Who says that the LIbLabCons are "afraid of them"? I'd imagine they're concerned about UKIP and the European elections, but that's it. Remember: UKIP came second in 2009 - and then failed to get a single MP elected the following year.
I repeat - a one-trick pony.
If you can't see that its not 2009 any more, then I don't know what planet you are living on. Things have changed a hell of a lot since 2009. The Lib Dems have went from being popular and Nick Clegg being popular in that time to actually being well below UKIP and UKIP are destroying them in the polls.
Look at UKIP numbers in the polls, it should tell you everything you need to know. UKIP in 2009 was NOT in those numbers. So yes, things have changed.
Oh look, once again a newspaper is running a legitimate story about UKIP, and UKIP are calling it a 'smear campaign'.
Criticism of your party is NOT a smear, it's legitimate journalism. If you're a 'major party' like you seem to think, you have to take criticism like the rest and stop whining.
I am not a UKIP voter but it seems to me that The Times is not only on a fishing trip they are just trying to muck rake.
To me £15,500 a year is not a lot to run an office on even if you get it rent free.
If you can't see that its not 2009 any more, then I don't know what planet you are living on. Things have changed a hell of a lot since 2009. The Lib Dems have went from being popular and Nick Clegg being popular in that time to actually being well below UKIP and UKIP are destroying them in the polls.
Look at UKIP numbers in the polls, it should tell you everything you need to know. UKIP in 2009 was NOT in those numbers. So yes, things have changed.
Not really - there have been 17 by-elections this Parliament and still not one UKIP MP. And that means they're not even making headway with the help of the volatility of mid-term by-selections.
However, I'll play along. How many UKIP MP's do you think we can expect in 2015? For what it's worth, I've previously said 2-3, but I think that's on the high side. How about you?
I did mention the brave Dan Hannan who said these claims were silly. And of course the TImes is closely linked to the Tories - one of their most senior journalists Baron Finkekstein writes Osbornes speeches for him. Then you have Matthew Parris the ex Tory MP whose partner works for the Tories and more. The Indpendent they are not!
What about Cameron living rent free off the taxpayer while renting his own home out for over £70k a year.:D Osborne does the same. Shocking isn't it.
I am not a UKIP voter but it seems to me that The Times is not only on a fishing trip they are just trying to muck rake.
To me £15,500 a year is not a lot to run an office on even if you get it rent free.
It doesn't seem a lot. Furthermore nothing is really 'free'. What does rent free mean?
In this case a supporter donated the building, so a notional charge for rent to 'expenses' or 'allowances' could be considered acceptable accounting I would have thought.
Nothing to stop them paying rent is there or making an offsetting donation to charity as they are both multimillionaires. No bedroom tax for them despite living rent free in social housing
Their constant money grabbing off the taxpayer as with their second homes claims is rather distasteful given how wealthy they already are!
I would not get too tied up on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and what properties they own, turn your energy to Tony Blair.
Sorry, but his salary and allowances are paid by the EP (ie taxpayers) in return for him doing a job he is not doing (again - by his own admission). He doesn't work for his supporters as an MEP, he works for ALL his constituents, whether they voted for him or not.
I am not making a 'cheap dig' as you so rudely put it - I am extremely concerned, and always have been, that people elected to positions as MPs, AMs, MEPs, MSPs, Councillors etc etc do their job and use monies paid to them properly, regardless of which party they belong to. I was active in politics (as a Conservative) in 1980s Liverpool when i saw some of the far left Militant councillors do similar things and make similar arguments... I think that was wrong then and I think this is wrong now - and I will always make my view clear about it.
I made it plain in my earliest posts, that this is nothing to do with whether I agree with UKIP or not... I admire how my own MP (David Davies) carries out his parliamentary duties... he does genuinely serve his constituents... yet I loathe his views on almost everything. My input to this thread isn't about whether or not we should be in the EU (the thread itself isn't about that) - but about people who don't represent their constituents and use allowances to fund activities that are not part of the role they received them for.
It isn't me who is being partisan here - it's you.
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.
Not really - there have been 17 by-elections this Parliament and still not one UKIP MP. And that means they're not even making headway with the help of the volatility of mid-term by-selections.
However, I'll play along. How many UKIP MP's do you think we can expect in 2015? For what it's worth, I've previously said 2-3, but I think that's on the high side. How about you?
Its a process, I think they will get 2 or 3 too. But that is a huge improvement for a party with NO MPs. UKIP are rising!
I am aware of that, I am still saying £15,500 a year is not a lot when you then take other costs into account, postage, paper, leaflets , computers etc . Do they class telephone and broadband under utilities ? if so £100 a month is not enough to cover those given. The Times is not very forthcoming in the way it is laying this out.
I am aware of that, I am still saying £15,500 a year is not a lot when you then take other costs into account, postage, paper, leaflets , computers etc . Do they class telephone and broadband under utilities ? if so £100 a month is not enough to cover those given. The Times is not very forthcoming in the way it is laying this out.
Nope. Utilities are just gas, electricity and water.
Nope. Utilities are just gas, electricity and water.
It would however appear that The Times is not being totally honest in its report , as I say I am not a UKIP voter but the media really does get up my nose at times
"I am extremely concerned that in your report you have distorted my responses to your questions regarding the Lyminster office costs.
"On the front page you quote me as stating that the costs were £3000 per year. This is grossly incorrect. I told you that the previous manager had tied the office into some supply contracts and as a result the monthly costs were some £2000. I told you several times that I eventually reduced the costs to £700 per month. When I went to school we were taught the times tables and that £700 times 12 equals £8400 (which is not too far removed from Mr Farage’s £1000 per month) so where on earth did you come up with a figure of £3000?
"At no time did I say that “electricity, heating, and business rates at the office totalled less than £250 a month”. I told you that I could not remember the individual amounts as it was over four years ago but they would have been in the region of £200 each.
"Later, you then contradict yourselves by quoting me as saying that the costs were £700 per month - which is correct. You asked me a number of times about the £700/month figure which I confirmed several times; again I have to ask how does £700 per month equate to £3000 per year? I should also point out that our conversations were witnessed.
"To the best of knowledge and belief I was completely honest in my answers and resent the fact that those answers have been completely distorted. I did warn you that there is a small minority who are 'mischief makers' – one in particular who would go to any lengths to destroy Mr Farage’s reputation.
"I expect you to publish corrections as outlined above.
"Finally, I should point out that the Lyminster is nowhere near Bognor Regis; it is on the outskirts of Littlehampton, a fact that could have been verified by looking at an AA road atlas!"
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.
No, he isn't - he is working on his party political platform and that is only in the interests of those who agree with him... elected officials have to work for all their constituents and that is what the allowances are for. Nothing is stopping him using his spare time from doing other things or using UKIP money to fund those; but MEPs (along with all other elected representatives) have a specific job... and, as I keep saying, by his own admission he isn't doing it. There is no 'get-out' for people who want to work 'unconventionally' - it's a job that you happen to be elected to and that comes with obligations and responsibilities to ALL constituents, regardless of their affiliation.
You want him to do the things you describe.. then you pay him to do it - not the UK taxpayers who fund his MEP job... and he can do his extra-curriculum activities at the weekend, evenings an holidays - just like the rest of us.
It would however appear that The Times is not being totally honest in its report , as I say I am not a UKIP voter but the media really does get up my nose at times
Yup - posted here earlier. There's been a reply from the Times to that, too. In addition to the confusion of what Farage has claimed for the Utilities etc. category, what we now have is the word of a UKIP Manager against the Times journalist. Just to spice it up a bit more...
I think the Nigel Farage wants the UK to remain a member of the EU
The EU parliament provides him with a job, a plaftorm for his views and a salary
The EU is his bogeyman. Remove your bogeyman and you undermine your own existance
Without the EU, there is no Nigel Farage. Each others' nemeses.
If you watch the above, he quite clearly says he wants everyone in Brussels fired. So your theory goes out the way there. I look forward to UKIP topping the votes next month.
No, he isn't - he is working on his party political platform and that is only in the interests of those who agree with him... elected officials have to work for all their constituents and that is what the allowances are for. Nothing is stopping him using his spare time from doing other things or using UKIP money to fund those; but MEPs (along with all other elected representatives) have a specific job... and, as I keep saying, by his own admission he isn't doing it. There is no 'get-out' for people who want to work 'unconventionally' - it's a job that you happen to be elected to and that comes with obligations and responsibilities to ALL constituents, regardless of their affiliation.
You want him to do the things you describe.. then you pay him to do it - not the UK taxpayers who fund his MEP job... and he can do his extra-curriculum activities at the weekend, evenings an holidays - just like the rest of us.
He is working on his political platform which is what he was elected on. He represents all constituents but he does not represent the views of all constituents. Exactly the same way as Margaret Hodge has 16% of her constituents voted for the BNP but she has no obligation to represent their views only to represent them as individuals when so approached. She did in fact tell the BNP they were not wanted in Barking so Farage would have the right to say pro EU views not wanted in his constituency. We have to be consistent.
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.
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?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: all the 'kippers on DS were delighted in 2009 when so many MPs were found to be "within the rules" but claiming things that their constituents might find inappropriate all the same. Now the shoe's on the other foot: it does not do to be hiding behind that excuse now.
The defence of 'kippers on this board really does suggest that they think it's one rule for them, another for everyone else.
He is working on his political platform which is what he was elected on.
Which platform was that? Being open and transparent how taxpayer money is spent? Acting in the UK's interests, such as protecting its marine resources or protecting the taxpayer from inappropriate expenses and allowances systems in EU institutions? I think he and his party have not merely failed, but acted directly against the interests of the UK on all those counts.
He is working on his political platform which is what he was elected on. He represents all constituents but he does not represent the views of all constituents. Exactly the same way as Margaret Hodge has 16% of her constituents voted for the BNP but she has no obligation to represent their views only to represent them as individuals when so approached. She did in fact tell the BNP they were not wanted in Barking so Farage would have the right to say pro EU views not wanted in his constituency. We have to be consistent.
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.
Comments
Look at UKIP numbers in the polls, it should tell you everything you need to know. UKIP in 2009 was NOT in those numbers. So yes, things have changed.
Can you be more specific ?
Name one of these 'freedoms' please ?
I am not a UKIP voter but it seems to me that The Times is not only on a fishing trip they are just trying to muck rake.
To me £15,500 a year is not a lot to run an office on even if you get it rent free.
Not really - there have been 17 by-elections this Parliament and still not one UKIP MP. And that means they're not even making headway with the help of the volatility of mid-term by-selections.
However, I'll play along. How many UKIP MP's do you think we can expect in 2015? For what it's worth, I've previously said 2-3, but I think that's on the high side. How about you?
£15,500 is NOT the cost of "running an office" - it's the cost of just one of six categories that combined add up to the cost of "running an office".
This graphic may help.
Not much proof there.
It doesn't seem a lot. Furthermore nothing is really 'free'. What does rent free mean?
In this case a supporter donated the building, so a notional charge for rent to 'expenses' or 'allowances' could be considered acceptable accounting I would have thought.
I would not get too tied up on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and what properties they own, turn your energy to Tony Blair.
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.
I am aware of that, I am still saying £15,500 a year is not a lot when you then take other costs into account, postage, paper, leaflets , computers etc . Do they class telephone and broadband under utilities ? if so £100 a month is not enough to cover those given. The Times is not very forthcoming in the way it is laying this out.
Nope. Utilities are just gas, electricity and water.
Why? He's not in parliament any more.
It would however appear that The Times is not being totally honest in its report , as I say I am not a UKIP voter but the media really does get up my nose at times
http://www.ukip.org/times_story_falls_apart_as_key_source_reveals_his_responses_were_distorted_by_the_paper
Because he's in the other team. *boo* *hiss*
No, he isn't - he is working on his party political platform and that is only in the interests of those who agree with him... elected officials have to work for all their constituents and that is what the allowances are for. Nothing is stopping him using his spare time from doing other things or using UKIP money to fund those; but MEPs (along with all other elected representatives) have a specific job... and, as I keep saying, by his own admission he isn't doing it. There is no 'get-out' for people who want to work 'unconventionally' - it's a job that you happen to be elected to and that comes with obligations and responsibilities to ALL constituents, regardless of their affiliation.
You want him to do the things you describe.. then you pay him to do it - not the UK taxpayers who fund his MEP job... and he can do his extra-curriculum activities at the weekend, evenings an holidays - just like the rest of us.
Yup - posted here earlier. There's been a reply from the Times to that, too. In addition to the confusion of what Farage has claimed for the Utilities etc. category, what we now have is the word of a UKIP Manager against the Times journalist. Just to spice it up a bit more...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoAtCs7wXHY
If you watch the above, he quite clearly says he wants everyone in Brussels fired. So your theory goes out the way there. I look forward to UKIP topping the votes next month.
He is working on his political platform which is what he was elected on. He represents all constituents but he does not represent the views of all constituents. Exactly the same way as Margaret Hodge has 16% of her constituents voted for the BNP but she has no obligation to represent their views only to represent them as individuals when so approached. She did in fact tell the BNP they were not wanted in Barking so Farage would have the right to say pro EU views not wanted in his constituency. We have to be consistent.
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?
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: all the 'kippers on DS were delighted in 2009 when so many MPs were found to be "within the rules" but claiming things that their constituents might find inappropriate all the same. Now the shoe's on the other foot: it does not do to be hiding behind that excuse now.
The defence of 'kippers on this board really does suggest that they think it's one rule for them, another for everyone else.
Which platform was that? Being open and transparent how taxpayer money is spent? Acting in the UK's interests, such as protecting its marine resources or protecting the taxpayer from inappropriate expenses and allowances systems in EU institutions? I think he and his party have not merely failed, but acted directly against the interests of the UK on all those counts.
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.