UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[don4l]

Greg66 said:

It doesn't have an 800k overdraft - that figure may have come from the trading loss for the year or the short term creditors - who knows? It doesn't really matter though, because it's not a picture of conventional financial health.

Fantastic!

Remainer lies don't matter.

I cannot believe that you admitted that.

Were you under the impression that the Leave campaign told lots of lies?

[Jockman]

Greg66 said:

A charge over what? It's no assets to speak of - office equipment and cars. Not the sort of stuff that makes for great security.

It's >500k insolvent on its balance sheet and looks likely (to my eyes) to have some cash flow solvency issues.

It doesn't have an 800k overdraft - that figure may have come from the trading loss for the year or the short term creditors - who knows? It doesn't really matter though, because it's not a picture of conventional financial health.

Whether this is normal for a political party though I don't know.

It does have assets. The charge can also include personal guarantees.

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

Fantastic!

Remainer lies don't matter.

I cannot believe that you admitted that.

Were you under the impression that the Leave campaign told lots of lies?

Do us and yourself a favour tomorrow.

Take a day off being stupid.

[RedWhiteMonkey]

I don't know anything about the financial status of Ukip so can't comment on that.

I am interested in the place that Ukip occupy, or potentially could occupy, in UK politics. I posed a few questions on this a few days ago and thought they would raise some discussion. I'm not interested in petty name calling, I'm interested in genuine views on what people think the future of Ukip is. As asked before, are they a serious party of potential governance, do they have sensible policies on the myriad of things (mostly non EU related) that government has to deal with?

[anonymous-user]

Jockman said:

Greg66 said:

A charge over what? It's no assets to speak of - office equipment and cars. Not the sort of stuff that makes for great security.

It's >500k insolvent on its balance sheet and looks likely (to my eyes) to have some cash flow solvency issues.

It doesn't have an 800k overdraft - that figure may have come from the trading loss for the year or the short term creditors - who knows? It doesn't really matter though, because it's not a picture of conventional financial health.

Whether this is normal for a political party though I don't know.

It does have assets. The charge can also include personal guarantees.

I said "to speak of".

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-im...

(That was a bit longer than I expected!)

P 15 of the accounts then n 15 to the accounts.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the charge can also include personal guarantees".


ETA I'm not sure why this apparent rebuttal of a so-called Remainer lie is perceived as a triumph, TBH. It started with TB's report that his wife had heard something on the radio about UKIP having an 800k overdraft. It doesn't. Well that's great.

Sort of.

A company might have an 800k overdraft, but be making profits, be cash flow positive and be balance sheet solvent.

UKIP doesn't have any overdraft, but is balance sheet insolvent and doesn't appear to be cash flow positive. And even if you take out the loans to the party, its current liabilities are still > current assets.

Celebrating the absence of an overdraft seems to me to willfully miss the point.

However, as I say, whether political parties routinely run themselves like this I have no idea. ISTR over the years hearing reports that both the Tories and Labour have been very cash strapped at various times. They seem to have managed.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 20th October 21:51

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

Celebrating the absence of an overdraft seems to me to willfully miss the point.

Not quite. It hits the spot over why a Conservative MP would air the allegation in the first place without sufficient evidence. There's hardly any need to stick the boot in with fabrications when UKIP reality is bad enough.

[RYH64E]

Greg66 said:

UKIP doesn't have any overdraft...

Didn't have an overdraft as of 31st December 2015, might have one today, might not. Filed accounts are a snapshot in time, nothing more.

If UKIP were a conventional company there's no way they'd get a substantial overdraft with accounts like that, or any overdraft, unless someone wealthy issued a personal guarantee, which may well have happened. Said wealthy person might ask for a charge on the assets or might not bother, there aren't many assets anyway and certainly not enough to cover £800k, but if you're rich enough you might not care. I guess it would have to be declared or registered somewhere as it would really be a donation rather then a guarantee. Anyway, I doubt there much of an overdraft, if any.

[basherX]

RedWhiteMonkey said:

I don't know anything about the financial status of Ukip so can't comment on that.

I am interested in the place that Ukip occupy, or potentially could occupy, in UK politics. I posed a few questions on this a few days ago and thought they would raise some discussion. I'm not interested in petty name calling, I'm interested in genuine views on what people think the future of Ukip is. As asked before, are they a serious party of potential governance, do they have sensible policies on the myriad of things (mostly non EU related) that government has to deal with?

Isn't the truth that nobody knows? Yes, UKIP had a manifesto at the last election but what is now painfully obvious is that not only do they lack a leader, they lack any credible candidates to take the party forward and manage the conversation that they desperately need in order to position themselves. It has to be seriously doubtful whether they have the competence to "hold the Government's feet to the fire over Brexit" let alone come up with a policy agenda. Given Labour's collapse, UKIP seem to be in the process of squandering the only opportunity they'll ever have to consolidate and build on the votes they garnered at the last election.

Not that I'll lose any sleep over it.

[Jockman]

Greg66 said:

Jockman said:

Greg66 said:

A charge over what? It's no assets to speak of - office equipment and cars. Not the sort of stuff that makes for great security.

It's >500k insolvent on its balance sheet and looks likely (to my eyes) to have some cash flow solvency issues.

It doesn't have an 800k overdraft - that figure may have come from the trading loss for the year or the short term creditors - who knows? It doesn't really matter though, because it's not a picture of conventional financial health.

Whether this is normal for a political party though I don't know.

It does have assets. The charge can also include personal guarantees.

I said "to speak of".

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-im...

(That was a bit longer than I expected!)

P 15 of the accounts then n 15 to the accounts.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the charge can also include personal guarantees".


ETA I'm not sure why this apparent rebuttal of a so-called Remainer lie is perceived as a triumph, TBH. It started with TB's report that his wife had heard something on the radio about UKIP having an 800k overdraft. It doesn't. Well that's great.

Sort of.

A company might have an 800k overdraft, but be making profits, be cash flow positive and be balance sheet solvent.

UKIP doesn't have any overdraft, but is balance sheet insolvent and doesn't appear to be cash flow positive. And even if you take out the loans to the party, its current liabilities are still > current assets.

Celebrating the absence of an overdraft seems to me to willfully miss the point.

However, as I say, whether political parties routinely run themselves like this I have no idea. ISTR over the years hearing reports that both the Tories and Labour have been very cash strapped at various times. They seem to have managed.

Edited by Greg66 on Thursday 20th October 21:51

I seem to be getting caught in a crossfire here

Look back at previous Accounts and you will see a pretty robust trend (I only went back 4 years). This can bode well for those willing to back any organisation going through (hopefully) a short term blip.

It seems clear it has wealthy backers that will ride with it through 'expected' events such as financially draining referendums etc.

These backers may be prepared to take out personal guarantees to support the Organisation.

We've stablished there is no Overdraft. No Charges / Debentures etc. Note 17 also says there are No Contingent Liabilities. Consistently.

Liquidity is usually good but the ratio has been demolished in the last Accounts. Cashflow is essential. Many Companies going bust are profitable but forgot to keep their eye on cashflow.

Despite the influx of loans there has been no increase in Gearing. This should be of more interest to you.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

Celebrating the absence of an overdraft seems to me to willfully miss the point.

Not quite. It hits the spot over why a Conservative MP would air the allegation in the first place without sufficient evidence. There's hardly any need to stick the boot in with fabrications when UKIP reality is bad enough.

"Fabrication" is a bit tendentious, don't you think? There are two big -800k figures in those accounts. Who's to say he didn't misread them, or have them misdescribed to him.

That wouldn't excuse his carelessness in misstating the position. But carelessness is rather different to acting deliberately which is what "fabrication" seems to suggest.

Celebrating with "haha, we're not in the financial st for the reason you give - we're in the financial st for a completely different reason!" is a really odd response. Surely better (if true) would be "we're not in the financial st at all, so ps off!"

[Jockman]

RYH64E said:

Didn't have an overdraft as of 31st December 2015, might have one today, might not. Filed accounts are a snapshot in time, nothing more.

Charges are not a snapshot in time. If it had arranged an OD since these Accounts there would have been an immediate Charge raised at Companies House. There isn't.

Look at your own Accounts. You may see a box called 'Charges' to the right of the box called 'People'.

[alfie2244]

Jockman said:

RYH64E said:

Didn't have an overdraft as of 31st December 2015, might have one today, might not. Filed accounts are a snapshot in time, nothing more.

Charges are not a snapshot in time. If it had arranged an OD since these Accounts there would have been an immediate Charge raised at Companies House. There isn't.

Look at your own Accounts. You may see a box called 'Charges' to the right of the box called 'People'.

^^^^ Is the right answer IIRC.

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

Celebrating the absence of an overdraft seems to me to willfully miss the point.

Not quite. It hits the spot over why a Conservative MP would air the allegation in the first place without sufficient evidence. There's hardly any need to stick the boot in with fabrications when UKIP reality is bad enough.

"Fabrication" is a bit tendentious, don't you think?

No, I think not. Mrs TB commented on the accusation being made 'as bold as brass' when in fact it's as clear as mud.

Greg66 said:

But carelessness is rather different to acting deliberately which is what "fabrication" seems to suggest.

Mischief-making must be somewhere on the scale. It was still made up, just like fabricating something.

Greg66 said:

Celebrating with "haha, we're not in the financial st for the reason you give - we're in the financial st for a completely different reason!"
is a really odd response.

Odd to you perhaps, it's an accurate one to me.

Greg66 said:

Surely better (if true) would be "we're not in the financial st at all, so ps off!"

Yes indeed. As I indicated, reality for UKIP is bad enough, there was no need for the Conservative MP to act on air as he did without sufficient evidence.

[anonymous-user]

Jockman said:

I seem to be getting caught in a crossfire here

Lol! I can't even remember why I allowed myself to be dragged into this...

Obv there are no charges, because there's no borrowing. And there's no borrowing because there's nothing of value to borrow against.

But losses + creditors >> debtors doesn't usually tell a happy story, unless you have some sugar daddies in amongst your creditors...

[turbobloke]

Yes fair enough. Accuracy is better because reality is bad enough. Combative tory MPs take note.

As a Conservative voter I would advise the Party to allow other political groups to get on with their self-inflicted.

Nobody at CHQ has asked so I'll leave it ^ there.

[Jockman]

Greg66 said:

Lol! I can't even remember why I allowed myself to be dragged into this...

Obv there are no charges, because there's no borrowing. And there's no borrowing because there's nothing of value to borrow against.

But losses + creditors >> debtors doesn't usually tell a happy story, unless you have some sugar daddies in amongst your creditors...

Same here !!!! I was only waiting on The Apprentice starting (mental health time).

If this is a Referendum infused blip then fine. I think it is. It needs now to fill its coffers again to survive.

I note on the Annual Return that it discloses private addresses and FULL dates of birth. I would not do this.

[turbobloke]

Jockman said:

I note on the Annual Return that it discloses private addresses and FULL dates of birth. I would not do this.

Nor would I.

[anonymous-user]

Here we go again, turbo quoting...

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

Celebrating the absence of an overdraft seems to me to willfully miss the point.

Not quite. It hits the spot over why a Conservative MP would air the allegation in the first place without sufficient evidence. There's hardly any need to stick the boot in with fabrications when UKIP reality is bad enough.

"Fabrication" is a bit tendentious, don't you think?

No, I think not. Mrs TB commented on the accusation being made 'as bold as brass' when in fact it's as clear as mud.

So you didn't actually hear it. And can't speak to its tone.

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

But carelessness is rather different to acting deliberately which is what "fabrication" seems to suggest.

Mischief-making must be somewhere on the scale. It was still made up, just like fabricating something.

"Made up" = false. As in true or false.

'"Mischief making", "carelessness", "deliberately" = states of mind. Different thing. Apples and oranges type different thing.

Most people in this context would equate mischief making with deliberately mis speaking; for which there is no evidence.

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

Celebrating with "haha, we're not in the financial st for the reason you give - we're in the financial st for a completely different reason!"
is a really odd response.

Odd to you perhaps, it's an accurate one to me.

Well yes, after all, it deflects.

turbobloke said:

Greg66 said:

Surely better (if true) would be "we're not in the financial st at all, so ps off!"

Yes indeed.

Well at least we agree on something.

It's Thursday today. Want to double up our success?

turbobloke said:

As I indicated, reality for UKIP is bad enough, there was no need for the Conservative MP to act on air as he did without sufficient evidence.

Well, that's a different point. But so what?

[turbobloke]

Greg66 said:

Here we go again, turbo quoting

What's my line - here we go again Greg66 nitpicking, going personal, trying to score points, derailing the thread, etc etc.

Anything to say on-topic, just say it. Your approach risks appearing boring in the extreme.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

nitpicking, going personal, trying to score points, derailing the thread, etc etc.

I'm flattered! Praise from the master indeed!

As for derailing the thread (a) you introduced this point (b) UKIP's financial viability is pretty fundamental to its future. Now go re-read the thread title.

If you can't bear to have people disagree with you, perhaps forums aren't for you.