It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UKIP misrepresented - again

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I listened to Douglas Carswell on Radio 4 this morning. He said: (Not exact words but listen on iPlayer and you'll hear)

"I do not want the money."

"UKIP represents a changing tide and I/we will not follow suite by taking this money."

"There are many many people who could do a lot better as UKIP leader than me."

Yet the BBC claim he wants to be leader, he's spitting out his dummy, blah blah blah...

BBC

As always - I may not be a UKIP voter but let's give credit where credit is due.

And let's f*** the media and start using our own brains.




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

The article doesn't say that though.

Carswell claims he doesn't need the money or staff, UKIP members have leaked emails to The Times from Carswell asking for control of all the money and Farage is on record saying he wants the money (which they are entitled to after all)

Which side of the story is true is impossible to tell due to source anonymity but this isn't the first case of the party abusing funds but considering the ongoing rift between Carswell and Farage over leaadership there's a huge chance of at least one of them being ousted from the party.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

The story just shows Ukip are no different to the others , happy to waste tax payers money ... 15 staff ?
A conspiratorial mind might think perhaps Tory defectors Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell were planted by the Tories to bring down their biggest rivals.

In regard to the leadership Carswell has a good claim to be Ukip leader , after all he is their only Member of Parliament , without him they're back to where they started.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

He no want 15 staff.

Point is - he no want the monies.

That is a brilliant PR exercise at least and Russel Brand should s**k him off.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263




He no want 15 staff.

Ukip want the 15 staff , 15 Ukip members with new well paid jobs.



Point is - he no want the monies.

Ukip want the money for Farage's bar bill.



That is a brilliant PR exercise

A fall out between the only Ukip MP and the party less than a week after the election is hardly a brilliant PR exercise , what it is is a reminder to all those that think they offer a viable alternative that they are unstable and likely to collapse.

edit on 13-5-2015 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: gortex

He no want 15 staff.

Point is - he no want the monies.

That is a brilliant PR exercise at least and Russel Brand should s**k him off.


If you believe what Carswell says, the UKIP party want him to take the money - so how are UKIP being misrepresented? Fair play to Carswell, but I can't blame him, he would look ridiculous if he accepted it as the sole UKIP MP regardless of the rights and wrongs, but poor show by UKIP for wanting to snatch it anyway.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Fall out no exist.

BBC bad people.

Man with only UKIP seat saying something no other politician would ever imagine saying - PR very good.

If poss. you should listen - it was about 7,20am GMT 13/05/15 Radio 4.

Carswell he say he no want leader position, he say many people better than him.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: gortex

Fall out no exist.

BBC bad people.

Man with only UKIP seat saying something no other politician would ever imagine saying - PR very good.

If poss. you should listen - it was about 7,20am GMT 13/05/15 Radio 4.

Carswell he say he no want leader position, he say many people better than him.


in which he said 'some very excited people in UKIP leadership wanted me to accept the money and suggested I hire 15 staff'. He then said he wasn't some American senator who needed that many staff. Carswell came out of this as someone intelligent, UKIP leadership didn't. I ask again, where are UKIP misrepresented in that?



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Why wouldn't you take the money, and use it? Seems to me carswell wants that the party to be more respectable and not take the money, whereas Farage thinks UKIP could use the money to hire more staff to help carswell.

But I think they should listen to carswell on this. If he believes he can do the job without help and can take the moral high ground of not taking the money, then so be it.

They should respect his decision, which also looks good for UKIP as a whole. Hopefully they don't drag on too long because, it will create another point of attack from the other parties, and from people like below...
edit on 13-5-2015 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Speaking of "misrepresentation", the BBC hasn't "claimed" anything, they are reporting the statements FROM UKIP.

I know UKIP fanboys don't want to admit this, but the party is made up of intellectually and professionally inept people, they say all kinds of nonsense because they don't know how to conduct themselves with professionalism in politics.

There's in-fighting in the party because of the people making up this party - a bunch of ineffectual, angry, ignorant, bigoted idiots who couldn't be trusted to run a toy train let alone the country.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: uncommitted

Why wouldn't you take the money, and use it? Seems to me carswell wants that the party to be more respectable and not take the money, whereas Farage thinks UKIP could use the money to hire more staff to help carswell.

But I think they should listen to carswell on this. If he believes he can do the job without help and can take the moral high ground of not taking the money, then so be it.

They should respect his decision, which also looks good for UKIP as a whole. Hopefully they don't drag on too long because, it will create another point of attack from the other parties, and from people like below...


It's fairly straightforward, the money isn't just given to UKIP to use as they see fit, it's there to be spent for parliamentary purposes - what MPs are granted as a whole to help them with day to day work in the Commons. If Carswell as the sole UKIP MP really claimed the full amount available to any party and really employed enough staff to use it, I'm fairly sure that would be seen as abuse of the system, and I think Carswell did the right thing. Would be interesting to know what the Greens did as they (like every party) are entitled to it but only have a single MP who could make use of it.
edit on 13-5-2015 by uncommitted because: grammer



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: gortex

He no want 15 staff.

Point is - he no want the monies.

That is a brilliant PR exercise at least and Russel Brand should s**k him off.


Actually it's pretty terrible PR.

The only reason this is in the news is Carswell demanded the money and there's a huge power struggle within UKIP. He was on radio to defend himself in the latest guffaw, not to announce he didn't need it, following yesterday's revelations.

They're now in catch-22 where they accept the money they're entitled to (but expose themselves further as corrupt and abusing funding) or they refuse it and the rift between membership grows while the party lose out to opposition.

What should have been private discussions is now front page news, which is never good for any organisation.
edit on 13-5-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

You're right, they're no model party. Your last paragraph partly or wholey (?) applies to Tories also. I think if the media had focused on other parts of their manifesto (rather than many of their followers ideologies) then the whole affair would have been fairer. That said, I still agree they would fail to run this place. But most governments fail don't they?



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: uncommitted

Why wouldn't you take the money, and use it? Seems to me carswell wants that the party to be more respectable and not take the money, whereas Farage thinks UKIP could use the money to hire more staff to help carswell.

But I think they should listen to carswell on this. If he believes he can do the job without help and can take the moral high ground of not taking the money, then so be it.

They should respect his decision, which also looks good for UKIP as a whole. Hopefully they don't drag on too long because, it will create another point of attack from the other parties, and from people like below...


WOAH, got a twilight zone moment in here. I'm in complete agreement with you over UKIP on this one.


I'm first to admit I'm highly suspicious of UKIP and politicians as a whole but I agree if he does refuse the money and accepts half instead it could be a major win for the Party - I'm not aware of any Party ever having refused the full amount. However as this week has show, a week is a long time in politics and him doing the right thing would probably be forgotten about next week. Which is bad for him as if his claims are true then he seems a truly reformatory MP taking a stand to change politics - while I hate most of the Party policies, this would make him one of the only truly Hon members in the HoC

Agreed it doesn't paint the party in a good light by not respecting his choice as he's their sole elected MP so think it's wrong for them to try and overule him. Plus every single party is currently making the same decisions but in a professional, behind closed doors manner - which puts the nagative focus on UKIP while they continue leaking to the press (they appear to have been ordered to stop yesterday around 5pm - not a conspiracy, just common sense damage limitation).

Here's an interesting read from the very right wing but Tory fanclub Spectator with quite a bit of background (though should be taken with a pinch of salt as they're notorious for overblowing any situation that could win Boris/Tories in general more support).

'HQ sources have been handing out some pretty heavy briefings about Carswell refusing to represent the party’s four million voters. Given the Clacton MP has always operated in a rather detached manner within the party and could easily hold his seat as an independent, it could be that this is the row that sees him leave the party, either of his own accord or because he is pushed.

This would mean we’d have another Clacton by-election, possibly with a Ukip candidate — Farage, maybe? — standing against Carswell.

And from twitter

'LBC Breaking @lbcbreaking

Nigel Farage says he will make an eighth attempt to gain a seat in Parliament when the "right by-election seat" comes up.
5:31 PM - 12 May 2015 ' '

blogs.spectator.co.uk...

I don't buy the spectators stance for a second. And even as opposed to UKIP as I am it'd be grossly unfair and hypocritical if other Parties/activists tried to capitalise on this.


(post by Themarkedone removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on May, 14 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Rocker2013

You're right, they're no model party. Your last paragraph partly or wholey (?) applies to Tories also. I think if the media had focused on other parts of their manifesto (rather than many of their followers ideologies) then the whole affair would have been fairer. That said, I still agree they would fail to run this place. But most governments fail don't they?


Not even sure you should call them a party, honestly, you would struggle to make this up.....

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
it could be that this is the row that sees him leave the party, either of his own accord or because he is pushed...

This would mean we’d have another Clacton by-election, possibly with a Ukip candidate — Farage, maybe? — standing against Carswell.

The second statement does not necessarily follow from the first statement.
There is no constitutional necessity whatever for a man to resign his seat and fight a new election just because he leaves his party or moves to a new one.
That is because voters are legally electing the man himself, not his party.
Churchill changed his party twice without giving up his seat in consequence. There have been many other examples in recent history.
Political parties are not really a fundamental part of our constitution. Just a recent habit.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes and no, while it's not technically demanded in the constitution, the 1973 speaker's amendment introduced a codified process - though it's open to interpretation/challenge as the codified and uncodified processes disagree with each other. I'm rusty though and it is a very interesting bit of the consitution/process if you can provide any links for reading it'd be much appreciated.

Agreed it's highly unlikely to happen though as more chance of him winning as tory or independent than Farage being parachuted in.
edit on 14-5-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



originally posted by: uncommitted

Not even sure you should call them a party, honestly, you would struggle to make this up.....

www.bbc.co.uk...


Wow that's pretty shocking from O'Flynn - Farage alongside Lucas, Skinner and Farron are the most passionate and daring politicians in England - the guy ran an election contest very well while with severe back problems and on medication that'd put most people to sleep 20 hours a da.
edit on 14-5-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013



There's in-fighting in the party because of the people making up this party - a bunch of ineffectual, angry, ignorant, bigoted idiots who couldn't be trusted to run a toy train let alone the country.


The same, or very similar, could be said of ALL the major political parties.

And whether anyone likes it or not UKIP represent the voice of over 12% of the electorate.

I see very little difference between UKIP MP's / representatives and those of the other parties - the vast majority are self-centred, egotistical scum bags whose only interests are one's of self-advancement and gain and the perpetuation of the system that they exploit.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
IMO. The main difference is UKIP made major gains in England and fully established themselves yet the Party are undoing all that with the kind of public bickering usually seen in PMQs for no understandable reason.

Other parties have the common sense and experience not to behave in such a manner in public despite having suffered devastating defeats.

If UKIP were in power and acting like this, it'd be a wet dream for foreign countries and intel services as they seem to have no sense of presenting an image.


edit on 14-5-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join