinked by an eloquent but disingenuous and dogmatic ideologue.
Steering Committee
UDP-UK
London
Contact; gambiaforall@googlemail.com
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2010 : 17:10:49
|
U.D.P/N.R.P have no political organ for press release and dessiminate news to the public. It is volunteers that try to scrape news from facebook and create dry websites (Suntumania) to rally support and compete with up-to-date Foroyaa (P.D.O.I.S political paper).
Therefore REJOINDER should refer as a personal opinion (of Nyaringkangbana ON FUTILE EXERCISE TO MAKE U.D.P WIN AND DOMINATE GAMBIAN POLITICS. THESE ARE not opinions of Lawyer Darboe or Hamat Bah as party leaders; and/or unofficial press release that originate from U.D.P or N.R.P!
Sorry to add that; U.D.P will never make it in forthcoming elections in my opinion.
|
Edited by - kobo on 01 Feb 2010 17:13:42 |
 |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 02:58:24
|
Kobo, these UDP-UK Branch clowns are either clueless or they can't seem to see the obvious. But either way, they are only helping to herald the UDP death knell. We know the agenda- Operation Last Chance Saloon. The Media blitz, the intense PR and the sudden gung ho approach to everything UDP, all amounts to one thing- get Darbo elected at all cost because this his final chance of elligibility for a Presidential election due to age limitations. But while they are fixated in this endeavour, one has to wonder if they see the looming time-bomb lurking towards the complete disintergration of the UDP Party. Do these people seriously consider the consequencies of a UDP without Darboe? Can't they see that the UDP dies with Darboe bowing out? What still welds this party together is almost all a nepotistic agenda generally orchestrated from the diaspora and oppotunist leaches dreaming about past glory. Apart from Ousainou Darboe, there is no one within the UDP ranks that overwhelmingly fits the position of leader of the grand agenda, that will immediately assume the mantle when called upon. For all their bravado and selfless sacrifice for the party, Femi Peters, Mariam Denton, Rambo and Syngle Nyassi will never lead this party. The rest are just seasonal politicians and opportunists not worth mentioning except perhaps Kanyiba Kanyi. The diaspora loud mouths in the mean time dare not even venture beyond Yoff Airport. This the unfortunate tragedy that awaits the UDP. This is what Waa Juwara is already celebrating while fearing a revived NADD.
With all this in mind, one has to to wonder who the hell are strategising for the UDP with their new overzealous approach of 'we will go it alone, join the bandwagon or scapper.' To compound their looming disaster, they hire an intolerant Taliban and other clueless imbeciles to run their UK PR machine. Brilliant!!! In attacking Mr Sallah they do not only expose their folly but they are also selling Ousainou Darbo as a weak leader. But then again that is exactly what Ousainou has doing in the NADD postmortem debate. What is mostly exposed in the debate is that all the leaders were in control of their party boundaries except Darboe. He is the leader of the biggest political party in NADD yet he joined his collegues in hatching the NADD agenda as an annonymous an bizzarely intimidated observer, while leaders of "a party which has only a commitee in serekunda," "an untested party like NDAM" and "PDOIS which did not even pull more than 5% in the 2001 elections" call the tune in almost every decision. Is this not the mark of a weak leader? Almost all the other leaders could be forgiven for acting against a Darboe Presidential nomination (if they ever did) because of the poor leadership qualities and naivete displayed by Darboe in the NADD saga. Am i the only one who sees a potential pupppet leader? I swear, given Darbo's position as the overwhelming leader of the biggest opposition party, any other other one of the NADD leaders would have nailed a Presidential nomination within a week if they had his opportunity. Darbo's act of weakness is the single most significant reason for the collapse of NADD while his handlers in the diaspora acted on this weakness too to dissuade him from further participation because their nepotistic agenda was threatened. I hope history will not judge him too hashly to overide the fact that he is one of the finest and most selfless legal minds our country is ever honoured to have. But as a politician he has misserably failed. If Darbo for once can comport himsef as a man in control of his actions, then he has a redeemable political clout within a revived NADD. If not he has only himself to blame. for the misfortunes of the UDP. |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 11:48:01
|
I do not want to get involved here as it appears that those who have already posted a response to this rejoinder are here to deflect attentions from the issues highlighted, and I am not prepared to help them in that endeavour. However, I do like to say few things;
The United Democratic Party will be around and continue to remain a dominant political force with or without Ousainu Darboe as leader.
Even if Ousainu Darboe ceased to be the leader, he would still be a key player in the UDP and his wisdom, influence and skills of all sorts would be better utilised to move the party from strength to strength. So if their position is to wait until Darboe's time is over and then seek co-operation from the UDP in respect of their own political agenda then Halifa and his disciples are gravely deluded.
The NADD issue have been extensively debated here [in this forum] and therefore doesn't merit my commenting.
I commend the UDP-UK for coming out with such a robust rejoinder to the nuisance of Ayatollah Sallah and his disciples.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 02 Feb 2010 17:03:21 |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11804 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 18:23:19
|
There is a saying in Mandinka; if your enemy say they will make the sky fall on you, just tell him/her to go ahead and do it because they will not escape whatever befalls.
Unity is strength! |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 18:39:59
|
Lets review what Halifa said and available sources for the figures from election results analysed to ascertain the FACTS first before dealing with ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS!
Please refer:-
1. Related Bantaba Gambian politics topic Discourse With Halifa Sallah under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8329
Quotes
"After the resignation of Darboe and the pulling out of UDP and NRP the issue of numbers did not arise since the committee established to nominate a Presidential candidate did agree unanimously to select me. Rejecting their nomination was not a responsible option. It is also important to point out that NADD was not preoccupied with the number of votes a person had in previous elections but was formed to ensure that our collective strength could enable an electable candidate to win. The facts revealed by the results of the 2006 Presidential elections confirm that numbers do not always add up. In short, in the 1999 -2002 report of the IEC which was submitted to the National Assembly it is stated that the UDP leader had 149,448 votes while the NRP leader had 35,671 votes. The expectation was that if the two parties formed an alliance in 2006 they will get an equivalent of their two results in the 2001 Presidential elections which amounted to185, 119.
When the two parties left NADD and formed their Alliance along with GPDP, the UDP led Alliance managed to get 104,808 and not the 185,119 votes anticipated. However when the NADD took part in bye elections before its disintegration, it had the upper hand in popular votes. Numbers do count sometimes. However under given circumstances it is tactics that bring the numbers. That is how Tumani Touray became the President of Mali. He met parties with majorities but he was the electable candidate and won on an Independent ticket. We must find out what the people want to succeed."
2. I.E.C Source for 2001 Presidential Election results on votes 149,448 (U.D.P) & 35,671 (N.R.P) respectively; under http://africanelections.tripod.com/gm.html#2001_Presidential_Election
3. Another so-called (contradictory)I.E.C Website Source for 2001 Presidential Election results on votes 133,590 (U.D.P) & 28,782 (N.R.P) respectively; relied by Steering Committee UDP-UK under http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/g/gambia/gambia.txt
NB:WHICH ONE OF EITHER UNDER 2. OR 3. ABOVE APPEARS MORE RELIABLE
4. The Gambia Detailed Election Results for 2006 Presidential Election results under http://africanelections.tripod.com/gm_detail.html
Therefore please re-visit analysis on figures of VOTES
|
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 23:19:08
|
| Which is the dummy one by the way? I am all for this debate and it does not bode well with me that there are attempts to stiffle it. If the politicians from the "defunct NADD" wants to shy away from it but are instead give their blessings to their surrogates , it is all welcome by me. The talk got to talked to pave the way for a new beginning. To right the wrong, you have to establish the wrong first. Otherwise we risk a deja vous all over again. My above statement is just one of many reality checks long overdue to you clowns at UDP-UK. You just wait until the moon comes falling on your face. |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 19:37:44
|
HALIFA SALLAH COMMENTS AFTER THE APRC TOUR NO CREDIBLE RULING PARTY NO CREDIBLE OPPOSITION A NEW WAY FORWARD NEEDED
By Publisher on 03-02-10 (1 reads) News by the same author
After the completion of the APRC tour, Foroyaa approached Halifa Sallah for comments.
This is what he said:“Political leaders should tell their supporters the truth. A political vacuum exists in the Gambia. Some supporters of the APRC said that the opposition parties in the Gambia are not credible. They should also add that the ruling party is not credible. Their assessment of Gambian politics as it stands would then be correct and balanced. Some leaders who do not want to be honest to their supporters are trying to give the impression that the statistics I have been putting out are over statements. They are not telling their supporters the truth. Political leaders should tell the truth. For only the truth shall set us free. I have relied on empirical evidence to conclude that at this very moment we do not have a credible ruling party or opposition party. We have a duty to create both. Those who are offended by this statement are not prepared to do what is necessary to save Gambian politics from being an exercise in mediocrity.
After the presidential elections in 2006, I wrote a pamphlet in which I quoted the statistics to confirm my assertion. Gambians have to be reminded these statistics to awaken each from our political apathy.
According to the IEC, 670, 336 voters were registered prior to the 2006 presidential elections. When the results were delivered the IEC indicated that the APRC candidate who was also supported by the NCP had 264,404 votes. If this is subtracted from the total number of registered voters it would mean that 405,932 voters did not vote for the APRC candidate. The UDP candidate who was also supported by NRP and GPDP had 104,808 votes, while the NADD candidate had 23,473 votes. The total votes of the opposition amounted to 128,281 votes. If this is subtracted from the total number of registered voters it would be apparent that 542,055 voters did not vote for the opposition. Wherein lies the credibility of the ruling party and the opposition party if politics is reduced to its lowest common denominator as contest based on the number of votes.
Interestingly enough, in 2001 the APRC candidate had 242,302 votes when it forged no alliance with the NCP. At that time there were 501,304 registered voters. Suffice it to say, even though the number of voters increased by 169032, by 2006 the votes of the APRC could only increase by 22,102 votes. The UDP candidate had 149,448 votes in 2001. Even though it developed alliance with NRP, which had 35,671 votes in 2001, its votes went down 104,808 votes in the 2006 elections, despite the increase in the number of registered voters by 169032 voters.
Foroyaa: What is your advise?
It is therefore necessary for political leaders to go back to the drawing board and map out a new way forward. How is the opposition to attract the 542,055 voters who did not vote for them is the subject at hand. This is what Agenda 2011 is all about. Even though I am not excluding acceptance of candidature, I have already declared that the best option is to select a neutral candidate who will be able to run a non partisan transitional cabinet for a period of 2 to 5 years and then step aside after a genuine multi party contest. It is left to Gambians to decide whether they have a better way forward.
http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4447
|
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2010 : 21:27:45
|
I have double checked UDP-UK's figures in respect of the 2001 presidential election and guess what? They are absolutely spot-on. The total number of votes casted for the UDP in 2001 was definitely 133,590, not 145,000 as claimed by Halifa. This is one of the areas where the Ayatollah got muddled up. But since he is insisting on his figures as shown in his recent interview [this may be intentional or unintentional, I don't know] I think anyone intereted in ascertaining the facts and finding the truth should simply visit the I.E.C's official website; www.iec.gm. There is no need to argue with anyone. Just go to the website and grab the information yourself. You are simply just that close to discovering the truth.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
|
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 16:17:48
|
If infact the IEC figures were wrong, will you for once in your hate-filled pathetic life apologise to Mr Sallah. Every credible source apart from the IEC website agrees with Mr Sallah's figures. They include the British Home office, UNHCR, The Point Newspaper among others.
Annex D: Election results
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 18 OCTOBER 2001
Candidates Votes Per cent of votes
Yahya A. J. J. Jammeh (APRC) 242,302 52.84
Ousainou N. Darboe (UDP-PPP-GPP Coalition) 149,448 32.59
Hamat N. K. Bah (NRP) 35,671 7.78
Sheriff Mustapha Dibba (NCP) 17,271 3.77
Sidia Jatta (PDOIS) 13,841 3.02
Total 458,533 100.00
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/gambia_260406.doc
http://archive.thepoint.gm/headlines1224.htm
Why is the UDP self-destructing so, by allowing clueless *****s like yourself tarnish the image of good people on their behalf. Every time you vomit bile trying to prove Mr Sallah wrong you end up getting stuck in a heap of poop. Last time you claimed that you know for a fact(based on sacrosanct sources at the top of the government you worked for at that time) that the EU paid all the Gambia government debt owed to Alimenta even after facts to the contrary were presented to you here. You heaped insult on Mr Sallah for somthing he never said. We have been waiting for you to present your sacrosanct fact here, only for you to go AWOL for many months and surface again with more hate. Here is even more evidence to the last discussion courtesy of Sister Sab: http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4335
Will you for once end your fixation with Mr Sallah. How many times do you have to embarass youself? You are even gathering a cult around you, where your disciples inlude a crazy Taliban and other fruit cakes. |
Edited by - shaka on 04 Feb 2010 16:40:30 |
|
|
|
Nyarikangbanna
United Kingdom
1382 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 18:42:01
|
IEC is the official body responsible for conducting, counting and releasing official election results by virtue of the Gambian constitution. Unless successfully challenged in a court of law, whatever election results they declared is not only official but also legally and constitutionally authoritative.
I do not know where the UDP-UK got its figures from but it certainly matches with the official version. Without a successful legal challenge, only a retard will question the authenticity of IEC's declared results.
I spoke to somebody closely connected to the UDP last week and just yesterday, he called back to say he had personally checked the figures with the UDP Secretariat and they too have confirmed the UDP-UK figures. They said [according to my source] it matches with their own kept records.
Even if we are to go by Halifa's figures [145,000], it would appear that UDP lost only 41,000 votes in 2006, not Halifa's embellished firgure of 80,000. The mathamatics is simple; 145,000-104,000=41,000. It therefore looks like there is no doubt left here in respect of Halifa's deceit.
I will leave the silliness to the silly people because I know they are bitter about this expose' and are looking for an opportunity to deflect attentions from the issue hence the personal attack on me. I have no intention of helping them out on that.
Thanks
|
I do not oppose unity but I oppose dumb union. |
Edited by - Nyarikangbanna on 04 Feb 2010 19:11:12 |
|
|
|
ylowe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 20:43:19
|
| Halifa sallah is one of the few politicians in the gambia who did his homework and contiues to do so. Why do you guys hate him so much? He is the most experienced politician in the gambia and not a dam thing is going to change that and will someday lead that nation Insallah. Instead of UDP-UK concentrating on jammeh you should spent your time on Halifa. Are you guys scared of going to mile two? We dont need politicians who are not ready to go to jail during this era. It is femi peter's turn today yesterday was waa juwara eventually all theses strong men will be tamed one by one if we dont stop this kind of politics |
|
|
|
Kitabul Arerr
Gambia
645 Posts |
|
|
shaka
996 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 22:29:11
|
You do not know where the UDP-UK got its figures? What a pathetic liar!!! It was you who wrote the article. You started it on 11/10/2009 and then disappeared for four months after everybody ignored your hate preaching, only to surface now, to add voice to the hate Taliban and his UDP-UK group. Do you take us for imbeciles or something? The fact that you have comfirmed that you are liasing with the UDP Secretiat makes your smear campaign all the more sickening. The cowards who are directing you always **** themselves every time they sit on the same table as Mr Sallah and so are only able to express themselves using mad surrogates like you lot at UDP-UK. Here is exactly what you said in October in this forum, replicating the UDP-UK bile:
http://gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8158&SearchTerms=halifa,sallah
The UDP party led Alliance also showed its weakness. Instead of adding votes from the NRP and GPDP, the UDP led alliance lost approximately 80,000 votes. In short, while UDP had approximately, 145,000 votes in 2001 Presidential elections, in 2006 it ended up with approximately, 104,000 votes. NRP had approximately 35,000 votes in 2001.This did not feature in the votes of the UDP led Alliance in 2006. Hence putting the three parties together did not lead to more votes; on the contrary it led to a lower number of votes. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that the same tactic will yield a different outcome. This is the first lesson to draw.’ - Halifa Sallah
This statement is absurd and disingenuously embellished. The UDP alliance did not lost approximately 80,000 votes in the 2006 presidential election neither did it had approximately 145,000 votes in the 2001 presidential election. The total number of votes casted for the UDP in 2001 was 133,590 and 104,808 in 2006. This indicates a drop of only 28,782 votes, not the outlandish 80,000 figure Halifa claimed in his statement. This statement is clearly a preposterous hyperbole and should be treated as such.
It is also disingenuous to attribute the drop in UDP votes to the type of alliance they adopted with the NRP in 2006. This has to be put into its right perspective if one is not to distort the facts. In 2001 the voter turn-out was almost 90% [89.71%]. This has dropped down to 58.58% in 2006. This amounts to a registered drop of 31.1%, and that is notwithstanding the fact that the national voter register had been updated with 219,630 new voters by 2006. This also means the 2006 election was not contested in the same footing as the 2001 election. The 31.1% drop in voter turn-out is very significant and have clearly and undoubtedly affected [this is the conventional wisdom by the way] the general performance of the opposition at the polls, and this explains why UDP registered a drop in 2006. It wasn’t like if they lost these votes to another party[s] as it is seemly portrayed by Halifa; these are votes which were not in the pond for any party to fish. They did not participate in the electoral process. So clearly, this cannot be seen in anyway as an empirical evidence to the suggestion that UDP’s drop in votes in 2006 is due to the type of alliance they adopted with the NRP, and if that is what Halifa is saying, then he is dead wrong.
The level of voter turn-out in 2006 had not been in anyway influenced by the nature of alliance adopted by either the UDP or indeed NADD. That is a concrete fact. In fact Halifa himself blamed it on the spilt of the original NADD, not the type of alliance adopted by any party. Therefore, and instead of yelling about a so-called UDP lost and blaming it on the nature of the alliance they adopted, I think it would have been better if Halifa had talked about how best to bring those disenchanted and/involuntary absentee voters who haven't voted in 2006 back into the electoral process so as to enable the opposition to court their votes once again in 2011.
I do not wish to elaborate on Halifa’s attribution of the unprecedented low voter turn-out seen in 2006 to the spilt of the original NADD. I view this as his legitimate opinion, and that needs to be respected. However, this is not an opinion shared by the UDP. They attribute it to the illicit campaign tactics of the ruling APRC; the tactics of intimidation and harassment. I hope Halifa too will respect that opinion. That way, we will be able to avoid the kind of polarisation that kept many none and/passive partisan voters away from the electoral process. This is another way of preventing the kind of voter apathy Halifa illustrated in his statement.
Rather than hyping on the setbacks of the UDP alone, Halifa should have been kind and honest enough to elaborate on his own failings in the interest of objectivity and balanced factual reporting. It is not enough to merely state that NADD alliance did not work. Its diabolical electoral performance in the 2006 presidential election is also worth mentioning if we are to have a broader perspective of the issues before us. Not to do this is crude and cheap, and Halifa should have risen above that.
In the 2006 presidential election, Halifa scored less than thousand [1000] votes in 43 constituencies out of a total of 48. In 10 of them, he scored less than hundred [100] votes namely; Foni Brefet [67 votes], Nianija [65 votes], Foni Jarrol [62 votes], Jarra central [55 votes], Kiang Central [51 votes], Kiang East [51 votes], Foni Bintang [45 votes], Foni Bondali [23votes], Janjanbury [16 votes] and Foni Kansala [13 votes]. In his own constituency of Serrekunda Central where he was a sitting member of parliament, Halifa’s votes were more than doubled by the UDP candidate [2,182 votes for Halifa and 4,908 for the UDP candidate]. His national score was only 23,473 votes representing less than 6% [5.98%] of the total votes cast. This raises very serious questions about the viability of both NADD as an alliance/party and Halifa as a presidential contender. It would therefore be very helpful to the unification efforts if Halifa and his allies take it upon themselves to dissolve NADD immediately and without preconditions. This would provide an opportunity of a fresh start,and would also help in a much profound way, in closing the chapter of political bickering and slender that has being the hallmark of the row that arose from the original NADD stalmate and the later fall-out.
During the 2006 presidential election nomination, Halifa in his address to the press asked Gambians to decide between him and the UDP candidate. The people then decided at the polls in a ratio of 5:1 in favour of the UDP candidate. Halifa should now accept this utter rejection in good faith and assure Gambians that he will not put up himself as a spoiler candidate in 2011. This is imperative and will go a long way in assuring the many sceptical but opposition leaning voters who saw no point in voting in 2006 that a coalition of all opposition parties is achievable in 2011.
Halifa’s totalitarian grip on NADD is also a major if not the sole obstacle to unity, and it is about time a way around him is being carved. I believe more effort and time should be invested in bringing moderate NADD figures like OJ into the fold and if necessary alienate the insulate PDOIS quartet from the process should they choose the path of crude idealism and belligerence particularly towards the UDP, rather than a level headed commonsense approach, an approach that effectively accommodates all the dynamics of our local politics. This is the way forward.
If we can’t have all of it, then we must strive to have most of it.
Thanks |
Edited by - shaka on 04 Feb 2010 22:36:14 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2010 : 23:19:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kitabul Arerr
The UDP website is a joke!
http://udpgambia.com/index.html
http://udpgambia.com/involved.html
http://udpgambia.com/manifesto.html
http://udpgambia.com/links.html
Nothing to "open call[collar?] about.............................................................................lol!
I think this website is a workshop for Suntu (Santangfara) to promote U.D.P as a viable party. A generous, good initiative and design to play smart politics and up-grade sluggish & nepotist U.D.P
Foroyaa has been up-to-date on Gambian politics, verbatim court proceedings, accumulation of data & statistics since P.P.P days; before A.P.R.C came to power & existence of both U.D.P & N.R.P.
None can dispute that they have the best reliable archives on any information in Gambian politics, best researchers, more versatile and always current
LONG LIVE FOROYAA!
|
Edited by - kobo on 05 Feb 2010 00:30:29 |
|
|
|
kobo
United Kingdom
7765 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2010 : 00:15:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nyarikangbanna
I have double checked UDP-UK's figures in respect of the 2001 presidential election and guess what? They are absolutely spot-on. The total number of votes casted for the UDP in 2001 was definitely 133,590, not 145,000 as claimed by Halifa. This is one of the areas where the Ayatollah got muddled up. But since he is insisting on his figures as shown in his recent interview [this may be intentional or unintentional, I don't know] I think anyone intereted in ascertaining the facts and finding the truth should simply visit the I.E.C's official website; www.iec.gm. There is no need to argue with anyone. Just go to the website and grab the information yourself. You are simply just that close to discovering the truth.
Thanks
Did you oversight what is repeated below, Posted - 02 Feb 2010 : 18:39:59 as follows?
Lets review what Halifa said and available sources for the figures from election results analysed to ascertain the FACTS first before dealing with ASSUMPTIONS AND OPINIONS!
Please refer:-
1. Related Bantaba Gambian politics topic Discourse With Halifa Sallah under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8329
Quotes:
"After the resignation of Darboe and the pulling out of UDP and NRP the issue of numbers did not arise since the committee established to nominate a Presidential candidate did agree unanimously to select me. Rejecting their nomination was not a responsible option. It is also important to point out that NADD was not preoccupied with the number of votes a person had in previous elections but was formed to ensure that our collective strength could enable an electable candidate to win. The facts revealed by the results of the 2006 Presidential elections confirm that numbers do not always add up. In short, in the 1999 -2002 report of the IEC which was submitted to the National Assembly it is stated that the UDP leader had 149,448 votes while the NRP leader had 35,671 votes. The expectation was that if the two parties formed an alliance in 2006 they will get an equivalent of their two results in the 2001 Presidential elections which amounted to185, 119.
When the two parties left NADD and formed their Alliance along with GPDP, the UDP led Alliance managed to get 104,808 and not the 185,119 votes anticipated. However when the NADD took part in bye elections before its disintegration, it had the upper hand in popular votes. Numbers do count sometimes. However under given circumstances it is tactics that bring the numbers. That is how Tumani Touray became the President of Mali. He met parties with majorities but he was the electable candidate and won on an Independent ticket. We must find out what the people want to succeed."
2. I.E.C Source for 2001 Presidential Election results on votes 149,448 (U.D.P) & 35,671 (N.R.P) respectively; under http://africanelections.tripod.com/gm.html#2001_Presidential_Election
3. Another so-called (contradictory)I.E.C Website Source for 2001 Presidential Election results on votes 133,590 (U.D.P) & 28,782 (N.R.P) respectively; relied by Steering Committee UDP-UK under http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/g/gambia/gambia.txt
NB:WHICH ONE OF EITHER UNDER 2. OR 3. ABOVE APPEARS MORE RELIABLE
i. Halifa got reliable source of publication with his figures under 2. above.
ii. I.E.C Website interestingly correspond with 3. above with different statistics under 2. above
4. The Gambia Detailed Election Results for 2006 Presidential Election results under http://africanelections.tripod.com/gm_detail.html
5. Reference to Bantaba Gambian politics topic Halifa: THE WAY FORWARD FOR DEMOCRATIC CHANGE under http://www.gambia.dk/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8158
Quotes:
"A divided NADD became extremely weak. The UDP party led Alliance also showed its weakness. Instead of adding votes from the NRP and GPDP, the UDP led alliance lost approximately 80,000 votes. In short, while UDP had approximately, 145,000 votes in 2001 Presidential elections, in 2006 it ended up with approximately, 104,000 votes. NRP had approximately 35,000 votes in 2001.This did not feature in the votes of the UDP led Alliance in 2006. Hence putting the three parties together did not lead to more votes; on the contrary it led to a lower number of votes. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that the same tactic will yield a different outcome. This is the first lesson to draw."
NB: "approximately 145,000" could be a human error, mistake, omission or any kind of unexpected error; as no man is perfect? It could have been referred as approximation of 149,448 (for loss of 80,000 votes)to 149,000 and the keyboard struck 145,000
6. Finally latest on politics of substance from Foroaa as rejoinder, for clarification, clear all distortions and mis-representations; National News : HALIFA SALLAH COMMENTS AFTER THE APRC TOUR NO CREDIBLE RULING PARTY NO CREDIBLE OPPOSITION A NEW WAY FORWARD NEEDED under http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4447
|
Edited by - kobo on 05 Feb 2010 00:38:44 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
