For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Sad, but true, TP.
It astonishes me NickP has been able to post here for so many years without being stitched up. It doesn't matter how careful a candidate is, they can always be quoted out of context. And as we know, the lie will be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
Bolter does appear a bit odd, to say the least, but young Sam will have to choose his words more carefully if he's to make it all the way to No.!0.
How about 'half a sandwich short of a picnic'?
Better to be yourself and fail than succeed as a fraud in my book..
I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who would bat an eyelid at that phrase, and its people like them, and me until recently, that see politics as a distant concept, and politicians as people who speak a different language.
Without wanting to offend anyone, I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
In dodged bullet news, Conservative ministers seem to have lent on the Senate committee to redact information about the Blair government's complicity in torture.
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Sad, but true, TP.
It astonishes me NickP has been able to post here for so many years without being stitched up. It doesn't matter how careful a candidate is, they can always be quoted out of context. And as we know, the lie will be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
Bolter does appear a bit odd, to say the least, but young Sam will have to choose his words more carefully if he's to make it all the way to No.!0.
How about 'half a sandwich short of a picnic'?
Better to be yourself and fail than succeed as a fraud in my book..
I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who would bat an eyelid at that phrase, and its people like them, and me until recently, that see politics as a distant concept, and politicians as people who speak a different language.
Without wanting to offend anyone, I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Sad, but true, TP.
It astonishes me NickP has been able to post here for so many years without being stitched up. It doesn't matter how careful a candidate is, they can always be quoted out of context. And as we know, the lie will be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
Bolter does appear a bit odd, to say the least, but young Sam will have to choose his words more carefully if he's to make it all the way to No.!0.
How about 'half a sandwich short of a picnic'?
Better to be yourself and fail than succeed as a fraud in my book..
I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who would bat an eyelid at that phrase, and its people like them, and me until recently, that see politics as a distant concept, and politicians as people who speak a different language.
Without wanting to offend anyone, I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
Yes, so 'fruitcakes and loons' was telling it straight.
In dodged bullet news, Conservative ministers seem to have lent on the Senate committee to redact information about the Blair government's complicity in torture.
Ask yourself if they'd have done that if David Miliband was in charge of the Labour Party right now.
You're suggesting that Conservative ministers lent on the Senate Committee in order to avoid embarassing Labour, but wouldn't have done if the LOTO's brother were LOTO?
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Have you considered contributing guest articles for Tap's blog?
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Sad, but true, TP.
It astonishes me NickP has been able to post here for so many years without being stitched up. It doesn't matter how careful a candidate is, they can always be quoted out of context. And as we know, the lie will be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
Bolter does appear a bit odd, to say the least, but young Sam will have to choose his words more carefully if he's to make it all the way to No.!0.
How about 'half a sandwich short of a picnic'?
Better to be yourself and fail than succeed as a fraud in my book..
I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who would bat an eyelid at that phrase, and its people like them, and me until recently, that see politics as a distant concept, and politicians as people who speak a different language.
Without wanting to offend anyone, I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
Ouch on behalf of Richard_Nabavi.
On the Daily Politics yesterday there was a interesting debate about the campaign to stop politicians lying.. Damien McBride was there talking about how he used the phrase "lying without lying" to describe his way of spinning his way out of trouble.. the comedian in charge of the campaign, Rubinstein I think was his name, was someone I took an instant dislike to, a kind of poor mans Russell Brand, but he was flabbergasted that people tried to justify such weasel words
It happens a lot on here too, which is one of the reasons I get in so many needless arguments I suppose. People use parliamentary style language and weasel words to get out of ever admitting a mistake.. and people are fed up of it.
isam says -- ''Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter''
Spoken like a man who's never heard of Neil Hamilton. She withdrew despite UKIP asking her not to. She withdrew because of alleged sexual and sexist harrasment. She was only the pre race favourite because of a self confessed sexual relationship with the man in charge of candidate selection.
At no point was she 'rumbled' about anything. Lets be fair - as a serial fantasist she would have fitted into UKIP nicely.
Without wanting to offend anyone, I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
More like they know most of the people here are a bunch of barrack room lawyers and therefore know they have to try and be precise about their use of language to head off some of the most idiotic responses ;-)
I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
True and very important post.
That said, I wonder if when it comes to their own MP a lot of voters aren't still deferential to their idea of what an MP sounds like. And as Tissue Price says, selection committees won't necessarily have got the memo yet.
For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.
That may be good advice but I hope that: 1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere. 2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.
The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.
Sad, but true, TP.
It astonishes me NickP has been able to post here for so many years without being stitched up. It doesn't matter how careful a candidate is, they can always be quoted out of context. And as we know, the lie will be half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on.
Bolter does appear a bit odd, to say the least, but young Sam will have to choose his words more carefully if he's to make it all the way to No.!0.
How about 'half a sandwich short of a picnic'?
Better to be yourself and fail than succeed as a fraud in my book..
I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who would bat an eyelid at that phrase, and its people like them, and me until recently, that see politics as a distant concept, and politicians as people who speak a different language.
Without wanting to offend anyone, I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
Yes, so 'fruitcakes and loons' was telling it straight.
Well if that's what he really thought, then why not say it I guess? The problem is then trying to win back the votes of those people when it emerged there were a lot more of them than he thought voting for him!
Unless you can get on some sort of A list then becoming a PPC for the major parties seems to involve years of footslogging, standing for minor positions, internal positions etc. It doesn't always work but there are normally lots of opportunities to winnow out the true nutters, fantasists etc.
UKIP has grown so quickly it does not have that sort of advantage. It is therefore not surprising that it ends up with a higher ratio of "interesting" candidates than the established parties. None of this justifies going within the proverbial mile of someone like Hamilton but it perhaps makes it less surprising.
Other parties will try to make hay from this. The evidence to date is that they will not succeed. Not having been so careful in the past, not being a classic PPE drone, actually having personal opinions rather than a line to take, these are all part of the charm for a significant percentage of the population who are scunnered of mainstream politics. Most, possibly all, of these recent attacks on UKIP are probably counterproductive.
isam says -- ''Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter''
Spoken like a man who's never heard of Neil Hamilton. She withdrew despite UKIP asking her not to. She withdrew because of alleged sexual and sexist harrasment. She was only the pre race favourite because of a self confessed sexual relationship with the man in charge of candidate selection.
At no point was she 'rumbled' about anything. Lets be fair - as a serial fantasist she would have fitted into UKIP nicely.
Or because she knew she was not going to be selected for a seat as several people have now quoted from the newspapers today. I know it doesn't fit with your narrative but...
isam says -- ''Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter''
Spoken like a man who's never heard of Neil Hamilton. She withdrew despite UKIP asking her not to. She withdrew because of alleged sexual and sexist harrasment. She was only the pre race favourite because of a self confessed sexual relationship with the man in charge of candidate selection.
At no point was she 'rumbled' about anything. Lets be fair - as a serial fantasist she would have fitted into UKIP nicely.
"I understand from a Ukip source that Bolter’s sudden decision to back out of the candidate selection process in South Basildon, accusing the party’s general secretary Roger Bird of sexual impropriety, came after she discovered that doubts were being raised within the constituency party about her suitability.
Having been under the impression that she was a shoo-in for the highly winnable seat, she was perhaps mentally picking out her wardrobe for day one in her new £74,000-a-year job as a Ukip MP.
But Ukip – according to my source - were getting cold feet, wondering if there might not be a more solid candidate than Natasha."
In dodged bullet news, Conservative ministers seem to have lent on the Senate committee to redact information about the Blair government's complicity in torture.
Ask yourself if they'd have done that if David Miliband was in charge of the Labour Party right now.
You're suggesting that Conservative ministers lent on the Senate Committee in order to avoid embarassing Labour, but wouldn't have done if the LOTO's brother were LOTO?
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Have you considered contributing guest articles for Tap's blog?
I'm suggesting they wanted to avoid embarassing their own intelligence services, but wouldn't have wanted to do that enough to pass up a big political win.
The bit I found interesting about the FT article was that UKIP only had between £70,000 and £80,000 in the bank. Ok that's better than having outstanding loans but with their membership surge I would have thought the finances would be in better shape than that. Their outgoings must be very high.
I'm not sure I would think that is realistic. They may have a seperate GE account. Of course 60k will keep Farage in a chauffred car until the election. But I seem to remember reading somewhere that the 2 big donors actually veto how the money is spent, so the donations if they exist as such may not be in a UKIP bank account.
Hopefully the last post for a while on the VAT nonsense (from a personal perspective, there may well be political fallout): Suspended sales of e-books from Smashwords and stores to which it distributes. I think Smashwords is sound but because it involves multiple stores and only one of them would need to play silly buggers (and my sales are, frankly, low with them) decided better safe than sorry.
I'd planned to stop Amazon sales through EU sites (except the UK, of course), but there's no easily apparent way to do that. I'm more confident, because it's a single store and I've read more about Amazon/VAT than other firms, that this should be ok. Hopefully.
Anyway, if there aren't any horror stories I'll put everything back up on Smashwords et al. and Amazon's EU (but non-UK) sites [if I've taken them off there] later on in 2015. This doesn't affect planned releases next year for Sir Edric's Temple [second edition], maybe Sir Edric's Treasure, and Kingdom Asunder [except that the latter *may* be Amazon only].
Oh, and the EU's apparently going to increase the scope of the VAT law in 2016 so it applies to physical goods sold online. If true, that'll really help the economy...
isam says -- ''Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter''
Spoken like a man who's never heard of Neil Hamilton. She withdrew despite UKIP asking her not to. She withdrew because of alleged sexual and sexist harrasment. She was only the pre race favourite because of a self confessed sexual relationship with the man in charge of candidate selection.
At no point was she 'rumbled' about anything. Lets be fair - as a serial fantasist she would have fitted into UKIP nicely.
"I understand from a Ukip source that Bolter’s sudden decision to back out of the candidate selection process in South Basildon, accusing the party’s general secretary Roger Bird of sexual impropriety, came after she discovered that doubts were being raised within the constituency party about her suitability.
Having been under the impression that she was a shoo-in for the highly winnable seat, she was perhaps mentally picking out her wardrobe for day one in her new £74,000-a-year job as a Ukip MP.
But Ukip – according to my source - were getting cold feet, wondering if there might not be a more solid candidate than Natasha."
Regardless of her own failings, UKIP have run a highly effective smear and blame shifting operation against Bolter, one of which New Labour stalwarts would be proud.
I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
True and very important post.
That said, I wonder if when it comes to their own MP a lot of voters aren't still deferential to their idea of what an MP sounds like. And as Tissue Price says, selection committees won't necessarily have got the memo yet.
On your second point, I kind of agree, and when I went for the UKIP assessment it was my biggest worry really that I just don't sound like an MP because of my accent.. they said "don't put anything on just be yourself", so that's what I did
It is a bit of a problem for people from London/SE that didn't go to Private school that we sound common, where as Northerners, people from the SW, Wales and Scotland don't seem to have that concern... to me they sound authentic!
In dodged bullet news, Conservative ministers seem to have lent on the Senate committee to redact information about the Blair government's complicity in torture.
Ask yourself if they'd have done that if David Miliband was in charge of the Labour Party right now.
You're suggesting that Conservative ministers lent on the Senate Committee in order to avoid embarassing Labour, but wouldn't have done if the LOTO's brother were LOTO?
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Have you considered contributing guest articles for Tap's blog?
I'm suggesting they wanted to avoid embarassing their own intelligence services, but wouldn't have wanted to do that enough to pass up a big political win.
Conservative ministers seem to have lent on the Senate committee to redact information about the Blair government's complicity in torture.
Edmund, does that sound AT ALL likely to you?
How much influence do you suppose Conservative ministers have over Senate committees?
Plenty, they represent a reliable US ally who the US would rather not embarrass for doing what was asked of them, and the committee will be sensitive to accusations that publishing the report will harm US foreign policy. For a while it wasn't clear they were going to publish the report at all for just that reason, and what has been published has been heavily redacted.
In dodged bullet news, Conservative ministers seem to have lent on the Senate committee to redact information about the Blair government's complicity in torture.
Ask yourself if they'd have done that if David Miliband was in charge of the Labour Party right now.
You're suggesting that Conservative ministers lent on the Senate Committee in order to avoid embarassing Labour, but wouldn't have done if the LOTO's brother were LOTO?
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Have you considered contributing guest articles for Tap's blog?
I'm suggesting they wanted to avoid embarassing their own intelligence services, but wouldn't have wanted to do that enough to pass up a big political win.
Hmmm - you need help.
Is it the first point you're not buying or the second?
isam says -- ''Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter''
Spoken like a man who's never heard of Neil Hamilton. She withdrew despite UKIP asking her not to. She withdrew because of alleged sexual and sexist harrasment. She was only the pre race favourite because of a self confessed sexual relationship with the man in charge of candidate selection.
At no point was she 'rumbled' about anything. Lets be fair - as a serial fantasist she would have fitted into UKIP nicely.
"I understand from a Ukip source that Bolter’s sudden decision to back out of the candidate selection process in South Basildon, accusing the party’s general secretary Roger Bird of sexual impropriety, came after she discovered that doubts were being raised within the constituency party about her suitability.
Having been under the impression that she was a shoo-in for the highly winnable seat, she was perhaps mentally picking out her wardrobe for day one in her new £74,000-a-year job as a Ukip MP.
But Ukip – according to my source - were getting cold feet, wondering if there might not be a more solid candidate than Natasha."
Regardless of her own failings, UKIP have run a highly effective smear and blame shifting operation against Bolter, one of which New Labour stalwarts would be proud.
I think that's absolute bollocks. Who in UKIP has said anything about her? Roger Bird, and he said he fancied her!
Michael Crick et al are the ones who have rumbled that she was making it all up, and he is hardly a UKIP friend
I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
True and very important post.
That said, I wonder if when it comes to their own MP a lot of voters aren't still deferential to their idea of what an MP sounds like. And as Tissue Price says, selection committees won't necessarily have got the memo yet.
On your second point, I kind of agree, and when I went for the UKIP assessment it was my biggest worry really that I just don't sound like an MP because of my accent.. they said "don't put anything on just be yourself", so that's what I did
It is a bit of a problem for people from London/SE that didn't go to Private school that we sound common, where as Northerners, people from the SW, Wales and Scotland don't seem to have that concern... to me they sound authentic!
I cannot for one moment believe that your accent is any obstruction to your political advancement, Isam. Have you ever heard Ed Balls speak?
I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
True and very important post.
That said, I wonder if when it comes to their own MP a lot of voters aren't still deferential to their idea of what an MP sounds like. And as Tissue Price says, selection committees won't necessarily have got the memo yet.
On your second point, I kind of agree, and when I went for the UKIP assessment it was my biggest worry really that I just don't sound like an MP because of my accent.. they said "don't put anything on just be yourself", so that's what I did
It is a bit of a problem for people from London/SE that didn't go to Private school that we sound common, where as Northerners, people from the SW, Wales and Scotland don't seem to have that concern... to me they sound authentic!
I cannot for one moment believe that your accent is any obstruction to your political advancement, Isam. Have you ever heard Ed Balls speak?
isam says -- ''Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter''
Spoken like a man who's never heard of Neil Hamilton. She withdrew despite UKIP asking her not to. She withdrew because of alleged sexual and sexist harrasment. She was only the pre race favourite because of a self confessed sexual relationship with the man in charge of candidate selection.
At no point was she 'rumbled' about anything. Lets be fair - as a serial fantasist she would have fitted into UKIP nicely.
"I understand from a Ukip source that Bolter’s sudden decision to back out of the candidate selection process in South Basildon, accusing the party’s general secretary Roger Bird of sexual impropriety, came after she discovered that doubts were being raised within the constituency party about her suitability.
Having been under the impression that she was a shoo-in for the highly winnable seat, she was perhaps mentally picking out her wardrobe for day one in her new £74,000-a-year job as a Ukip MP.
But Ukip – according to my source - were getting cold feet, wondering if there might not be a more solid candidate than Natasha."
Regardless of her own failings, UKIP have run a highly effective smear and blame shifting operation against Bolter, one of which New Labour stalwarts would be proud.
Horne's a reliable and experienced journalist, Watcher.
No disrespect, but I buy his version rather than your own.
"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."
.....
The counterfactual is nonsense. There was no need to move to the centre in the mid Seventies (indeed the political centre was very crowded then as now, with Miliband as Wilson without the election winning charm).
The need to move to a more socially liberal and centrist position arose from the successive Tory defeats with right wing platforms in 2001 and 2005. There are still many who prefer the purity of opposition to the petty compromises of government, those people may well make the Tories unelectable again if Cameron does not win next May.
Doc, is anyone arguing that there was such a need? I don't think so. The proposition is that if Cameron had been in place at that time then those are the sort of policies that he would have been pursuing.
The counterfactual is meaningless because Cameron was in short pants in the Seventies! All politicians are moulded by the politics of their time. What was seen as radical in the seventies (equal treatment of homosexuality, privatisation of the health service is no longer radical) what was seen as commonplace then (wage and price controls, government ownership of manufacturing industry) seems radical now.
Unilateralism did not have full support of the Labour party and was junked after 83. The idea that Cameron would have supported it then is nonsense.
Though scraping Trident now is a different matter. It is now a weapons system to meet a challenge of the 1960's and obsolete now. We need investment in conventional forces not a Submarine that is obselete before it has left the slipway!
Here is a point where you can have the same politics even the same specific flavour of politics but still have a legitimate difference. I think its probably right to replace Trident. The word in quesation being Strategic as in Strategic Deterrent. It will last 50 years it will give us a loud voice at a big table and it will be a deterrent. The other plausible argument is to have a different sort of deterrent but that is a moot point. My own view is that our conventional defence in the modern era requires investment in intelligence, satellites, command and control, air power, drones, special and elite forces. Mobile but well protected light infantry forces. Effective firepower not sheer numbers. Suitable naval power yes but not giant carriers. Lots of room for argument there as well.
I think Edmund is ignoring the old saying that whoever wins elections the Government always gets in. And the UK government will go to any length to avoid washing its dirty linen in public. The idea that the politicians of the day could have a major say on this is, well, touching.
Conservative ministers seem to have lent on the Senate committee to redact information about the Blair government's complicity in torture.
Edmund, does that sound AT ALL likely to you?
How much influence do you suppose Conservative ministers have over Senate committees?
Plenty, they represent a reliable US ally who the US would rather not embarrass for doing what was asked of them, and the committee will be sensitive to accusations that publishing the report will harm US foreign policy. For a while it wasn't clear they were going to publish the report at all for just that reason, and what has been published has been heavily redacted.
OK I've read the article now (always helps).
Sounds like they had a sensible discussion between allies about keeping national secrets (ie the identities of operatives on the ground now and then).
The US might have seen the UK as a reliable ally at one point; not so much any more.
After the disappointment with HMF's "trust us we know about this stuff" in Afghan & Iraq, and Obama's coolness towards former colonialists I really wouldn't bet on a particularly special relationship any more.
Or does this come under the Guardian's letter-writing school of influence in US politics? The whole article is Guardianese conjecture.
That said, I don't have any idea whatsoever how much US Senate committees take heed of UK politicians in general or in this case.
In dodged bullet news, Conservative ministers seem to have lent on the Senate committee to redact information about the Blair government's complicity in torture.
Ask yourself if they'd have done that if David Miliband was in charge of the Labour Party right now.
The problem is even if there were nothing dodgy, the Guardian would feel the need to stare at it hard enough until there seemed to be. It's really got itself obsessed with this stuff.
isam says -- ''Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter''
Spoken like a man who's never heard of Neil Hamilton. She withdrew despite UKIP asking her not to. She withdrew because of alleged sexual and sexist harrasment. She was only the pre race favourite because of a self confessed sexual relationship with the man in charge of candidate selection.
At no point was she 'rumbled' about anything. Lets be fair - as a serial fantasist she would have fitted into UKIP nicely.
"I understand from a Ukip source that Bolter’s sudden decision to back out of the candidate selection process in South Basildon, accusing the party’s general secretary Roger Bird of sexual impropriety, came after she discovered that doubts were being raised within the constituency party about her suitability.
Having been under the impression that she was a shoo-in for the highly winnable seat, she was perhaps mentally picking out her wardrobe for day one in her new £74,000-a-year job as a Ukip MP.
But Ukip – according to my source - were getting cold feet, wondering if there might not be a more solid candidate than Natasha."
Regardless of her own failings, UKIP have run a highly effective smear and blame shifting operation against Bolter, one of which New Labour stalwarts would be proud.
Horne's a reliable and experienced journalist, Watcher.
No disrespect, but I buy his version rather than your own.
Oh, I don't doubt that she's not playing with a full pack, but it's very impressive that she's now completely to blame for the whole debacle.
At the time she was supposedly a Labour activist in Tower Hamlets, and boasted of being taken to £700 dinners by men from the party...
Didnt Labour say she was only a member for a matter of months?
I think so.. she didn't last long at the school either..
It was obvious from her twitter account that she wasn't all the ticket. "My source" said she was "mad as a march hare"
Can't be denied that her getting anywhere near candidacy is poor show from UKIP, but it seems to be individual error rather than anything else, and at least it was spotted before any damage (to my betting portfolio) was done
That happened because UKIP is at heart deeply PC. They wanted her because she's an Asian (tick) woman (tick).
Comments
I don't know anyone in my circle of friends who would bat an eyelid at that phrase, and its people like them, and me until recently, that see politics as a distant concept, and politicians as people who speak a different language.
Without wanting to offend anyone, I think a lot of PBers are stuck in an old mindset... They use "parliamentary style" language on the site, mimicking the politicians they admire. But most of the public don't admire these politicians, and associate such language with people they don't trust to tell it straight.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/12/uk-ministers-senate-committee-cia-torture-report
Ask yourself if they'd have done that if David Miliband was in charge of the Labour Party right now.
Well, it's a view, I suppose.
Have you considered contributing guest articles for Tap's blog?
It happens a lot on here too, which is one of the reasons I get in so many needless arguments I suppose. People use parliamentary style language and weasel words to get out of ever admitting a mistake.. and people are fed up of it.
Spoken like a man who's never heard of Neil Hamilton.
She withdrew despite UKIP asking her not to. She withdrew because of alleged sexual and sexist harrasment. She was only the pre race favourite because of a self confessed sexual relationship with the man in charge of candidate selection.
At no point was she 'rumbled' about anything. Lets be fair - as a serial fantasist she would have fitted into UKIP nicely.
That said, I wonder if when it comes to their own MP a lot of voters aren't still deferential to their idea of what an MP sounds like. And as Tissue Price says, selection committees won't necessarily have got the memo yet.
UKIP has grown so quickly it does not have that sort of advantage. It is therefore not surprising that it ends up with a higher ratio of "interesting" candidates than the established parties. None of this justifies going within the proverbial mile of someone like Hamilton but it perhaps makes it less surprising.
Other parties will try to make hay from this. The evidence to date is that they will not succeed. Not having been so careful in the past, not being a classic PPE drone, actually having personal opinions rather than a line to take, these are all part of the charm for a significant percentage of the population who are scunnered of mainstream politics. Most, possibly all, of these recent attacks on UKIP are probably counterproductive.
How much influence do you suppose Conservative ministers have over Senate committees?
Having been under the impression that she was a shoo-in for the highly winnable seat, she was perhaps mentally picking out her wardrobe for day one in her new £74,000-a-year job as a Ukip MP.
But Ukip – according to my source - were getting cold feet, wondering if there might not be a more solid candidate than Natasha."
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/61754/sex-leaks-and-lies-basildon-brush-off-for-natasha-and-neil
Of course 60k will keep Farage in a chauffred car until the election.
But I seem to remember reading somewhere that the 2 big donors actually veto how the money is spent, so the donations if they exist as such may not be in a UKIP bank account.
It is a bit of a problem for people from London/SE that didn't go to Private school that we sound common, where as Northerners, people from the SW, Wales and Scotland don't seem to have that concern... to me they sound authentic!
Michael Crick et al are the ones who have rumbled that she was making it all up, and he is hardly a UKIP friend
Your f*cking awful tips however..... ;-)
No disrespect, but I buy his version rather than your own.
I think its probably right to replace Trident. The word in quesation being Strategic as in Strategic Deterrent. It will last 50 years it will give us a loud voice at a big table and it will be a deterrent. The other plausible argument is to have a different sort of deterrent but that is a moot point.
My own view is that our conventional defence in the modern era requires investment in intelligence, satellites, command and control, air power, drones, special and elite forces. Mobile but well protected light infantry forces. Effective firepower not sheer numbers. Suitable naval power yes but not giant carriers. Lots of room for argument there as well.
So, directly sell a (physical) book online to a Frenchman = register for VAT in France (or enjoy the crazy world of VATMOSS).
Also, there's no VAT on books. And there is VAT on e-books.
Anyway, time to work out some frustration with ye olde exercise.
Sounds like they had a sensible discussion between allies about keeping national secrets (ie the identities of operatives on the ground now and then).
The US might have seen the UK as a reliable ally at one point; not so much any more.
After the disappointment with HMF's "trust us we know about this stuff" in Afghan & Iraq, and Obama's coolness towards former colonialists I really wouldn't bet on a particularly special relationship any more.
Or does this come under the Guardian's letter-writing school of influence in US politics? The whole article is Guardianese conjecture.
That said, I don't have any idea whatsoever how much US Senate committees take heed of UK politicians in general or in this case.
Do you?
new thread