Ironically, the lib dem's dumping Clegg, electing someone on the left of the party, and pulling out of the coalition could be just what Cameron needs, if the lib dems which now support labour swing back..
I don't think anyone's talking about pulling outt of the Coalition. That won't come for a while. I used to think Christmas 2014, but people here have convinced me that the LibDems would be very foolish to give Osborne an unfettered run at a pre-election budget.
@hugorifkind: .@UKIP If it helps, I'm the guy who wrote that your boss "has a face that men who work in Turkish takeaways must try to recreate for a bet".
That actually caused me to look at the UKIP page where I hadn't bothered before. Their case that the Times is stuffed full of people with deep links with the Tory party is stronger than I realised. Rifking's tweets just accentuate the narrative of a spat between UKIP and a big city newspaper, and people will interpret the expense attacks in that light. Smart politicking by UKIP to goad them into this.
I was sad to see Parris's name on that list. He writes well, the others are worthless.
Clearly one of the threads tomorrow is going to have to be about Farage's expenses.
Allowances, posh boy.
I'm so going to embed this video into that thread header
Nigel Farage is filmed claiming he could earn around £250,000 through 'games you could play'. In footage thought to be from 1999 or 2000, Farage says he could earn as much as a Goldman Sachs banker through using the expenses system and employing his wife as a secretary. Farage criticises the MEP travel expense system while holding a wedge of cash
Is the thread header going to be about the glaring difference between Westminster expenses and EU allowances, and how foolish people look when they mix the two up?
Westminster could get rid of all its expenses scandals by moving to an allowance system. It would also save a lot on IPSA bureacracy.
Clearly one of the threads tomorrow is going to have to be about Farage's expenses.
Allowances, posh boy.
I'm so going to embed this video into that thread header
Nigel Farage is filmed claiming he could earn around £250,000 through 'games you could play'. In footage thought to be from 1999 or 2000, Farage says he could earn as much as a Goldman Sachs banker through using the expenses system and employing his wife as a secretary. Farage criticises the MEP travel expense system while holding a wedge of cash
Is the thread header going to be about the glaring difference between Westminster expenses and EU allowances, and how foolish people look when they mix the two up?
Westminster could get rid of all its expenses scandals by moving to an allowance system. It would also save a lot on IPSA bureacracy.
True. Although to be fair you would need "London -> Country -> Distant" increasing allowances, depending on where the MP was representing.
Clearly one of the threads tomorrow is going to have to be about Farage's expenses.
Allowances, posh boy.
I'm so going to embed this video into that thread header
Nigel Farage is filmed claiming he could earn around £250,000 through 'games you could play'. In footage thought to be from 1999 or 2000, Farage says he could earn as much as a Goldman Sachs banker through using the expenses system and employing his wife as a secretary. Farage criticises the MEP travel expense system while holding a wedge of cash
Is the thread header going to be about the glaring difference between Westminster expenses and EU allowances, and how foolish people look when they mix the two up?
Westminster could get rid of all its expenses scandals by moving to an allowance system. It would also save a lot on IPSA bureacracy.
True. Although to be fair you would need "London -> Country -> Distant" increasing allowances, depending on where the MP was representing.
Clearly one of the threads tomorrow is going to have to be about Farage's expenses.
Allowances, posh boy.
I'm so going to embed this video into that thread header
Nigel Farage is filmed claiming he could earn around £250,000 through 'games you could play'. In footage thought to be from 1999 or 2000, Farage says he could earn as much as a Goldman Sachs banker through using the expenses system and employing his wife as a secretary. Farage criticises the MEP travel expense system while holding a wedge of cash
Is the thread header going to be about the glaring difference between Westminster expenses and EU allowances, and how foolish people look when they mix the two up?
Westminster could get rid of all its expenses scandals by moving to an allowance system. It would also save a lot on IPSA bureacracy.
True. Although to be fair you would need "London -> Country -> Distant" increasing allowances, depending on where the MP was representing.
Just get rid of MP's. They're an anachronism from the days when it took a week to get from Cornwall to London, so the locals sent a representative up to London on their behalf.
Most of the electorate are savvy enough to make sensible voting decisions. It's 2014 not 1714 and the technology exists to implement it.
I thought at the time that Cameron opposing the STV voting reform in the referendum was a strategic blunder of catastrophic proportions. The coalition had rendered the idea of Labour and Libdems voting their own party 1 and the other 2 redundant and by then UKIP was already eating into the Tory vote. How many UKIP voters in the 2015 elections would have put UKIP 1 Tory 2 on the ballot paper, if they had the opportunity; giving the vote to the tories when UKIP were knocked out in the count?
AveryLP - thanks for the link on the last thread. I will take a look.
Good discussion on housing. Of course it's an issue of supply and demand. The former is a function of planning restrictions, the latter immigration. Both are largely constricted, and unrestricted, by the State, respectively. The trouble with a solution to housing is that:
(1) The vast majority of those who own a home do not want any new ones built near them (2) Even those who don't mind worry (rightly, in many cases) about the effect adjacent new builds will have on the value of their own homes, and the "feel" of the area (3) Arguments on affordability fall on deaf ears (in my experience, no matter how educated they are) because they start with the conclusion that it's "always been this hard" to afford a house, before giving a personal anecdote about how they survived on baked beans for the first 2 years in the 1970s (4) Home values undermine the whole British economy - there is a strong financial disincentive for existing home owners to support new homes in their area/nationally too as this may slow, or stall, the rise in value of their own homes (many of them are relying upon to secure debt/equity release) (5) They are disproportionately older, organised and vocal (and, of course, vote) compared to the young, who will get angry, but don't
There are other problems I could throw in. Personally, I think far too many new builds are of a poor design quality that do not blend in (still less complement) the vernacular architecture of the local area. They are, frankly, ugly and too small. The so-called "garden cities" look ghastly too. This puts me off supporting sensitive new development. Although, once again, you could argue that the market would provide decent homes of a decent quality were land not so restricted. At the moment they can sell anything if they build it, and have every incentive to squeeze in as many units as possible.
I can't see any end to it. Politicians have every disincentive to prevaricate on making it easier to build new homes, nationwide. Meanwhile, the UK population increases by about 1.2 million+ every 5 years. If we're lucky, we might build 500,000 homes in that time.
@hugorifkind: .@UKIP If it helps, I'm the guy who wrote that your boss "has a face that men who work in Turkish takeaways must try to recreate for a bet".
That actually caused me to look at the UKIP page where I hadn't bothered before. Their case that the Times is stuffed full of people with deep links with the Tory party is stronger than I realised. Rifking's tweets just accentuate the narrative of a spat between UKIP and a big city newspaper, and people will interpret the expense attacks in that light. Smart politicking by UKIP to goad them into this.
I think you over-estimate the depth 'people' will look into it if you're predicting a narrative based on Rifkind's tweets.
This fit up of Farage is all part of the Times' sad decline. It has become a bit of a Tory mouthpiece over the last couple of years and so is nowhere near the paper it used to be. Good sport section still though and worth buying on a Saturday.
Not entirely convinced it is the 'Tory mouthpiece' - didn't they try a stich-up on at least two Tories with undercover reporters masquerading as potential donors? The latest 'scandal' involving Farage's mis-use of expenses/allowances has been par for the course for quite a while.
I thought at the time that Cameron opposing the STV voting reform in the referendum was a strategic blunder of catastrophic proportions. The coalition had rendered the idea of Labour and Libdems voting their own party 1 and the other 2 redundant and by then UKIP was already eating into the Tory vote. How many UKIP voters in the 2015 elections would have put UKIP 1 Tory 2 on the ballot paper, if they had the opportunity; giving the vote to the tories when UKIP were knocked out in the count?
One of the consolations of the rise of UKIP has the been the prospect of the Daily Mail demanding that "this unfair voting system must be changed" after Labour wins the next election outright on 34 or so percent, with the Tories on 35 and UKIP on 18.
It was AV, not STV by the way. STV might have passed, since people are believed to have voted against AV because it wasn't really "fair".
This fit up of Farage is all part of the Times' sad decline. It has become a bit of a Tory mouthpiece over the last couple of years and so is nowhere near the paper it used to be. Good sport section still though and worth buying on a Saturday.
This fit up of Farage is all part of the Times' sad decline. It has become a bit of a Tory mouthpiece over the last couple of years and so is nowhere near the paper it used to be. Good sport section still though and worth buying on a Saturday.
Pathetic stuff by the Times which, as you say, is a Cameron outrider these days. First rule of journalism – if they use inverted commas it's a weak story.
On topic. I think the only realistic prospect here is Cable. Replacing Clegg could only ever be a damage limitation exercise, and no-one with any long term ambition would want to take it on before 2015. So, I think Cable to take them up to the GE, and then to step down in favour of Farron is probably the best way out of this mess.
I agree we need to build more housing. But the idea that we concrete over every unspoilt view in the South East of England, so that we can continue to import millions more people, is absurd. To be honest, your fundamental premise that our goal should be minimizing market distortions, rather than maximising the well-being of British citizens, is fatally flawed.
The south-east is precious and beautiful, but it's not a concrete jungle. I think a big problem is that we do new-build shitly: we spend years debating new development, then get a nasty, bland production-line brick housing estate slapped down wherever (and whenever) permission is granted.
There should be a gentle, sensitive and organic expansion of existing towns, villages and settlements in the south-east every 5-10 years, or so, that reflects the economic and social need of the area. In most areas, if done properly, this will not destroy the countryside or unspoilt views. The most pressured areas are the M4/M3 corridors, the M25 commuter belt and Kent/Thames Gateway, where some continued restrictions may be appropriate. Transport to the capital needs to improve from areas further afield to reduce pressure on these areas.
The flip-side is that we should pull down/demolish unsuccessful/abandoned housing in economically moribund areas as well. Housing, like other parts of our economy, needs to be flexible.
I agree that immigration should be capped at the same time. I'd like to see an annual net immigration cap set at approx. 0.1% of UK total population, with some flexibility for the economic cycle.
Clearly one of the threads tomorrow is going to have to be about Farage's expenses.
Allowances, posh boy.
I'm so going to embed this video into that thread header
Nigel Farage is filmed claiming he could earn around £250,000 through 'games you could play'. In footage thought to be from 1999 or 2000, Farage says he could earn as much as a Goldman Sachs banker through using the expenses system and employing his wife as a secretary. Farage criticises the MEP travel expense system while holding a wedge of cash
Is the thread header going to be about the glaring difference between Westminster expenses and EU allowances, and how foolish people look when they mix the two up?
Westminster could get rid of all its expenses scandals by moving to an allowance system. It would also save a lot on IPSA bureacracy.
As for the Times Farage spat, if CCHQ were feeding this to the Times then they are going to regret that big time. Can it have really escaped their attention that there are at least two big expenses stories for the tories set to break cover in a big way soon enough?? So it's obviously a superb master strategy to keep expenses in the headlines.
'This fit up of Farage is all part of the Times' sad decline. It has become a bit of a Tory mouthpiece over the last couple of years and so is nowhere near the paper it used to be'...........when it was a New Labour mouthpiece.
I think Farage and UKIP will come through this MEP allowances story without any damage because EU allowances aren't Westminster expenses. UKIP have been shining a light on the EU's unaccounted largess since the year dot so I can't see the story having much impact. Indeed it could work to their advantage.
And besides, the Westminster expenses were used, I think, by the people as a proxy to release pent up anger about what MPs had done to the country through their open door immigration policy. Obviously nobody could complain about the open door immigration policy publicly at the time without being branded racist etc, so a lot of anger built up and was released over MPs' compensation arrangements instead. Their arrangements were wrong, but they weren't so wrong as to merit that level of outrage. Plus it was the detail that gave it a ridiculous narrative in times of post-Lehmans austerity.
I wonder what's coming next for Farage. We've had his Nazi schooldays, his paying his wife, an alleged affair. I wonder if they'll stoop so low as a traffic violation. Wouldn't be surprised.
I think Farage and UKIP will come through this MEP allowances story without any damage because EU allowances aren't Westminster expenses. UKIP have been shining a light on the EU's unaccounted largess since the year dot so I can't see the story having much impact. Indeed it could work to their advantage.
And besides, the Westminster expenses were used, I think, by the people as a proxy to release pent up anger about what MPs had done to the country through their open door immigration policy. Obviously nobody could complain about the open door immigration policy publicly at the time without being branded racist etc, so a lot of anger built up and was released over MPs' compensation arrangements instead. Their arrangements were wrong, but they weren't so wrong as to merit that level of outrage. Plus it was the detail that gave it a ridiculous narrative in times of post-Lehmans austerity.
I wonder what's coming next for Farage. We've had his Nazi schooldays, his paying his wife, an alleged affair. I wonder if they'll stoop so low as a traffic violation. Wouldn't be surprised.
His egomania might be a quite productive attack line.
I am finding the idea that this is all a Conservative whipped up plot to attack UKIP highly amusing today. I mean, its not as if there isn't a few very disgruntled former UKIP members out there who left as they were unhappy at the way the party was being run over the years, and who ran up against/disliked Farage's style of Leadership.
This fit up of Farage is all part of the Times' sad decline. It has become a bit of a Tory mouthpiece over the last couple of years and so is nowhere near the paper it used to be. Good sport section still though and worth buying on a Saturday.
Not entirely convinced it is the 'Tory mouthpiece' - didn't they try a stich-up on at least two Tories with undercover reporters masquerading as potential donors? The latest 'scandal' involving Farage's mis-use of expenses/allowances has been par for the course for quite a while.
I think Farage and UKIP will come through this MEP allowances story without any damage because EU allowances aren't Westminster expenses. UKIP have been shining a light on the EU's unaccounted largess since the year dot so I can't see the story having much impact. Indeed it could work to their advantage.
And besides, the Westminster expenses were used, I think, by the people as a proxy to release pent up anger about what MPs had done to the country through their open door immigration policy. Obviously nobody could complain about the open door immigration policy publicly at the time without being branded racist etc, so a lot of anger built up and was released over MPs' compensation arrangements instead. Their arrangements were wrong, but they weren't so wrong as to merit that level of outrage. Plus it was the detail that gave it a ridiculous narrative in times of post-Lehmans austerity.
I wonder what's coming next for Farage. We've had his Nazi schooldays, his paying his wife, an alleged affair. I wonder if they'll stoop so low as a traffic violation. Wouldn't be surprised.
I doubt the technical differences between expenses and allowances will make much of an impact on the story
That's a big unsupported leap.
I think your post is overly influenced by what you want to be true (a habit that affects all of us, but yours really goes along way down that road).
I agree we need to build more housing. But the idea that we concrete over every unspoilt view in the South East of England, so that we can continue to import millions more people, is absurd. To be honest, your fundamental premise that our goal should be minimizing market distortions, rather than maximising the well-being of British citizens, is fatally flawed.
The south-east is precious and beautiful, but it's not a concrete jungle. I think a big problem is that we do new-build shitly: we spend years debating new development, then get a nasty, bland production-line brick housing estate slapped down wherever (and whenever) permission is granted.
There should be a gentle, sensitive and organic expansion of existing towns, villages and settlements in the south-east every 5-10 years, or so, that reflects the economic and social need of the area. In most areas, if done properly, this will not destroy the countryside or unspoilt views. The most pressured areas are the M4/M3 corridors, the M25 commuter belt and Kent/Thames Gateway, where some continued restrictions may be appropriate. Transport to the capital needs to improve from areas further afield to reduce pressure on these areas.
The flip-side is that we should pull down/demolish unsuccessful/abandoned housing in economically moribund areas as well. Housing, like other parts of our economy, needs to be flexible.
I agree that immigration should be capped at the same time. I'd like to see an annual net immigration cap set at approx. 0.1% of UK total population, with some flexibility for the economic cycle.
I ride my bike down alongside the Thames from Rainham to Purfleet when I can, and the riverside there would be a fantastic place for new housing. The other side of the river, Erith in Kent, has many homes overlooking the Thames. If the govt could purchase the land it would be fantastic.. affordable housing with a riverside aspect 10 mins from Rainham station which is 20 mins into the City
I agree we need to build more housing. But the idea that we concrete over every unspoilt view in the South East of England, so that we can continue to import millions more people, is absurd. To be honest, your fundamental premise that our goal should be minimizing market distortions, rather than maximising the well-being of British citizens, is fatally flawed.
The south-east is precious and beautiful, but it's not a concrete jungle. I think a big problem is that we do new-build shitly: we spend years debating new development, then get a nasty, bland production-line brick housing estate slapped down wherever (and whenever) permission is granted.
There should be a gentle, sensitive and organic expansion of existing towns, villages and settlements in the south-east every 5-10 years, or so, that reflects the economic and social need of the area. In most areas, if done properly, this will not destroy the countryside or unspoilt views. The most pressured areas are the M4/M3 corridors, the M25 commuter belt and Kent/Thames Gateway, where some continued restrictions may be appropriate. Transport to the capital needs to improve from areas further afield to reduce pressure on these areas.
The flip-side is that we should pull down/demolish unsuccessful/abandoned housing in economically moribund areas as well. Housing, like other parts of our economy, needs to be flexible.
I agree that immigration should be capped at the same time. I'd like to see an annual net immigration cap set at approx. 0.1% of UK total population, with some flexibility for the economic cycle.
I ride my bike down alongside the Thames from Rainham to Purfleet when I can, and the riverside there would be a fantastic place for new housing. The other side of the river, Erith in Kent, has many homes overlooking the Thames. If the govt could purchase the land it would be fantastic.. affordable housing with a riverside aspect 10 mins from Rainham station which is 20 mins into the City
I think Farage and UKIP will come through this MEP allowances story without any damage because EU allowances aren't Westminster expenses. UKIP have been shining a light on the EU's unaccounted largess since the year dot so I can't see the story having much impact. Indeed it could work to their advantage.
And besides, the Westminster expenses were used, I think, by the people as a proxy to release pent up anger about what MPs had done to the country through their open door immigration policy. Obviously nobody could complain about the open door immigration policy publicly at the time without being branded racist etc, so a lot of anger built up and was released over MPs' compensation arrangements instead. Their arrangements were wrong, but they weren't so wrong as to merit that level of outrage. Plus it was the detail that gave it a ridiculous narrative in times of post-Lehmans austerity.
I wonder what's coming next for Farage. We've had his Nazi schooldays, his paying his wife, an alleged affair. I wonder if they'll stoop so low as a traffic violation. Wouldn't be surprised.
I doubt the technical differences between expenses and allowances will make much of an impact on the story
That's a big unsupported leap.
I think your post is overly influenced by what you want to be true (a habit that affects all of us, but yours really goes along way down that road).
Actually, I think Blueberry makes a valid point in the first para. The second para is complete nonsense, though - and that does shed much more light on the views of the poster than the topic being discussed.
Since you are so keen on publishing David Samuel-Camps's letter to the Times, are you interested in publishing the Times's response?
Or do you need someone else to do it for you?
I don't subscribe to The Times so haven't seen it.. fire away!
Courtesy of Guido.
From: “Kenber, Billy” Date: 15 April 2014 10:14:05 BST To: David Samuel-Camps Cc: Alexi Mostrous, Nigel Farage Subject: Re: Your report
Hi David,
The difference between the two figures lies in the way Ukip MEP’s break down their transparency reports.
This includes various categories – of which the one of relevance to rent is “office management and running costs” which covers rent, utilities, insurance, business rates and cleaning. In his transparency reports Farage claims to have spent £15,500 a year solely on this category since July 2009. This does not include office equipment, phone bills and stationery which fall under “communication costs” and “stationery, periodicals, subscriptions”.
As you say, the total monthly cost for all office expenditure was £700 (down from £2,000 when you managed to cancel various locked-in contracts for things like unnecessary amounts of printer ink) which I asked you to break down into its constituent parts – something we went through twice to ensure accuracy.
You said that utilities and insurance amounted to less than £100 a month and that council tax/business rates were £150 (I looked it up and it was £149 a month for the current financial year 2013). Hence the figure of £250 a month, which is £3,000 a year. The remaining £450 a month falls under the two other categories outlined above.
Bognor Regis is the nearest well-known town for readers who are less familiar with the West Sussex coast.
Best wishes, Billy
Farage will just say he spent the rest of his allowance on other work related business. Unless there is a house or yacht paid for out of it, nothing will happen because of this story in my opinion.
Nice try, but not well thought through. The glaring difference between Westminster expenses & EU allowances, never mind syphoning money sneakily and treating yourself vs boasting about taking as much as possible to fund the cause, is overlooked by those desperate for UKIP to go away.
What do you think will happen on the back of these allegations?
I agree we need to build more housing. But the idea that we concrete over every unspoilt view in the South East of England, so that we can continue to import millions more people, is absurd. To be honest, your fundamental premise that our goal should be minimizing market distortions, rather than maximising the well-being of British citizens, is fatally flawed.
The south-east is precious and beautiful, but it's not a concrete jungle. I think a big problem is that we do new-build shitly: we spend years debating new development, then get a nasty, bland production-line brick housing estate slapped down wherever (and whenever) permission is granted.
There should be a gentle, sensitive and organic expansion of existing towns, villages and settlements in the south-east every 5-10 years, or so, that reflects the economic and social need of the area. In most areas, if done properly, this will not destroy the countryside or unspoilt views. The most pressured areas are the M4/M3 corridors, the M25 commuter belt and Kent/Thames Gateway, where some continued restrictions may be appropriate. Transport to the capital needs to improve from areas further afield to reduce pressure on these areas.
The flip-side is that we should pull down/demolish unsuccessful/abandoned housing in economically moribund areas as well. Housing, like other parts of our economy, needs to be flexible.
I agree that immigration should be capped at the same time. I'd like to see an annual net immigration cap set at approx. 0.1% of UK total population, with some flexibility for the economic cycle.
I ride my bike down alongside the Thames from Rainham to Purfleet when I can, and the riverside there would be a fantastic place for new housing. The other side of the river, Erith in Kent, has many homes overlooking the Thames. If the govt could purchase the land it would be fantastic.. affordable housing with a riverside aspect 10 mins from Rainham station which is 20 mins into the City
Do you mean on the wetland Nature Reserve?
No I mean on the Veolia landfill site.
The nature reserve is where I stop and have a cuppa before turning back for home
Since you are so keen on publishing David Samuel-Camps's letter to the Times, are you interested in publishing the Times's response?
Or do you need someone else to do it for you?
I don't subscribe to The Times so haven't seen it.. fire away!
Courtesy of Guido.
From: “Kenber, Billy” Date: 15 April 2014 10:14:05 BST To: David Samuel-Camps Cc: Alexi Mostrous, Nigel Farage Subject: Re: Your report
Hi David,
The difference between the two figures lies in the way Ukip MEP’s break down their transparency reports.
This includes various categories – of which the one of relevance to rent is “office management and running costs” which covers rent, utilities, insurance, business rates and cleaning. In his transparency reports Farage claims to have spent £15,500 a year solely on this category since July 2009. This does not include office equipment, phone bills and stationery which fall under “communication costs” and “stationery, periodicals, subscriptions”.
As you say, the total monthly cost for all office expenditure was £700 (down from £2,000 when you managed to cancel various locked-in contracts for things like unnecessary amounts of printer ink) which I asked you to break down into its constituent parts – something we went through twice to ensure accuracy.
You said that utilities and insurance amounted to less than £100 a month and that council tax/business rates were £150 (I looked it up and it was £149 a month for the current financial year 2013). Hence the figure of £250 a month, which is £3,000 a year. The remaining £450 a month falls under the two other categories outlined above.
Bognor Regis is the nearest well-known town for readers who are less familiar with the West Sussex coast.
Best wishes, Billy
Farage will just say he spent the rest of his allowance on other work related business. Unless there is a house or yacht paid for out of it, nothing will happen because of this story in my opinion.
Nice try, but not well thought through. The glaring difference between Westminster expenses & EU allowances, never mind syphoning money sneakily and treating yourself vs boasting about taking as much as possible to fund the cause,
Looks as if Nigel has incorporated business and pleasure into one.
He's really no different to many other politicians. The Kipper blindspot to this, is eerily reminiscent of the unerring devotion the Nats have to their Chosen One.
I think there are very few people who were planning to vote UKIP on May 22nd who will be deterred by this story in the Times. Nice try, but it doesn't amount to much.
If there was a successful vote of no-confidence in Clegg, which must result in his resignation as Party Leader, would he HAVE to resign as DPM?
Others will know better than me, but I don't think so. Surely it is Cameron, as empowered by the Queen, that chose the person of Nick Clegg for Deputy Prime Minister, rather than leader of the Liberal Democrats. Even the Prime Minister himself must step down, although politics is a game of reality.
I think Farage and UKIP will come through this MEP allowances story without any damage because EU allowances aren't Westminster expenses. UKIP have been shining a light on the EU's unaccounted largess since the year dot so I can't see the story having much impact. Indeed it could work to their advantage.
And besides, the Westminster expenses were used, I think, by the people as a proxy to release pent up anger about what MPs had done to the country through their open door immigration policy. Obviously nobody could complain about the open door immigration policy publicly at the time without being branded racist etc, so a lot of anger built up and was released over MPs' compensation arrangements instead. Their arrangements were wrong, but they weren't so wrong as to merit that level of outrage. Plus it was the detail that gave it a ridiculous narrative in times of post-Lehmans austerity.
I wonder what's coming next for Farage. We've had his Nazi schooldays, his paying his wife, an alleged affair. I wonder if they'll stoop so low as a traffic violation. Wouldn't be surprised.
I doubt the technical differences between expenses and allowances will make much of an impact on the story
That's a big unsupported leap.
I think your post is overly influenced by what you want to be true (a habit that affects all of us, but yours really goes along way down that road).
It's certainly true that I do want it all to blow over and perhaps there is a bit of wishful thinking. But even if Farage has done something wrong (which is hard to tell) I think a lot of people will give him the benefit of the doubt, or even turn a blind eye, because at the end of the day he's working hard for their opinions to be heard. It might dull enthusiasm a bit, but it's not going make them federalists.
What would be fatal for Clegg IMO is losing all of the LD Euro seats plus losing control of the party's flagship councils in London, ie. Kingston and Sutton, (and failing to win back Richmond).
Like the Chinese Communist Party, Labour is now notorious for its ‘red princes’ – i.e. the hotshot young pols who just happen to be related to the current generation of party bigwigs. Labour’s enemies – and its more discerning friends – may cry foul, but what the red princes symbolise isn’t so much nepotism as in-breeding (of the intellectual kind).
Lots of leftie outrage at Farage under the spotlight - hmm..
Tories getting very worried, hoping that a smear by a once-great newspaper will help them.
It's no more a smear than all the other stories the tory friendly press wheeled out before last May. Farage had to admit there were serious shortcomings in some of his councillors because there was more than a kernel of truth in them. However, what the PB tories appear to have missed is that flood of attacks if anything backfired last May with the kippers getting their best local elections results ever. Expenses only stick if the public thinks there is something to them and they are sufficiently serious like with Miller. Farage will hardly be revising all his May election plans off the back of this.
Since you are so keen on publishing David Samuel-Camps's letter to the Times, are you interested in publishing the Times's response?
Or do you need someone else to do it for you?
I don't subscribe to The Times so haven't seen it.. fire away!
Courtesy of Guido.
From: “Kenber, Billy” Date: 15 April 2014 10:14:05 BST To: David Samuel-Camps Cc: Alexi Mostrous, Nigel Farage Subject: Re: Your report
Farage will just say he spent the rest of his allowance on other work related business. Unless there is a house or yacht paid for out of it, nothing will happen because of this story in my opinion.
Nice try, but not well thought through. The glaring difference between Westminster expenses & EU allowances, never mind syphoning money sneakily and treating yourself vs boasting about taking as much as possible to fund the cause,
Looks as if Nigel has incorporated business and pleasure into one.
He's really no different to many other politicians. The Kipper blindspot to this, is eerily reminiscent of the unerring devotion the Nats have to their Chosen One.
Eerie oooh!
The way he has responded to the story & the fact that he admits to fleecing the EU allowance to pay for party stuff is completely different to all other politicians!
@dlknowles: RT @MichaelPDeacon: Just so you know, @hugorifkind and a bloke from Ukip are currently arguing over whether kebabs are a race. Hugo says no, Ukip bloke says yes
It sounds like the conversation in the Wesminster Village is something along the lines of 'UKIP are just as big a bunch of troughers as us, if the public only knew it'.
On topic (for a change) if the Lib Dems were to dump Clegg before the 2015 GE how would that help them? What would a new leader have to be saying to encourage former voters to return and new voters to join?
I think Farage and UKIP will come through this MEP allowances story without any damage because EU allowances aren't Westminster expenses. UKIP have been shining a light on the EU's unaccounted largess since the year dot so I can't see the story having much impact. Indeed it could work to their advantage.
And besides, the Westminster expenses were used, I think, by the people as a proxy to release pent up anger about what MPs had done to the country through their open door immigration policy. Obviously nobody could complain about the open door immigration policy publicly at the time without being branded racist etc, so a lot of anger built up and was released over MPs' compensation arrangements instead. Their arrangements were wrong, but they weren't so wrong as to merit that level of outrage. Plus it was the detail that gave it a ridiculous narrative in times of post-Lehmans austerity.
I wonder what's coming next for Farage. We've had his Nazi schooldays, his paying his wife, an alleged affair. I wonder if they'll stoop so low as a traffic violation. Wouldn't be surprised.
I doubt the technical differences between expenses and allowances will make much of an impact on the story
That's a big unsupported leap.
I think your post is overly influenced by what you want to be true (a habit that affects all of us, but yours really goes along way down that road).
Actually, I think Blueberry makes a valid point in the first para. The second para is complete nonsense, though - and that does shed much more light on the views of the poster than the topic being discussed.
I think there was a lot of false outrage over the Westminster expenses and the reaction was out of proportion to the offense. It was a stupid remuneration system they had that paid them in duck houses and five foot tellies. That's why it became a story. If they'd just paid themselves a salary, no one would have cared. But it gave people a chance to lay into them and use it as an excuse to let off steam. There was (and still is) a lot of anger about about immigration and it's the MPs who are to blame. Sure, it was an excuse to harry MPs about all sorts of other grievances, but immigration was a big one, and one that can't be easily discussed and therefore needs another channel.
A parallel might the mourning after Diana died. Its scale was way beyond what could have been predicted. I think a lot of people used that as an excuse to let go of all manner of sorrow unrelated to the lady herself.
I could see this UKIP expenses thing going either way. On the one hand, much of UKIP's appeal has been built on them being more honest and normal than most politicians, so this theoretically should throw a spanner in the works. On the other hand, it's questionable whether the average kipper will actually believe anything about this -- they might view the mainstream media as simply another cheek on the arse of the hated Establishment that consists of mainstream politicians, the EU and big businesses. Dishonest and just out to protect fellow figures of the Establishment.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 24s Amazing!! Expect UKIP to get more support after @thetimes attack on his allowances...neither press nor politicians know how to handle @UKIP
Neither do desperate posters on political blogs m'lud
@dlknowles: RT @MichaelPDeacon: Just so you know, @hugorifkind and a bloke from Ukip are currently arguing over whether kebabs are a race. Hugo says no, Ukip bloke says yes
There should be a gentle, sensitive and organic expansion of existing towns, villages and settlements in the south-east every 5-10 years, or so, that reflects the economic and social need of the area. In most areas, if done properly, this will not destroy the countryside or unspoilt views. The most pressured areas are the M4/M3 corridors, the M25 commuter belt and Kent/Thames Gateway, where some continued restrictions may be appropriate. Transport to the capital needs to improve from areas further afield to reduce pressure on these areas.
The flip-side is that we should pull down/demolish unsuccessful/abandoned housing in economically moribund areas as well. Housing, like other parts of our economy, needs to be flexible.
I agree that immigration should be capped at the same time. I'd like to see an annual net immigration cap set at approx. 0.1% of UK total population, with some flexibility for the economic cycle.
I ride my bike down alongside the Thames from Rainham to Purfleet when I can, and the riverside there would be a fantastic place for new housing. The other side of the river, Erith in Kent, has many homes overlooking the Thames. If the govt could purchase the land it would be fantastic.. affordable housing with a riverside aspect 10 mins from Rainham station which is 20 mins into the City
I don't know the area; it sounds nice. Fleet, Hook, Farnborough and Basingstoke are near where I live. All have, to a greater or lesser extent, become vast dormitory towns. Fleet is particularly badly affected, IMHO. It's now ridiculously large and wide, very dependent upon the car to get about and has lost any real sense of community it used to have in the 1960s when it was a small, military town for service families.
Is a lot of that teary nostalgia? Of course it is. But I could easily see a future where Aldershot, Farnham, Farnborough, Fleet, Farnham, Woking and Guildford effectively merge into a vast conurbation, if development is not better managed.
Far better would be to sensitively develop some Hampshire, Surrey and Sussex villages and towns a bit further away, near railway stations, and improve the rail and road connections from London to them.
I could see this UKIP expenses thing going either way. On the one hand, much of UKIP's appeal has been built on them being more honest and normal than most politicians, so this theoretically should throw a spanner in the works. On the other hand, it's questionable whether the average kipper will actually believe anything about this -- they might view the mainstream media as simply another cheek on the arse of the hated Establishment that consists of mainstream politicians, the EU and big businesses. Dishonest and just out to protect fellow figures of the Establishment.
Lots of leftie outrage at Farage under the spotlight - hmm..
Tories getting very worried, hoping that a smear by a once-great newspaper will help them.
is Farage not inTIMidated ?
That's a new one. I've been accused of being pretty much everybody now. It can only be so long before I am accused of being @Isam, so pro-Ukip are my views.
On topic (for a change) if the Lib Dems were to dump Clegg before the 2015 GE how would that help them? What would a new leader have to be saying to encourage former voters to return and new voters to join?
Do we think it mere happenstance that Clegg made sure Laws was in there writing the lib dem manifesto for 2015? Clegg has made certain it won't be easy for any change of direction even if he was forced out. There would also have to be a 'purge' of the Clegg loyalists for there to be anything like a serious rethink of where the lib dems are going and I just don't see them having the stomach for that kind of carnage right now.
I think there are very few people who were planning to vote UKIP on May 22nd who will be deterred by this story in the Times. Nice try, but it doesn't amount to much.
Farage denies he's had an affair, so if there's no evidence, isn't this a matter of him just employing a woman? If these lies start falling apart, it will only make UKIP more popular.
o/t Scotland political news - Panda Party due to get +1 or +2 on their current position. No betting yet that I know of, though, on when the Panda/Scottish LD MP crossover happens.
I could see this UKIP expenses thing going either way. On the one hand, much of UKIP's appeal has been built on them being more honest and normal than most politicians, so this theoretically should throw a spanner in the works. On the other hand, it's questionable whether the average kipper will actually believe anything about this -- they might view the mainstream media as simply another cheek on the arse of the hated Establishment that consists of mainstream politicians, the EU and big businesses. Dishonest and just out to protect fellow figures of the Establishment.
The story is also absurdly, embarrassingly thin.
As is the affair story, which has no substantiation at all other than the claims of a spurned woman. But according theWatcher, it's UKIP supporters that are blind...
o/t Scotland political news - Panda Party due to get +1 or +2 on their current position. No betting yet that I know of, though, on when the Panda/Scottish LD MP crossover happens.
AveryLP - thanks for the link on the last thread. I will take a look.
Good discussion on housing. Of course it's an issue of supply and demand. The former is a function of planning restrictions, the latter immigration. Both are largely constricted, and unrestricted, by the State, respectively. The trouble with a solution to housing is that:
(1) The vast majority of those who own a home do not want any new ones built near them (2) Even those who don't mind worry (rightly, in many cases) about the effect adjacent new builds will have on the value of their own homes, and the "feel" of the area (3) Arguments on affordability fall on deaf ears (in my experience, no matter how educated they are) because they start with the conclusion that it's "always been this hard" to afford a house, before giving a personal anecdote about how they survived on baked beans for the first 2 years in the 1970s (4) Home values undermine the whole British economy - there is a strong financial disincentive for existing home owners to support new homes in their area/nationally too as this may slow, or stall, the rise in value of their own homes (many of them are relying upon to secure debt/equity release) (5) They are disproportionately older, organised and vocal (and, of course, vote) compared to the young, who will get angry, but don't
There are other problems I could throw in. Personally, I think far too many new builds are of a poor design quality that do not blend in (still less complement) the vernacular architecture of the local area. They are, frankly, ugly and too small. The so-called "garden cities" look ghastly too. This puts me off supporting sensitive new development. Although, once again, you could argue that the market would provide decent homes of a decent quality were land not so restricted. At the moment they can sell anything if they build it, and have every incentive to squeeze in as many units as possible.
I can't see any end to it. Politicians have every disincentive to prevaricate on making it easier to build new homes, nationwide. Meanwhile, the UK population increases by about 1.2 million+ every 5 years. If we're lucky, we might build 500,000 homes in that time.
The British infatuation with house prices and the aspiration for home ownership is very damaging to the general economy. The typical homeowner has an asset which is larger than any of his other assets. Any significant development of infrastructure, industrial activity or extra housing is automatically opposed because of fear that it will affect house prices. Thus we have stagnation.
o/t Scotland political news - Panda Party due to get +1 or +2 on their current position. No betting yet that I know of, though, on when the Panda/Scottish LD MP crossover happens.
' On the one hand, much of UKIP's appeal has been built on them being more honest and normal than most politicians',
And with just a handful of MEP's.
'Time to expose UKIP MEPs for what they really are – lazy euromove.blogactiv.eu/.../time-to-expose-ukip-meps-for-what-they-reall...
26 Jul 2013 - This not being enough, two UKIP MEPs were jailed for expense fraud and benefit fraud and last year two further UKIP MEPs were forced to ...
o/t Scotland political news - Panda Party due to get +1 or +2 on their current position. No betting yet that I know of, though, on when the Panda/Scottish LD MP crossover happens.
AveryLP - thanks for the link on the last thread. I will take a look.
Good discussion on housing. [snip] There are other problems I could throw in. Personally, I think far too many new builds are of a poor design quality that do not blend in (still less complement) the vernacular architecture of the local area. They are, frankly, ugly and too small. The so-called "garden cities" look ghastly too. This puts me off supporting sensitive new development. Although, once again, you could argue that the market would provide decent homes of a decent quality were land not so restricted. At the moment they can sell anything if they build it, and have every incentive to squeeze in as many units as possible.
Have you any views on Poundbury development at Dorchester? I have had occasion to stay in a B&B nearby in recent years and had a good look at it (mainly the older part, to the south of the main east-west road through Dorchester centre).
It gives me the absolute willies on a number of levels, from the modern metric modules trying to fit Queen Anne and Regency, etc., styles to the mixture of supposedly vernacular building stones - Blue Lias, Marlstone ironstone, and Oolite, IIRC - which co-occur in the same development in a way which would not, I think, normally happen.The bits that work best are the plain QA brick houses, but that's hardly difficult. The more modern looking bits to the north o the road were still being built so I haven't seen them close up. However, if that is a prestige development ...
The mock town square with mock market and mock town hall with open undercroft is a little risible - mainly the emporium whch tirns out to be a very humble supermarket - but actually rather nice.
There also seemed to be just a few too many defects for a development a few years old, as with the multi-faith cemetery a little to the northeast, but that's another matter.
There was something else that seemed very odd about it till my partner pointed out to me, characteristically for her, that there weren't any front gardens. After that it was a relief to go for a walk up the Frome Valley and the Roman aqueduct.
'This fit up of Farage is all part of the Times' sad decline. It has become a bit of a Tory mouthpiece over the last couple of years and so is nowhere near the paper it used to be'...........when it was a New Labour mouthpiece.
Not at all. The Times was always Tory inclined, but it never let that affect the quality of its coverage. Under its new editor that has changed. This Farage story is just a joke and looks very like the attempted smears of Clegg run by Tory-supporting papers during the last GE campaign.
I could see this UKIP expenses thing going either way. On the one hand, much of UKIP's appeal has been built on them being more honest and normal than most politicians, so this theoretically should throw a spanner in the works. On the other hand, it's questionable whether the average kipper will actually believe anything about this -- they might view the mainstream media as simply another cheek on the arse of the hated Establishment that consists of mainstream politicians, the EU and big businesses. Dishonest and just out to protect fellow figures of the Establishment.
The story is also absurdly, embarrassingly thin.
As is the affair story, which has no substantiation at all other than the claims of a spurned woman. But according theWatcher, it's UKIP supporters that are blind...
Was the source a 'spurned woman', or did Farage get that wrong, as suggested by Guido this morning?
o/t Scotland political news - Panda Party due to get +1 or +2 on their current position. No betting yet that I know of, though, on when the Panda/Scottish LD MP crossover happens.
1. It's not the Lib Dem leader that's the problem; it's being in government with the Tories. There's no point changing the leader and staying in coalition.
2. Would The Times publish such a strong attack on Farage / UKIP based on not very much if their stablemate was planning on endorsing the party any time soon?
Nick Clegg is irredeemably toxic. Nothing he says on behalf of the LibDems will be listened to. He has to go, and I think it more likely than not that he will go before the autumn conference. What is the downside to dropping him? The LibDems should look to Tony Pulis as an example of what changing the manager part way through the season can do....
Otherwise, loving the purple-on-purple action, but nowhere near as much as I am enjoying the groaning feast table of hypocrisy over Farage. Exactly the same people who were loving Miller being called out on her expenses a week ago are now thinking it is an outrage that a paper should, er, call out a politician over their expenses. Suck it up.
The black swan of general election 2015: Nigel Farage having to resign as UKIP leader over an expenses scandal. There is a huge wedge of the centre right vote up for grabs if that were to happen.
The more UKIP and its supporters squeal, the more digging will go on.... Better hope that squeak you hear is Mr Farage's squeaky clean-ness - and not his squeaky bum.
I could see this UKIP expenses thing going either way. On the one hand, much of UKIP's appeal has been built on them being more honest and normal than most politicians, so this theoretically should throw a spanner in the works. On the other hand, it's questionable whether the average kipper will actually believe anything about this -- they might view the mainstream media as simply another cheek on the arse of the hated Establishment that consists of mainstream politicians, the EU and big businesses. Dishonest and just out to protect fellow figures of the Establishment.
The story is also absurdly, embarrassingly thin.
As is the affair story, which has no substantiation at all other than the claims of a spurned woman. But according theWatcher, it's UKIP supporters that are blind...
Was the source a 'spurned woman', or did Farage get that wrong, as suggested by Guido this morning?
Nick Clegg is irredeemably toxic. Nothing he says on behalf of the LibDems will be listened to. He has to go, and I think it more likely than not that he will go before the autumn conference. What is the downside to dropping him? The LibDems should look to Tony Pulis as an example of what changing the manager part way through the season can do....
Otherwise, loving the purple-on-purple action, but nowhere near as much as I am enjoying the groaning feast table of hypocrisy over Farage. Exactly the same people who were loving Miller being called out on her expenses a week ago are now thinking it is an outrage that a paper should, er, call out a politician over their expenses. Suck it up.
The black swan of general election 2015: Nigel Farage having to resign as UKIP leader over an expenses scandal. There is a huge wedge of the centre right vote up for grabs if that were to happen.
The more UKIP and its supporters squeal, the more digging will go on.... Better hope that squeak you hear is Mr Farage's squeaky clean-ness - and not his squeaky bum.
Where's the hypocrisy?
One person claimed expenses for personal gain, the other spent an allowance funding the party
Two different things. Only Conservatives on here seem to think they're the same
The BBC haven't put the Farage allowance story as one of it's headlines on the Six o'clock News
(Andy Coulson is there though)
BBC bias to UKIP?
That's probably it for the story then, unless something else big emerges. The aim of these things is to float something in the hope others will pick it up and move it along.
It's not the Lib Dem leader that's the problem; it's being in government with the Tories.
Actually it's both which is why Clegg crashed and burned so spectacularly in the debates and why the leadership challengers are so scared of replacing him and becoming as toxic as he is.
The media in the past has (wrongly) positioned the Lib Dems as Labour Lite.
In shorthand, Lib Dems have been (and are) right wing on the economy and left wing on welfare. The media think this is too difficult for their readers to understand so have to describe Lib Dems as either Labour Lite or Conservative Lite. Being in a coalition does not help dispel the image.
If Lib Dems are no longer seen by the media as being Labour Lite then by default they now present them as Conservative Lite.
The Lib Dems have to avoid getting defined in terms of either Labour or Conservative and find a way of convincing the media to present Lib Dems as something distinct from either.
Suggestions please to Nick Clegg MP, House of Commons.
I've not summoned the energy and time to examine the claims, but I doubt if many UKIP voters will either. In general I've found UKIP voters fairly impervious to detailed argument - they mostly just want to express a general view, and are not that bothered whether X has a mistress or Y has fiddled his expenses or Z said something outrageous. It would no doubt be different if they were considered electing them to government. I encountered that for the very first time last week - a couple who liked UKIP but were "not quite sure they were ready for power".
It is the response to the hue and cry which follows it.
So far we have had a character called "David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA" writing a letter to the times telling us how he was taught the 700 times table at school.
We have his geography lesson on West Sussex villages and his snobbish disdain of any association with Bognor Regis.
We have a political party announcing they are not prepared to speak "ever again" to anyone on their Macarthyite list of Times journalists.
We have as a claimed source for the story a Yugoslavian refugee from the Balkan conflicts who became a contract employee of an UKIP MEP before being sacked and subsequently convicted of forging a bank statement.
Such convict now waging twitter war against her former employer under the description "Author of 'Unusual Fascist Hunter - Exposing UKIP dirty secrets', contact me for all info on ukip dirt."
We have a party leader who thinks a 625 square foot agricultural building converted to a party HQ can consume £3,000 of energy each year due to "lots of machines whirring away".
We have a bunch of kippers running around the net crying "Infamy, infamy, they have all go it infamy".
This is the apotheosis of British comedy of manners.
I've not summoned the energy and time to examine the claims, but I doubt if many UKIP voters will either. In general I've found UKIP voters fairly impervious to detailed argument - they mostly just want to express a general view, and are not that bothered whether X has a mistress or Y has fiddled his expenses or Z said something outrageous. It would no doubt be different if they were considered electing them to government. I encountered that for the very first time last week - a couple who liked UKIP but were "not quite sure they were ready for power".
I enjoyed the quotation marks in your obviously true anecdote.
It is the response to the hue and cry which follows it.
So far we have had a character called "David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA" writing a letter to the times telling us how he was taught the 700 times table at school.
We have his geography lesson on West Sussex villages and his snobbish disdain of any association with Bognor Regis.
We have a political party announcing they are not prepared to speak "ever again" to anyone on their Macarthyite list of journalists.
We have as a claimed source for the story a Yugoslavian refugee from the Balkan conflicts who became a contract employee of an UKIP MEP before being sacked and subsequently convicted of forging a bank statement. Such convict now waging twitter war against her former employer under the description "Author of 'Unusual Fascist Hunter - Exposing UKIP dirty secrets', contact me for all info on ukip dirt."
We have a party leader who thinks a 625 square foot agricultural building converted to a party HQ can consume £3,000 of energy each year due to lots of machines whirring away.
We have a bunch of kippers running around the net crying "Infamy, infamy, they have all go it infamy".
This is the apotheosis of British comedy of manners.
It is Carry on Kipping
I love a Carry On.. must be why I'm a kipperoooni!
I could see this UKIP expenses thing going either way. On the one hand, much of UKIP's appeal has been built on them being more honest and normal than most politicians, so this theoretically should throw a spanner in the works. On the other hand, it's questionable whether the average kipper will actually believe anything about this -- they might view the mainstream media as simply another cheek on the arse of the hated Establishment that consists of mainstream politicians, the EU and big businesses. Dishonest and just out to protect fellow figures of the Establishment.
The story is also absurdly, embarrassingly thin.
As is the affair story, which has no substantiation at all other than the claims of a spurned woman. But according theWatcher, it's UKIP supporters that are blind...
Was the source a 'spurned woman', or did Farage get that wrong, as suggested by Guido this morning?
I'm speaking about the link from theWatcher, the former MEP who accused him of employing his mistress.
The funniest thing about that story is that it was Brogans paper which ran it, and this afternoon he appears to have become UKIP's friend, as one broadsheet takes a pop at another.
Pandas provided with panda porn to encourage them to mate.
Most remarkable. One does wonder how the things manage in the wild without videos.
Being in captivity probably doesn't help...
No. You are quite right. But then they depend on bamboos for dinner, and IIRC those plants have the habit of reproducing ferociously en masse in each area every nth year and then dying - so some very hungry pandas. One does wonder how they survive one way or another.
Pandas provided with panda porn to encourage them to mate.
Most remarkable. One does wonder how the things manage in the wild without videos.
Being in captivity probably doesn't help...
No. You are quite right. But then they depend on bamboos for dinner, and IIRC those plants have the habit of reproducing ferociously en masse in each area every nth year and then dying - so some very hungry pandas. One does wonder how they survive one way or another.
Pandas provided with panda porn to encourage them to mate.
Most remarkable. One does wonder how the things manage in the wild without videos.
Being in captivity probably doesn't help...
No. You are quite right. But then they depend on bamboos for dinner, and IIRC those plants have the habit of reproducing ferociously en masse in each area every nth year and then dying - so some very hungry pandas. One does wonder how they survive one way or another.
Hm, I'm very much opposed to zoos. I understand why people argue for them for conservation, but if an animal can't survive in the wild perhaps it should die out.
It is the response to the hue and cry which follows it.
So far we have had a character called "David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA" writing a letter to the times telling us how he was taught the 700 times table at school.
We have his geography lesson on West Sussex villages and his snobbish disdain of any association with Bognor Regis.
We have a political party announcing they are not prepared to speak "ever again" to anyone on their Macarthyite list of Times journalists.
We have as a claimed source for the story a Yugoslavian refugee from the Balkan conflicts who became a contract employee of an UKIP MEP before being sacked and subsequently convicted of forging a bank statement.
Such convict now waging twitter war against her former employer under the description "Author of 'Unusual Fascist Hunter - Exposing UKIP dirty secrets', contact me for all info on ukip dirt."
We have a party leader who thinks a 625 square foot agricultural building converted to a party HQ can consume £3,000 of energy each year due to "lots of machines whirring away".
We have a bunch of kippers running around the net crying "Infamy, infamy, they have all go it infamy".
This is the apotheosis of British comedy of manners.
It is Carry on Kipping
It's definitely 'Carrying On'.
'The Electoral Commission has said it is to write to UKIP for "clarification" about Mr Farage's constituency office.'
"Alex Salmond has given a guarantee that shipbuilding will continue long-term in Scotland.
The First Minister told the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) that the Royal Navy will still procure ships from the Clyde and insisted further jobs would be secured through diversification.
His address to delegates at 117th annual congress in Dundee coincided with a speech by UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in Glasgow, in which he warned that thousands of defence jobs will be at risk if Scotland votes for independence.
Mr Hammond said the removal of Trident will not be "quick and easy" and a currency union is "not up for negotiation", amid speculation that it could be used as a bargaining chip to keep nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
Mr Salmond said there is "no way on Earth" any UK chancellor would refuse to share the pound if it meant shouldering the entire UK debt, and was given a round of applause by delegates when he repeated his commitment to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons."
"Alex Salmond has given a guarantee that shipbuilding will continue long-term in Scotland.
The First Minister told the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) that the Royal Navy will still procure ships from the Clyde and insisted further jobs would be secured through diversification.
His address to delegates at 117th annual congress in Dundee coincided with a speech by UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in Glasgow, in which he warned that thousands of defence jobs will be at risk if Scotland votes for independence.
Mr Hammond said the removal of Trident will not be "quick and easy" and a currency union is "not up for negotiation", amid speculation that it could be used as a bargaining chip to keep nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
Mr Salmond said there is "no way on Earth" any UK chancellor would refuse to share the pound if it meant shouldering the entire UK debt, and was given a round of applause by delegates when he repeated his commitment to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons."
o/t Scotland political news - Panda Party due to get +1 or +2 on their current position. No betting yet that I know of, though, on when the Panda/Scottish LD MP crossover happens.
Comments
Most of the electorate are savvy enough to make sensible voting decisions. It's 2014 not 1714 and the technology exists to implement it.
Good discussion on housing. Of course it's an issue of supply and demand. The former is a function of planning restrictions, the latter immigration. Both are largely constricted, and unrestricted, by the State, respectively. The trouble with a solution to housing is that:
(1) The vast majority of those who own a home do not want any new ones built near them
(2) Even those who don't mind worry (rightly, in many cases) about the effect adjacent new builds will have on the value of their own homes, and the "feel" of the area
(3) Arguments on affordability fall on deaf ears (in my experience, no matter how educated they are) because they start with the conclusion that it's "always been this hard" to afford a house, before giving a personal anecdote about how they survived on baked beans for the first 2 years in the 1970s
(4) Home values undermine the whole British economy - there is a strong financial disincentive for existing home owners to support new homes in their area/nationally too as this may slow, or stall, the rise in value of their own homes (many of them are relying upon to secure debt/equity release)
(5) They are disproportionately older, organised and vocal (and, of course, vote) compared to the young, who will get angry, but don't
There are other problems I could throw in. Personally, I think far too many new builds are of a poor design quality that do not blend in (still less complement) the vernacular architecture of the local area. They are, frankly, ugly and too small. The so-called "garden cities" look ghastly too. This puts me off supporting sensitive new development. Although, once again, you could argue that the market would provide decent homes of a decent quality were land not so restricted. At the moment they can sell anything if they build it, and have every incentive to squeeze in as many units as possible.
I can't see any end to it. Politicians have every disincentive to prevaricate on making it easier to build new homes, nationwide. Meanwhile, the UK population increases by about 1.2 million+ every 5 years. If we're lucky, we might build 500,000 homes in that time.
It was AV, not STV by the way. STV might have passed, since people are believed to have voted against AV because it wasn't really "fair".
There should be a gentle, sensitive and organic expansion of existing towns, villages and settlements in the south-east every 5-10 years, or so, that reflects the economic and social need of the area. In most areas, if done properly, this will not destroy the countryside or unspoilt views. The most pressured areas are the M4/M3 corridors, the M25 commuter belt and Kent/Thames Gateway, where some continued restrictions may be appropriate. Transport to the capital needs to improve from areas further afield to reduce pressure on these areas.
The flip-side is that we should pull down/demolish unsuccessful/abandoned housing in economically moribund areas as well. Housing, like other parts of our economy, needs to be flexible.
I agree that immigration should be capped at the same time. I'd like to see an annual net immigration cap set at approx. 0.1% of UK total population, with some flexibility for the economic cycle.
It's almost at £100k signatures, help it along! #MPExpenses https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/number10gov-david-cameron-stop-mps-policing-their-own-expenses
As for the Times Farage spat, if CCHQ were feeding this to the Times then they are going to regret that big time. Can it have really escaped their attention that there are at least two big expenses stories for the tories set to break cover in a big way soon enough??
So it's obviously a superb master strategy to keep expenses in the headlines.
'This fit up of Farage is all part of the Times' sad decline. It has become a bit of a Tory mouthpiece over the last couple of years and so is nowhere near the paper it used to be'...........when it was a New Labour mouthpiece.
And besides, the Westminster expenses were used, I think, by the people as a proxy to release pent up anger about what MPs had done to the country through their open door immigration policy. Obviously nobody could complain about the open door immigration policy publicly at the time without being branded racist etc, so a lot of anger built up and was released over MPs' compensation arrangements instead. Their arrangements were wrong, but they weren't so wrong as to merit that level of outrage. Plus it was the detail that gave it a ridiculous narrative in times of post-Lehmans austerity.
I wonder what's coming next for Farage. We've had his Nazi schooldays, his paying his wife, an alleged affair. I wonder if they'll stoop so low as a traffic violation. Wouldn't be surprised.
Why? Scared that he might say something that most people want to hear?
There's no excuses. Looking at how many UKIP MEPs have resigned/defected since the 2009 euros, there are plenty to interview.
That's a big unsupported leap.
I think your post is overly influenced by what you want to be true (a habit that affects all of us, but yours really goes along way down that road).
Nice try, but not well thought through. The glaring difference between Westminster expenses & EU allowances, never mind syphoning money sneakily and treating yourself vs boasting about taking as much as possible to fund the cause, is overlooked by those desperate for UKIP to go away.
What do you think will happen on the back of these allegations?
The nature reserve is where I stop and have a cuppa before turning back for home
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10692247/Nigel-Farage-employs-both-his-wife-and-mistress-at-public-expense.html
He's really no different to many other politicians. The Kipper blindspot to this, is eerily reminiscent of the unerring devotion the Nats have to their Chosen One.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100267795/nigel-farage-expenses-has-the-times-bitten-off-more-than-it-can-chew/
@LordAshcroft you been following UKIP v the Times today, M'Lud?
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft 43m
@oflynndirector indeed and saw the whole Sky interview. Murnaghan missed the point.....
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynndirector 39m
@LordAshcroft funny that. We are getting on the front foot, Ashcroft style!
http://www.conservativehome.com/the-deep-end/2014/04/the-ruling-tribes-of-british-politics-day-2-the-greens-and-the-labour-party.html
Pragmatically the answer is he would resign.
The way he has responded to the story & the fact that he admits to fleecing the EU allowance to pay for party stuff is completely different to all other politicians!
I'm not sure that's the point though.
A parallel might the mourning after Diana died. Its scale was way beyond what could have been predicted. I think a lot of people used that as an excuse to let go of all manner of sorrow unrelated to the lady herself.
Amazing!! Expect UKIP to get more support after @thetimes attack on his allowances...neither press nor politicians know how to handle @UKIP
Neither do desperate posters on political blogs m'lud
London region:
Lab 33 (+12 on 2009)
C 25 (-2)
UKIP 24 (+13)
L Dem 11 (-3)
GP 5 (-6)
Others 2
How many of the 100 will have recognised them???
BE QUICK!!!
'Tories getting very worried, hoping that a smear by a once-great newspaper will help them'
Of course if the Times/Murdoch switched their allegiance back to Labour it would become a great newspaper again.
Farage denies he's had an affair, so if there's no evidence, isn't this a matter of him just employing a woman? If these lies start falling apart, it will only make UKIP more popular.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/15/edinburgh-zoo-panda-artificial-insemination
Ukip if you want to..
' On the one hand, much of UKIP's appeal has been built on them being more honest and normal than most politicians',
And with just a handful of MEP's.
'Time to expose UKIP MEPs for what they really are – lazy
euromove.blogactiv.eu/.../time-to-expose-ukip-meps-for-what-they-reall...
26 Jul 2013 - This not being enough, two UKIP MEPs were jailed for expense fraud and benefit fraud and last year two further UKIP MEPs were forced to ...
twitter.com/qikipedia/status/455744825808019457/photo/1
LOL
Whats your point?!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/popular-royals-tip-republic-off-radar-20140415-36pvh.html
It gives me the absolute willies on a number of levels, from the modern metric modules trying to fit Queen Anne and Regency, etc., styles to the mixture of supposedly vernacular building stones - Blue Lias, Marlstone ironstone, and Oolite, IIRC - which co-occur in the same development in a way which would not, I think, normally happen.The bits that work best are the plain QA brick houses, but that's hardly difficult. The more modern looking bits to the north o the road were still being built so I haven't seen them close up. However, if that is a prestige development ...
The mock town square with mock market and mock town hall with open undercroft is a little risible - mainly the emporium whch tirns out to be a very humble supermarket - but actually rather nice.
There also seemed to be just a few too many defects for a development a few years old, as with the multi-faith cemetery a little to the northeast, but that's another matter.
There was something else that seemed very odd about it till my partner pointed out to me, characteristically for her, that there weren't any front gardens. After that it was a relief to go for a walk up the Frome Valley and the Roman aqueduct.
If Farage did get it wrong, he's really f'ed up.
http://order-order.com/2014/04/15/farage-fingers-wrong-blonde/
1. It's not the Lib Dem leader that's the problem; it's being in government with the Tories. There's no point changing the leader and staying in coalition.
2. Would The Times publish such a strong attack on Farage / UKIP based on not very much if their stablemate was planning on endorsing the party any time soon?
The BBC haven't put the Farage allowance story as one of it's headlines on the Six o'clock News
(Andy Coulson is there though)
BBC bias to UKIP?
Otherwise, loving the purple-on-purple action, but nowhere near as much as I am enjoying the groaning feast table of hypocrisy over Farage. Exactly the same people who were loving Miller being called out on her expenses a week ago are now thinking it is an outrage that a paper should, er, call out a politician over their expenses. Suck it up.
The black swan of general election 2015: Nigel Farage having to resign as UKIP leader over an expenses scandal. There is a huge wedge of the centre right vote up for grabs if that were to happen.
The more UKIP and its supporters squeal, the more digging will go on.... Better hope that squeak you hear is Mr Farage's squeaky clean-ness - and not his squeaky bum.
One person claimed expenses for personal gain, the other spent an allowance funding the party
Two different things. Only Conservatives on here seem to think they're the same
In shorthand, Lib Dems have been (and are) right wing on the economy and left wing on welfare. The media think this is too difficult for their readers to understand so have to describe Lib Dems as either Labour Lite or Conservative Lite. Being in a coalition does not help dispel the image.
If Lib Dems are no longer seen by the media as being Labour Lite then by default they now present them as Conservative Lite.
The Lib Dems have to avoid getting defined in terms of either Labour or Conservative and find a way of convincing the media to present Lib Dems as something distinct from either.
Suggestions please to Nick Clegg MP, House of Commons.
It is the response to the hue and cry which follows it.
So far we have had a character called "David Samuel-Camps BA (Hons) Dip. PA" writing a letter to the times telling us how he was taught the 700 times table at school.
We have his geography lesson on West Sussex villages and his snobbish disdain of any association with Bognor Regis.
We have a political party announcing they are not prepared to speak "ever again" to anyone on their Macarthyite list of Times journalists.
We have as a claimed source for the story a Yugoslavian refugee from the Balkan conflicts who became a contract employee of an UKIP MEP before being sacked and subsequently convicted of forging a bank statement.
Such convict now waging twitter war against her former employer under the description "Author of 'Unusual Fascist Hunter - Exposing UKIP dirty secrets', contact me for all info on ukip dirt."
We have a party leader who thinks a 625 square foot agricultural building converted to a party HQ can consume £3,000 of energy each year due to "lots of machines whirring away".
We have a bunch of kippers running around the net crying "Infamy, infamy, they have all go it infamy".
This is the apotheosis of British comedy of manners.
It is Carry on Kipping
'The Electoral Commission has said it is to write to UKIP for "clarification" about Mr Farage's constituency office.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27030660
"Alex Salmond has given a guarantee that shipbuilding will continue long-term in Scotland.
The First Minister told the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) that the Royal Navy will still procure ships from the Clyde and insisted further jobs would be secured through diversification.
His address to delegates at 117th annual congress in Dundee coincided with a speech by UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond in Glasgow, in which he warned that thousands of defence jobs will be at risk if Scotland votes for independence.
Mr Hammond said the removal of Trident will not be "quick and easy" and a currency union is "not up for negotiation", amid speculation that it could be used as a bargaining chip to keep nuclear weapons on the Clyde.
Mr Salmond said there is "no way on Earth" any UK chancellor would refuse to share the pound if it meant shouldering the entire UK debt, and was given a round of applause by delegates when he repeated his commitment to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons."
"Google Search: 'Is Kate pregnant'
About 274,000,000 results (0.23 seconds)"