but he is working for all his constituents, he is trying to free them from the shackles of the EU. UKIP's method seems to be working very effectively, as the only way to achieve leaving the EU is for them to gain more support. Even if they don't ever get a sniff of power due to first pass the post, it will put more pressure on Con-Lab to consider a referendum in order to win voters back, who have switched to UKIP. So just because they aren't working 'conventionally' or to the rules doesn't mean they are not representing their constituents.
That would be like Cameron refusing to go to summits, not attending PMQs and leaving the cabinet to run things, so he could campaign for the Conservatives.
That would be like Cameron refusing to go to summits, not attending PMQs and leaving the cabinet to run things, so he could campaign for the Conservatives.
I'd add, at the risk of belabouring the analogy, "and on those few occasions when he votes in the Commons, he votes with the Labour and other Opposition parties".
Except that he admits he is spending time & allowance money on campaigning across the UK - not representing his constituents at all. That is time and money he should spend on doing his actual job. People can try to excuse this anyway they like, but I expect elected representatives to do the job they are actually paid to do, for the people of the constituency they represent. I want consistency too - and if others are not doing their jobs then I would say the same about them - and have.
Again - if you want UKIP to have money to campaign then donate to them - don't use taxpayer's money. That applies to any politician from any party in any role.
Well yes he could be in Brussels sitting in pointless talking shop committees and casting endless whipped votes while towing the party group line - just like the Labour/LD and Tory MEPs. They are so ineffective 99% of the population couldn't name any of them. When Nigel is in Brussels - as you see from his speeches - he makes more impact in 2 minutes than most of them make in a year.
Nigel does exactly what it says on the tin for those who vote UKIP - they don't want to engage with the EU they want to undermine it! If you want a load of compliant robots who vote the ECR, ALDE, Socialist line cast your vote for the other main parties - you can be guaranteed you won't be able to demonstrate a single thing any of them haVe done or name them come the next EU elections in 2019 (although hopefully we won't be part of them!)
I've actually been watching the EU parliament live on the BBC channel...
I think I would need about 10,000 quid just for pro plus to keep me awake
no wonder when Farage "rants" the place comes alive.
Well yes he could be in Brussels sitting in pointless talking shop committees and casting endless whipped votes while towing the party group line - just like the Labour/LD and Tory MEPs.
That's not really a charge that is useful against the Tories. That "party group line", in the case of the British Conservatives, is a line that is largely set by the British Conservatives. The ECR Group is their own creation.
They are so ineffective 99% of the population couldn't name any of them.
I'm not sure that's a good measure of effectiveness. What matters more: whether people remember your name, or whether you got results? Personally I'd say the latter. I suspect that a majority of the population can't name more than three of the last ten Prime Ministers, as far as I recall. UKIP MEPs may be remembered - but often for bad reasons, like being charged with fraud, and their effectiveness in the Parliament can hardly be said to be that great when they vote against the UK's interests.
When Nigel is in Brussels - as you see from his speeches - he makes more impact in 2 minutes than most of them make in a year.
Yes, it is quite cringeworthy.
Nigel does exactly what it says on the tin for those who vote UKIP - they don't want to engage with the EU they want to undermine it!
Voting against our own national interest - in respect of, say, marine conservation or expenses reform - is not a good way to undermine anything but one's own credibility.
If you want a load of compliant robots who vote the ECR, ALDE, Socialist line cast your vote for the other main parties - you can be guaranteed you won't be able to demonstrate a single thing any of them haVe done or name them come the next EU elections in 2019 (although hopefully we won't be part of them!)
I've actually been watching the EU parliament live on the BBC channel...
I think I would need about 10,000 quid just for pro plus to keep me awake
no wonder when Farage "rants" the place comes alive.
It is not exactly the most exciting thing to watch (but then, neither are our own chambers, most of the time). The dubbing makes it worse, though. I'd blame the simultaneous translators, but to be fair to them, they're not orators and they're not paid to be.
It is not exactly the most exciting thing to watch (but then, neither are our own chambers, most of the time). I'd blame the simultaneous translators, but to be fair to them, they're not orators and they're not paid to be.
I didn't know Farage needed translating. Well, I suppose he only talks anti-EU gibberish no-one can understand
It is not exactly the most exciting thing to watch (but then, neither are our own chambers, most of the time). The dubbing makes it worse, though. I'd blame the simultaneous translators, but to be fair to them, they're not orators and they're not paid to be.
so glad you said that.. I was watching last night :o the translator was speaking at the same level as the MEP so it was like this cross over speech. All that money and they cant even get the translation service working
Given that the ECR group - Tories plus some rag tag and bobtail fringe parties - only have 57 MEPs out of 766 I am curious to know how they achieved all these supposed things. Presumably the EPP or Socialists had to have voted for them?
I particularly like the first one - ignoring of course the fact the EU budget still went up when every EU government is making cuts. Rational - but not lower!
ECR secured a more rational EU budget, saving taxpayers money
As for these they seem rather generic - the EU passed rules apparently to stop the EU meddling in people's lives?
The ECR has delivered measures to improve thefi ght against terrorism
The ECR has tackled unemployment and helped entrepeneurs
The ECR led the campaign to cut red tape for businesses and EU meddling in everyday
lives
And perhaps the most comical when our own government is still doing this via FLS/QE:
The ECR worked to ensure that taxpayers never have to bail out banks again:D
If Nigel wants to free his constituents from the shackles of the EU, there's a lot he could do to improve his own position.
He could, for instance, spend less of the taxpayers' money that, by its passage to EU institutions, is purportedly one of those "shackles" - and set an example by being meticulous about declaring how he spends it. Show up the other MEPs by demonstrating how an expenses and allowances system ought to be used. If one is to rail against a system it is better to set oneself apart from it, not to look as if one has become a part of it.
Variants of claims that "it was within the rules", I am afraid, do not wash: that was what an awful lot of MPs said back in 2009, and if it didn't wash then, it doesn't now either. So what if they're allowances and not expenses? So what if it's "within the rules" to claim the lot and not give receipts?
Nope that strategy isn't going to win votes, UKIP need all the money they can get to maximise publicity. Unfortunately the general public would be unlikely to hear about this 'railing against the system' you suggest.
Given that the ECR group - Tories plus some rag tag and bobtail fringe parties - only have 57 MEPs out of 766 I am curious to know how they achieved all these supposed things. Presumably the EPP or Socialists had to have voted for them?
If you'd read past the bullet-point list, you might find some answers without making assumptions.
I particularly like the first one - ignoring of course the fact the EU budget still went up when every EU government is making cuts. Rational - but not lower!
ECR secured a more rational EU budget, saving taxpayers money
The EU's overall budget went up, at least in part, because the EU's scope has increased. That was one impact of the treaty change. That budget could have been much higher still. See page 6.
As for these they seem rather generic - the EU passed rules apparently to stop the EU meddling in people's lives?
See page 20.
The ECR has delivered measures to improve thefi ght against terrorism
The ECR has tackled unemployment and helped entrepeneurs
The ECR led the campaign to cut red tape for businesses and EU meddling in everyday
lives
See corresponding pages.
And perhaps the most comical when our own government is still doing this via FLS/QE:
The ECR worked to ensure that taxpayers never have to bail out banks again:D
I'm not sure why you think that's comical. What the ECR is claiming -make of it what you will - is that they've worked to put measures in place to prevent a repeat of the side-effects of the kind of crash we saw in 2008. It is not claiming that it has put measures in place that enable us to make like 2008 never happened.
Nope that strategy isn't going to win votes, UKIP need all the money they can get to maximise publicity.
Sure they do. They have to rip off the taxpayer, it's all in a good cause, honest guv! And they're not just living the life of Reilly, pissing the money up the wall, and making fools out of the people who vote for them. How gullible does one have to be to believe this rubbish?
Variants of claims that "it was within the rules", I am afraid, do not wash: that was what an awful lot of MPs said back in 2009, and if it didn't wash then, it doesn't now either. So what if they're allowances and not expenses? So what if it's "within the rules" to claim the lot and not give receipts?
You're point being that he should be tarred, feathered and executed for...doing nothing wrong? OK, good luck with that.
In the expenses scandal, MPs who'd done wrong were summarily dealt with; one was jailed as I recall. Maria Miller did wrong, and she was dealt with insofar as having to pay back the money. None who had not done wrong suffered more than a bit of bad press, I believe. And it was a relative minority of MPs who took the piss badly.
Here, it's the same across the board. Farage has taken the same money everyone else has, and none of them have "claimed" for any of it nor been required to account beyond fairly loose means. And he'd be the first to argue that the system needs to be changed / ended.
Still, if there's a dead horse out there, flog it by all means.
You're point being that he should be tarred, feathered and executed for...doing nohing wrong?
That's not what I said, is it? What I said is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He should at least come clean about how the money has been spent (IOW, do what he said he'd do when he was elected) and pay back whatever has been spent inappropriately.
In the expenses scandal, MPs who'd done wrong were summarily dealt with; one was jailed as I recall. Maria Miller did wrong, and she was dealt with insofar as having to pay back the money. None who had not done wrong suffered more than a bit of bad press, I believe. And it was a relative minority of MPs who took the piss badly.
'Done wrong', 'took the piss' ... all vague terms that illustrate my point. In the vast majority of cases, what they did - even if in the court of public opinion they had 'done wrong' or 'taken the piss' - were actually within such rules and guidelines as persisted at the time. The "it's within the rules" line didn't work then. It doesn't now, either. If the system is rotten, it is no defence: you are not exonerated if you take advantage of it.
Here, it's the same across the board. Farage has taken the same money everyone else has, and none of them have "claimed" for any of it nor been required to account beyond fairly loose means.
Not too dissimilar a situation, then. The "rules" that persisted in Parliament pre-2009, and pre-IPSA, were pretty loose, where they existed at all. It was public opinion that took MPs to task more than the actual rules themselves.
And he'd be the first to argue that the system needs to be changed / ended.
Would he, I wonder? As I understand it, UKIP's actual voting record on such matters as expenses reform is not exactly salutory.
Still, if there's a dead horse out there, flog it by all means.
I'd rather not go into your predilections in public...!
That would be like Cameron refusing to go to summits, not attending PMQs and leaving the cabinet to run things, so he could campaign for the Conservatives.
but Cameron doesn't wear two hats like Nigel does, (him being party leader and MEP). Smaller parties don't have the same luxury of man power that Con-Lab-Lib have so it's not really fair to make the comparison.
but Cameron doesn't wear two hats like Nigel does, (him being party leader and MEP). Smaller parties don't have the same luxury of man power that Con-Lab-Lib have so it's not really fair to make the comparison.
Actually, Cameron wears (at least) three: he's MP for Witney, and also Leader of the Conservative Party, and also Prime Minister (which is a pretty tough gig all on its own). As for the rest, this is yet again an excuse: you and other 'kippers cannot at one and the same time claim that UKIP is eclipsing the Lib Dems, but also claim that it's unfair to make the comparison with, inter alia, the Lib Dems. That's trying to have your cake and eat it, and playing the poor downtrodden underdog card. That isn't going to work for long, either.
but Cameron doesn't wear two hats like Nigel does, (him being party leader and MEP). Smaller parties don't have the same luxury of man power that Con-Lab-Lib have so it's not really fair to make the comparison.
Are you seriously suggesting that Nigel Farage has a tougher job by virtue of being a part-time MEP and leader of a party with no seats than the Prime Minister? I'm no fan of Cameron, but anyone can see who has more demands on their time and resources.
Sure they do. They have to rip off the taxpayer, it's all in a good cause, honest guv! And they're not just living the life of Reilly, pissing the money up the wall, and making fools out of the people who vote for them. How gullible does one have to be to believe this rubbish?
but they aren't ripping the tax payer off, they offer excellent VFM for the Euro-sceptic voter. Admit it the strategy is working, we are gaining momentum. Oh and the money as in the £53 million a day EU membership has already been pissed up the wall.
but they aren't ripping the tax payer off, they offer excellent VFM for the Euro-sceptic voter. Admit it the strategy is working, we are gaining momentum. Oh and the money as in the £53 million a day EU membership has already been pissed up the wall.
but they aren't ripping the tax payer off, they offer excellent VFM for the Euro-sceptic voter.
Not every taxpayer is a UKIP voter. EU allowances are not private UKIP party funds. To claim otherwise is rank dishonesty and sleight-of-hand. Such brazenness leads me to the conclusion that you must be a paid-up activist. I can't believe anyone with a shred of integrity and self-respect would stand by the argument you make here.
Admit it the strategy is working, we are gaining momentum.
Correlation does not establish causation. Even if it did, the ends do not justify the means. You are make excuses for dodgy practices, and claiming that it's justified on the grounds that UKIP is gaining momentum on the back of a cash injection. (Well, it's not like it's gaining momentum on the back of sound rational argument, is it?)
Oh and the money as in the £53 million a day EU membership has already been pissed up the wall.
That's a statement borne of political bias, not an established fact.
'Done wrong', 'took the piss' ... all vague terms that illustrate my point. In the vast majority of cases, what they did - even if in the court of public opinion they had 'done wrong' or 'taken the piss' - were actually within such rules and guidelines as persisted at the time. The "it's within the rules" line didn't work then. It doesn't now, either. If the system is rotten, it is no defence: you are not exonerated if you take advantage of it.
That's not actually what I was referring to, which was the genuinely illegitimate use of expenses. At least one MP went to prison for mortgage sleights of hand. Those who'd "just" taken the piss etc were regarded with general contempt, but there's not much available beyond outrage for otherwise legal behaviour.
And again, the situation here is somewhat different on several levels.
I'd rather not go into your predilections in public...!
That's OK, I can PM you the x-rated horsey stuff, best whip techniques etc.
That's not actually what I was referring to, which was the genuinely illegitimate use of expenses. At least one MP went to prison for mortgage sleights of hand. Those who'd "just" taken the piss etc were regarded with general contempt, but there's not much available beyond outrage for otherwise legal behaviour.
There are options available, if one is a decent human being with a shred of respect for one's constituents. There is the option of disclosure, contrition and atonement: as I said, being open about what was claimed and how it was spent, and paying back anything that was spent inappropriately. Okay, those MPs didn't have much of a choice about the disclosure part. Nigel has. He could do the decent thing and disclose how the money was spent. That would be a start.
And again, the situation here is somewhat different on several levels.
"It's different!" is yet another excuse. I do not buy it. It is public money spent by individual elected representatives for purposes connected with their role as an elected representative. It is not there to be misspent, abused, or siphoned off to other destinations or other causes. Expenses, allowances, you say tomayto, I say tomahto.
That's OK, I can PM you the x-rated horsey stuff, best whip techniques etc.
I'd really rather you didn't. I've managed to keep my inbox clear of X-rated content for the 20-plus years I've had Internet access, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.
Comments
That would be like Cameron refusing to go to summits, not attending PMQs and leaving the cabinet to run things, so he could campaign for the Conservatives.
I'd add, at the risk of belabouring the analogy, "and on those few occasions when he votes in the Commons, he votes with the Labour and other Opposition parties".
Well yes he could be in Brussels sitting in pointless talking shop committees and casting endless whipped votes while towing the party group line - just like the Labour/LD and Tory MEPs. They are so ineffective 99% of the population couldn't name any of them. When Nigel is in Brussels - as you see from his speeches - he makes more impact in 2 minutes than most of them make in a year.
Nigel does exactly what it says on the tin for those who vote UKIP - they don't want to engage with the EU they want to undermine it! If you want a load of compliant robots who vote the ECR, ALDE, Socialist line cast your vote for the other main parties - you can be guaranteed you won't be able to demonstrate a single thing any of them haVe done or name them come the next EU elections in 2019 (although hopefully we won't be part of them!)
I think I would need about 10,000 quid just for pro plus to keep me awake
no wonder when Farage "rants" the place comes alive.
That's not really a charge that is useful against the Tories. That "party group line", in the case of the British Conservatives, is a line that is largely set by the British Conservatives. The ECR Group is their own creation.
I'm not sure that's a good measure of effectiveness. What matters more: whether people remember your name, or whether you got results? Personally I'd say the latter. I suspect that a majority of the population can't name more than three of the last ten Prime Ministers, as far as I recall. UKIP MEPs may be remembered - but often for bad reasons, like being charged with fraud, and their effectiveness in the Parliament can hardly be said to be that great when they vote against the UK's interests.
Yes, it is quite cringeworthy.
Voting against our own national interest - in respect of, say, marine conservation or expenses reform - is not a good way to undermine anything but one's own credibility.
Well, you could start here with the ECR Group: http://ecrgroup.eu/news/ecr-achievements-2009-14/
It is not exactly the most exciting thing to watch (but then, neither are our own chambers, most of the time). The dubbing makes it worse, though. I'd blame the simultaneous translators, but to be fair to them, they're not orators and they're not paid to be.
so glad you said that.. I was watching last night
Given that the ECR group - Tories plus some rag tag and bobtail fringe parties - only have 57 MEPs out of 766 I am curious to know how they achieved all these supposed things. Presumably the EPP or Socialists had to have voted for them?
I particularly like the first one - ignoring of course the fact the EU budget still went up when every EU government is making cuts. Rational - but not lower!
ECR secured a more rational EU budget, saving taxpayers money
As for these they seem rather generic - the EU passed rules apparently to stop the EU meddling in people's lives?
The ECR has delivered measures to improve thefi ght against terrorism
The ECR has tackled unemployment and helped entrepeneurs
The ECR led the campaign to cut red tape for businesses and EU meddling in everyday
lives
And perhaps the most comical when our own government is still doing this via FLS/QE:
The ECR worked to ensure that taxpayers never have to bail out banks again
Nope that strategy isn't going to win votes, UKIP need all the money they can get to maximise publicity. Unfortunately the general public would be unlikely to hear about this 'railing against the system' you suggest.
If you'd read past the bullet-point list, you might find some answers without making assumptions.
The EU's overall budget went up, at least in part, because the EU's scope has increased. That was one impact of the treaty change. That budget could have been much higher still. See page 6.
See page 20.
See corresponding pages.
I'm not sure why you think that's comical. What the ECR is claiming -make of it what you will - is that they've worked to put measures in place to prevent a repeat of the side-effects of the kind of crash we saw in 2008. It is not claiming that it has put measures in place that enable us to make like 2008 never happened.
Sure they do. They have to rip off the taxpayer, it's all in a good cause, honest guv! And they're not just living the life of Reilly, pissing the money up the wall, and making fools out of the people who vote for them. How gullible does one have to be to believe this rubbish?
You're point being that he should be tarred, feathered and executed for...doing nothing wrong? OK, good luck with that.
In the expenses scandal, MPs who'd done wrong were summarily dealt with; one was jailed as I recall. Maria Miller did wrong, and she was dealt with insofar as having to pay back the money. None who had not done wrong suffered more than a bit of bad press, I believe. And it was a relative minority of MPs who took the piss badly.
Here, it's the same across the board. Farage has taken the same money everyone else has, and none of them have "claimed" for any of it nor been required to account beyond fairly loose means. And he'd be the first to argue that the system needs to be changed / ended.
Still, if there's a dead horse out there, flog it by all means.
That's not what I said, is it? What I said is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He should at least come clean about how the money has been spent (IOW, do what he said he'd do when he was elected) and pay back whatever has been spent inappropriately.
'Done wrong', 'took the piss' ... all vague terms that illustrate my point. In the vast majority of cases, what they did - even if in the court of public opinion they had 'done wrong' or 'taken the piss' - were actually within such rules and guidelines as persisted at the time. The "it's within the rules" line didn't work then. It doesn't now, either. If the system is rotten, it is no defence: you are not exonerated if you take advantage of it.
Not too dissimilar a situation, then. The "rules" that persisted in Parliament pre-2009, and pre-IPSA, were pretty loose, where they existed at all. It was public opinion that took MPs to task more than the actual rules themselves.
Would he, I wonder? As I understand it, UKIP's actual voting record on such matters as expenses reform is not exactly salutory.
I'd rather not go into your predilections in public...!
but Cameron doesn't wear two hats like Nigel does, (him being party leader and MEP). Smaller parties don't have the same luxury of man power that Con-Lab-Lib have so it's not really fair to make the comparison.
Actually, Cameron wears (at least) three: he's MP for Witney, and also Leader of the Conservative Party, and also Prime Minister (which is a pretty tough gig all on its own). As for the rest, this is yet again an excuse: you and other 'kippers cannot at one and the same time claim that UKIP is eclipsing the Lib Dems, but also claim that it's unfair to make the comparison with, inter alia, the Lib Dems. That's trying to have your cake and eat it, and playing the poor downtrodden underdog card. That isn't going to work for long, either.
Are you seriously suggesting that Nigel Farage has a tougher job by virtue of being a part-time MEP and leader of a party with no seats than the Prime Minister? I'm no fan of Cameron, but anyone can see who has more demands on their time and resources.
but they aren't ripping the tax payer off, they offer excellent VFM for the Euro-sceptic voter. Admit it the strategy is working, we are gaining momentum. Oh and the money as in the £53 million a day EU membership has already been pissed up the wall.
Wherever did you source that figure?
Not every taxpayer is a UKIP voter. EU allowances are not private UKIP party funds. To claim otherwise is rank dishonesty and sleight-of-hand. Such brazenness leads me to the conclusion that you must be a paid-up activist. I can't believe anyone with a shred of integrity and self-respect would stand by the argument you make here.
Correlation does not establish causation. Even if it did, the ends do not justify the means. You are make excuses for dodgy practices, and claiming that it's justified on the grounds that UKIP is gaining momentum on the back of a cash injection. (Well, it's not like it's gaining momentum on the back of sound rational argument, is it?)
That's a statement borne of political bias, not an established fact.
That's not actually what I was referring to, which was the genuinely illegitimate use of expenses. At least one MP went to prison for mortgage sleights of hand. Those who'd "just" taken the piss etc were regarded with general contempt, but there's not much available beyond outrage for otherwise legal behaviour.
And again, the situation here is somewhat different on several levels.
That's OK, I can PM you the x-rated horsey stuff, best whip techniques etc.
Possibly from here
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/eu
other organisations have used similar figures
for fairness of course .....
There are options available, if one is a decent human being with a shred of respect for one's constituents. There is the option of disclosure, contrition and atonement: as I said, being open about what was claimed and how it was spent, and paying back anything that was spent inappropriately. Okay, those MPs didn't have much of a choice about the disclosure part. Nigel has. He could do the decent thing and disclose how the money was spent. That would be a start.
"It's different!" is yet another excuse. I do not buy it. It is public money spent by individual elected representatives for purposes connected with their role as an elected representative. It is not there to be misspent, abused, or siphoned off to other destinations or other causes. Expenses, allowances, you say tomayto, I say tomahto.
I'd really rather you didn't. I've managed to keep my inbox clear of X-rated content for the 20-plus years I've had Internet access, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.