Repercussions / Fallout from FIDE Elections?

[Mick Norris]

Not that anyone's really noticed, but the position of England's FIDE delegate is up for re-election. There is only one named candidate.

I'd imagine that none of the above won't be voteless, but that Malcolm will get re-elected comfortably

If he doesn't, not sure who would be a likely alternative; those eligible and attending FIDE meetings would include Alex, Nick & of course Nigel has done it before

[J T Melsom]

[[/quote]

Not that anyone's really noticed, but the position of England's FIDE delegate is up for re-election. There is only one named candidate.
[/quote]

And so is that of the ECF President. Given the increaing rightwing populist tone and actions of the party of which the President is a member, should his re-appointment be a given. He may be 'good for chess' but there must surely come a time when that is not enough. People are right to be angry about Putin's systematic elimination of political opponents overseas, but austerity isn't exactly kind to its victims either.

[Paul Cooksey]

Not that anyone's really noticed, but the position of England's FIDE delegate is up for re-election.

Maybe I should have been clearer why I created this thread: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=9858

I need to reread what Malcolm has said in the past, but if that doesn't change my mind, and if no-one says anything to change my mind between now and the vote , I will probably vote for "not this candidate".

I am a bit doubtful whether malcolm will say anything substantive himself, given he is at the European Clubs.

[Brian Towers]

Not that anyone's really noticed, but the position of England's FIDE delegate is up for re-election. There is only one named candidate.

And so is that of the ECF President. Given the increaing rightwing populist tone and actions of the party of which the President is a member, should his re-appointment be a given. He may be 'good for chess' but there must surely come a time when that is not enough. People are right to be angry about Putin's systematic elimination of political opponents overseas, but austerity isn't exactly kind to its victims either.

I find this kind of tribalism destructive and deplorable.

In the chess world I am very happy to work with people I know to have very different political views to mine. In the US the polarisation that has occurred in politics has gone beyond the childish and stupid to the downright dangerous with people on both sides of the divide being shot. Sadly this lunacy is making its way into UK politics. Please God keep it out of English chess.

[J T Melsom]

Please read carefully what I've said and understand its context. I am happy to work and play chess alongside those of all creeds and colours, but where a person holds beliefs which conflict with the public good, then one should pause and reflect, rather than shrug one's shoulders. If I find myself kin an environment with people expressing racist views I don't generally just sit there and let them get on with it.

[Michael Farthing]

I largely agree with Brian, though not quite so forcefully. If we have a public figure as a president then I do consider that the views he expresses on politics or social issues is a valid consideration in deciding which way to cast a vote. However, the post has been announced as coming up for election and there has been an opportunity to stand against Dominic Lawson. Anyone who feels very strongly about this would have been better either to stand themselves or seek to find a candidate whom they would prefer. That has not happened so we are left with a choice of the current candidate or a vacant post.

Dominic has not attended many Board Meetings nor taken a leading part in the running of the ECF. However, in accepting the role he made it clear that this was deliberate and that he saw his role as more of an ambassador for the game. My impression is that he has done a good job in that role. I disagree with his politics but I have seen nothing that suggests they are so appalling that it comes anywhere near meriting an override of what he has done for the game. I probably disagree with his approach to what the ECF should be concentrating on - but again that is not a reason to have no president as an alternative.

Barring an outburst of horrendous villainy from him between now and Saturday I shall be supporting him.

And on the question of the presidential role I am in total agreement with Dominic: having a figurehead outside the cut and thrust of internal politics who can concentrate on presenting the game in a good light is, to my mind, the way to go. And he does play chess.

[John Foley]

you might explain why your favoured candidate was a good choice.

My favoured candidate was Zurab Azmaiparishvili. He has done an excellent job over the last four years in growing ECU as a separate brand. I was there for the ECU not for the FIDE Congress.

[J T Melsom]

John

We are discussing FIDE, you yourself mentioned FIDE campaign issues earlier in the thread. But if you choose not to address questions about that then can you comment on the suggestion that Zurab is a thug and a bully or is he a re-formed character? Is bullying a pre requisite for your support? I believe you have supported bullies in the past.

[J T Melsom]

Michael

I broadly agree. but one does need to be mindful of politics, however much we would rather leave it outside the door of the chess club. The ECF Board essentially made a political decision after all, so it is not unreasonable to suggest similar diligence might apply closer to home.

[NickFaulks]

The ECF Board essentially made a political decision after all, so it is not unreasonable to suggest similar diligence might apply closer to home.

Two wrongs don't make a right but if you're suggesting a charge of hypocrisy, be my guest.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I don't mind admitting I find Lawson's politics - in particular his indulgence of climate change denial - pretty distasteful.

But is there any evidence that it has actually influenced his behaviour as ECF president?

[J T Melsom]

Nick

I don't see it explicitly as hypocrisy, because there is no moral equivalence between the conduct of the Conservative Party and that of Russia under Putin. But that doesn't mean we should not be vigilant to the political causes with which elected officers associate. There may be reputational damage as well as benefits. I'm still waiting for John Foley to give me a straight answer, but having re-read swathes of a thread from 2015, I suspect that equivocation and evasion are his stock in trade. As somebody noted there its hard to maintain a dialogue when somebody doesn't answer the question. I'm still hoping he's a nice guy with the interests of chess at heart, but he's a bit elusive

[J T Melsom]

Matt

See above. I think there are reasons to be cautious when making such appointments, and I'd like to think the ECF would recognise that. On the chess front Dominic seems to have done a good job.

[Andrew Zigmond]

I am completely the other side of the political divide to Dominic Lawson but support his re-election; an an ambassadorial President he has done a good job. When he was first nominated as President there were some questions about his political views and none of the above made a slight showing in the council vote; since then he has been re-elected unanimously. Let's not forget his legacy wasn't brilliant; three out of his four immediate predecessors had been unmitigated disasters.

Those rushing to criticise Malcolm Pein in the wake of the FIDE elections seem to have forgotten his unparalleled track record in bringing sponsorship and investment into English chess. My perception is that he is genuinely well liked and respected by most English chess players. He may have backed the wrong horse in the FIDE elections and the sniping with the Short camp was not edifying but he still has a lot to offer the ECF and, perhaps, we may need him more than he needs us.

[JustinHorton]

.

Those rushing to criticise Malcolm Pein in the wake of the FIDE elections seem to have forgotten his unparalleled track record in bringing sponsorship and investment into English chess.

I see you're doing "seem" again.

(I guess we could go through "why bringing money into a sport doesn't and shouldn't insulate somebody from criticism for other aspects of their performance", but why bother eh.)