Saint Nigel with his nose in the trough
Discussion
How can anyone sensibly compare Farage to Miller is beyond me!
Miller knowingly claimed for expenses which she was not entitled to under the rules as interpreted, hence why she had to pay back ~£5k (lets be clear too, it probably should have been ~£45k, for the stuff she'd claimed).
Farage has spent an allowance that all MEP's get, on his UK office. I really cannot understand why people find difficulty seperating those two concepts. Particularly when two of the main detractors are supposed to be "legal eagles" and should therefore have a good grasp of the difference!
Miller knowingly claimed for expenses which she was not entitled to under the rules as interpreted, hence why she had to pay back ~£5k (lets be clear too, it probably should have been ~£45k, for the stuff she'd claimed).
Farage has spent an allowance that all MEP's get, on his UK office. I really cannot understand why people find difficulty seperating those two concepts. Particularly when two of the main detractors are supposed to be "legal eagles" and should therefore have a good grasp of the difference!
AshVX220 said:
How can anyone sensibly compare Farage to Miller is beyond me!
Miller knowingly claimed for expenses which she was not entitled to under the rules as interpreted, hence why she had to pay back ~£5k (lets be clear too, it probably should have been ~£45k, for the stuff she'd claimed).
Farage has spent an allowance that all MEP's get, on his UK office. I really cannot understand why people find difficulty seperating those two concepts. Particularly when two of the main detractors are supposed to be "legal eagles" and should therefore have a good grasp of the difference!
Show me where I have even touched on the subject of Farage's use of his allowance.Miller knowingly claimed for expenses which she was not entitled to under the rules as interpreted, hence why she had to pay back ~£5k (lets be clear too, it probably should have been ~£45k, for the stuff she'd claimed).
Farage has spent an allowance that all MEP's get, on his UK office. I really cannot understand why people find difficulty seperating those two concepts. Particularly when two of the main detractors are supposed to be "legal eagles" and should therefore have a good grasp of the difference!
Zod said:
AshVX220 said:
How can anyone sensibly compare Farage to Miller is beyond me!
Miller knowingly claimed for expenses which she was not entitled to under the rules as interpreted, hence why she had to pay back ~£5k (lets be clear too, it probably should have been ~£45k, for the stuff she'd claimed).
Farage has spent an allowance that all MEP's get, on his UK office. I really cannot understand why people find difficulty seperating those two concepts. Particularly when two of the main detractors are supposed to be "legal eagles" and should therefore have a good grasp of the difference!
Show me where I have even touched on the subject of Farage's use of his allowance.Miller knowingly claimed for expenses which she was not entitled to under the rules as interpreted, hence why she had to pay back ~£5k (lets be clear too, it probably should have been ~£45k, for the stuff she'd claimed).
Farage has spent an allowance that all MEP's get, on his UK office. I really cannot understand why people find difficulty seperating those two concepts. Particularly when two of the main detractors are supposed to be "legal eagles" and should therefore have a good grasp of the difference!
TKF said:
Esseesse said:
A 'computer and telematics equipment' is pretty indeterminate.
Not really.In fact I'd say it's the exact opposite of indeterminate.
AshVX220 said:
Zod said:
AshVX220 said:
How can anyone sensibly compare Farage to Miller is beyond me!
Miller knowingly claimed for expenses which she was not entitled to under the rules as interpreted, hence why she had to pay back ~£5k (lets be clear too, it probably should have been ~£45k, for the stuff she'd claimed).
Farage has spent an allowance that all MEP's get, on his UK office. I really cannot understand why people find difficulty seperating those two concepts. Particularly when two of the main detractors are supposed to be "legal eagles" and should therefore have a good grasp of the difference!
Show me where I have even touched on the subject of Farage's use of his allowance.Miller knowingly claimed for expenses which she was not entitled to under the rules as interpreted, hence why she had to pay back ~£5k (lets be clear too, it probably should have been ~£45k, for the stuff she'd claimed).
Farage has spent an allowance that all MEP's get, on his UK office. I really cannot understand why people find difficulty seperating those two concepts. Particularly when two of the main detractors are supposed to be "legal eagles" and should therefore have a good grasp of the difference!
TKF said:
>belm<
Farage was criticising Miller for abusing tax payer's money whilst his nose was in the trough full of freshly delivered gravy.
Apologies Zod Though I don't know where I said it was you specifically that was making the comparison, I just mentioned the legal-eagles on here (of which I understand you're one), that struggle with the difference between expenses and allowance. Hence you're posting in this particular thread.Farage was criticising Miller for abusing tax payer's money whilst his nose was in the trough full of freshly delivered gravy.
Edited by TKF on Thursday 17th April 14:04
AshVX220 said:
TKF said:
>belm<
Farage was criticising Miller for abusing tax payer's money whilst his nose was in the trough full of freshly delivered gravy.
Apologies Zod Though I don't know where I said it was you specifically that was making the comparison, I just mentioned the legal-eagles on here (of which I understand you're one), that struggle with the difference between expenses and allowance. Hence you're posting in this particular thread.Farage was criticising Miller for abusing tax payer's money whilst his nose was in the trough full of freshly delivered gravy.
Edited by TKF on Thursday 17th April 14:04
Zod said:
AshVX220 said:
TKF said:
>belm<
Farage was criticising Miller for abusing tax payer's money whilst his nose was in the trough full of freshly delivered gravy.
Apologies Zod Though I don't know where I said it was you specifically that was making the comparison, I just mentioned the legal-eagles on here (of which I understand you're one), that struggle with the difference between expenses and allowance. Hence you're posting in this particular thread.Farage was criticising Miller for abusing tax payer's money whilst his nose was in the trough full of freshly delivered gravy.
Edited by TKF on Thursday 17th April 14:04
Guam said:
Zod said:
Guam said:
Zod said:
Guam said:
I didn't ignore the article at all, really concerned about your comprehension failures, I am basing my view on the projections from the poll data broken down demographically and regionally following the debates, indeed many political commentators (including at least one article I linked to on one of these threads) drew the same conclusions based on the most recent polling, its not all about your failed bible thumping mates any more.
Show me some of this polling and show me an article more recent than February. There was a flurry of noise before the Wythenshawe by-election about Labour supporters defecting to UKIP, but not many did and there has been little on the subject since then. If you google, the articles run out in February. There is an assertion throughout all the UKIP threads and this one, that it's only the Tories who suffer.
At the risk of getting myself into trouble with PH rules and promotion. The Book
If you don't want to buy the book, and obviously I hope you do, then read the following. You can also have a read of the beginning on the Amazon site look inside facility.
Pledge to reduce immigration to tens of thousands, which admittedly they have completely failed on.
Restrictive reforms to student, labour and family union migration, but which has affected RoW not from EU.
Resisted calls for one off amnesty for illegal immigrants
Tried to curb migrant access to benefits
Sent vans to encourage illegal migrants to go home or face arrest through the most diverse neighbourhoods.
Promising an in/out refenedum in 2017, OK there are some ifs and buts, but nevertheless.
In short the Government is offering UKIP voters most of what they seem to want.
Yet they are still rejected. This suggests that they can't be bought off with policy changes and promises because they are so disaffected and so distrusting of politicians.
We can see this through all the UKIP threads on PH and elsewhere.
Believe me or not. The book and all the data from the British Election Continuous Monitoring Survey is there, you can see the analysis and the questionnaires for the interviews.
The analysis didn't go where expected frankly. In 2013 Farage said "UKIP is not a pressure group. It is not a spin off of the Conservative Party. It is a new political force, and it is here to stay."
Surprisingly, and nobody more surprised than me, do you know I think he's right.
At the risk of getting myself into trouble with PH rules and promotion. The Book
If you don't want to buy the book, and obviously I hope you do, then read the following. You can also have a read of the beginning on the Amazon site look inside facility.
Chapter 7 Paradoxes and Potential of UKIP's revolt said:
The conventional wisdom about UKIP is that they draw mainly on disgruntled, middle-class and southern Conservatives, who are hostile to the EU but also to David Cameron's more socially liberal brand of Conservatism. Our study has shown this conventional wisdom to be mistaken. The true drivers of UKIP's support are more complex, and the roots of their revolt lie far deeper, in social divisions that have been growing for decades.
UKIP's revolt is a working class phenomenon. It's support is heavily concentrated amongst older, blue-collar workers with little education and few skills; groups who have been 'left behind' by the economic and social transformation of Britain in recent decades, and pushed to the margins as the main parties have converged in the centre ground. UKIP are not a second home for disgruntled Tories from the shires, they are a first home for disgruntled and disaffected working-class Britons of all political backgrounds, who have lost faith in a political system that ceased to represent them decades ago.
Now believe me or not, read further where the paradoxes of UKIP support are discussed, Why they have broken through at a time when, in reality, the issue of Europe has not been in the forefront of voter's minds, and under one of the most Eurosceptic immigration focused governments in living memory.UKIP's revolt is a working class phenomenon. It's support is heavily concentrated amongst older, blue-collar workers with little education and few skills; groups who have been 'left behind' by the economic and social transformation of Britain in recent decades, and pushed to the margins as the main parties have converged in the centre ground. UKIP are not a second home for disgruntled Tories from the shires, they are a first home for disgruntled and disaffected working-class Britons of all political backgrounds, who have lost faith in a political system that ceased to represent them decades ago.
Pledge to reduce immigration to tens of thousands, which admittedly they have completely failed on.
Restrictive reforms to student, labour and family union migration, but which has affected RoW not from EU.
Resisted calls for one off amnesty for illegal immigrants
Tried to curb migrant access to benefits
Sent vans to encourage illegal migrants to go home or face arrest through the most diverse neighbourhoods.
Promising an in/out refenedum in 2017, OK there are some ifs and buts, but nevertheless.
In short the Government is offering UKIP voters most of what they seem to want.
Yet they are still rejected. This suggests that they can't be bought off with policy changes and promises because they are so disaffected and so distrusting of politicians.
We can see this through all the UKIP threads on PH and elsewhere.
Believe me or not. The book and all the data from the British Election Continuous Monitoring Survey is there, you can see the analysis and the questionnaires for the interviews.
The analysis didn't go where expected frankly. In 2013 Farage said "UKIP is not a pressure group. It is not a spin off of the Conservative Party. It is a new political force, and it is here to stay."
Surprisingly, and nobody more surprised than me, do you know I think he's right.
I'm not sure I can vote for any of the three established parties at the moment. I want to signal my disgust at the two main parties being firmly in bed with News International. I voted Lib Dem last time.
I've had experience of the public sector doing the Politically Correct talk and then actively not doing it. Why is that relevant? Gordon Brown calling Gillian Duffy a bigoted woman, and I feel some sympathy for him given the way he seems to have been targeted by the mobile phone eavesdropping News International ghouls and pulling the plug on the Manchester Super Casino, but playing politics on the 42 day detention for 'suspected' terrorist was inexcusable too. He bought that vote by doing a pork barrel deal on water rates in Ulster.
I've had experience of the public sector doing the Politically Correct talk and then actively not doing it. Why is that relevant? Gordon Brown calling Gillian Duffy a bigoted woman, and I feel some sympathy for him given the way he seems to have been targeted by the mobile phone eavesdropping News International ghouls and pulling the plug on the Manchester Super Casino, but playing politics on the 42 day detention for 'suspected' terrorist was inexcusable too. He bought that vote by doing a pork barrel deal on water rates in Ulster.
FiF said:
Pledge to reduce immigration to tens of thousands, which admittedly they have completely failed on.
Restrictive reforms to student, labour and family union migration, but which has affected RoW not from EU.
Resisted calls for one off amnesty for illegal immigrants
Tried to curb migrant access to benefits
Sent vans to encourage illegal migrants to go home or face arrest through the most diverse neighbourhoods.
Promising an in/out refenedum in 2017, OK there are some ifs and buts, but nevertheless.
In short the Government is offering UKIP voters most of what they seem to want.
Yet they are still rejected. This suggests that they can't be bought off with policy changes and promises because they are so disaffected and so distrusting of politicians.
We can see this through all the UKIP threads on PH and elsewhere.
I disagree that the government is offering most of what they want; barring the highlighted bits, what is on offer is window dressing of a decidedly limp nature, especially the 'Go home!' billboard vans. Managing to be crassly offensive and an utter waste of money, as even if some did go home how would we know? A robust tackling of the problem would be doing exactly what UKIP espouse; limit EU immigration, probably using a points system. Doubtless the EU would fine us, but they'd have to do it through the courts which could easily be drawn out for years, as that's what lawyers are good at. The smug self-satisfaction and laziness of the three major parties have created this chimaera, and it's within their power to slay it, but I anticipate that they won't and the UK will suffer because of it.Restrictive reforms to student, labour and family union migration, but which has affected RoW not from EU.
Resisted calls for one off amnesty for illegal immigrants
Tried to curb migrant access to benefits
Sent vans to encourage illegal migrants to go home or face arrest through the most diverse neighbourhoods.
Promising an in/out refenedum in 2017, OK there are some ifs and buts, but nevertheless.
In short the Government is offering UKIP voters most of what they seem to want.
Yet they are still rejected. This suggests that they can't be bought off with policy changes and promises because they are so disaffected and so distrusting of politicians.
We can see this through all the UKIP threads on PH and elsewhere.
10 Pence Short said:
The money is not salary or given to the MEP for any purpose he so chooses. It is expressly for the purposes laid out by the EU. That they do not require itemisation does not mean it is provided no-strings-attached.
Well technically, by definition...er yes it does. Exactly the same way MY allowances/expenses are done. I have expenses which are reimbursed to me and itemised to the Euro. I also have directly given allowances which is a fixed sum, unitemised and just paid no-strings attached. The allowance in theory is for random "standard" things when I'm overseas but is NSA in actuality.What is your allowance meant for, how would your employers react if you turned around and said it was your beer fund and, finally, what do you think your moral position would be if that's exactly what it was?
(I know, three questions and only one question mark...I've only got a small number of them left.)
(I know, three questions and only one question mark...I've only got a small number of them left.)
10 Pence Short said:
What is your allowance meant for, how would your employers react if you turned around and said it was your beer fund and, finally, what do you think your moral position would be if that's exactly what it was?
(I know, three questions and only one question mark...I've only got a small number of them left.)
They wouldn't care, for the simple reason of its a rule. If you do this, you are given that. Here endeth the enquiry.(I know, three questions and only one question mark...I've only got a small number of them left.)
Its meant for unreceipted items. Newspaper and yes, extra beer if I want.
Morally I'm a we.
We had two systems run in parallel.
System one was that you claimed and provided receipts for everything that was an allowed business expense plus there was a very small daily allowance for items where you don't typically get a receipt. Say about £3.
System two involved you got a much more generous allowance which didn't have to be receipted but then you couldn't claim for other stuff. There was an extremely complicated formula dependant upon the cost of living in the destination and exchange rate. This wasa total pain Iin ccertain countries where, for example, the formula gave a low cost but hadn't kept up with reality of prices due to oil companies and big spenders. Kazakhstan was one that was impossible to manage.
System one was that you claimed and provided receipts for everything that was an allowed business expense plus there was a very small daily allowance for items where you don't typically get a receipt. Say about £3.
System two involved you got a much more generous allowance which didn't have to be receipted but then you couldn't claim for other stuff. There was an extremely complicated formula dependant upon the cost of living in the destination and exchange rate. This wasa total pain Iin ccertain countries where, for example, the formula gave a low cost but hadn't kept up with reality of prices due to oil companies and big spenders. Kazakhstan was one that was impossible to manage.
Yet another example of Farage saying he stands for one thing, yet his actions contradicting him;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
I'm lovin it!!!first the resident lefty's laughed hee hee their splitting the right of centre vote, cue much dancing!!! Now its dawning on them people who voted labour and liberal might also go UKIP cue gnashing of teeth and spitle flecked lefty keyboard warriors springing into action!!!
10 Pence Short said:
Yet another example of Farage saying he stands for one thing, yet his actions contradicting him;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
They must be running out of steam on the Farage bashing if that is all they can come up with.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/e...
It just shows what a corrupt system they have created with the EU.
With no other alternative do they not realise they are only poking the UKIP fire.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff