Ukip. All discussion here please.

[MikeFrank]

£650,000 divided by 15 staff = over £43,000 per staff member.

 

Holy cow, where do I sign up???

 

Personally I think that if they are so opposed to the money they should have accepted it and then donated it to a charity, food banks or sommat... It would have been put to good use and made the system look bad..

[altus]

Personally I think that if they are so opposed to the money they should have accepted it and then donated it to a charity, food banks or sommat... It would have been put to good use and made the system look bad..

 

UKIP would love the money - it's only Carswell who realises the public will think £650K to support one MP is grossly excessive and undermine UKIP's claim to be different to the other parties.

 

Short money is allocated for specific purposes:

The scheme has three components:

 

1. Funding to assist an opposition party in carrying out its Parliamentary business
   
2. Funding for the opposition parties’ travel and associated expenses
   
3. Funding for the running costs of the Leader of the Opposition’s office
   

[MikeFrank]

UKIP would love the money - it's only Carswell who realises the public will think £650K to support one MP is grossly excessive and undermine UKIP's claim to be different to the other parties.

 

Short money is allocated for specific purposes:

 

I don't know how it works and I bet the vast majority don't either. If they don't accept the money I doubt it will go back into the countries coffers it'll probably be shared out by other parliamentary groups. Ukip should have accepted it and then decided what to do with it. If it can only be spent on an office for their member then they should have come up with some plan to embarrass the other parties who accepted the money..

[L00b]

Then perhaps you can tell us who was the opposition leader 2014/15.

Does the light of your PC screen bends around you, by any chance?

 

Short money is not paid in arrears for the last 5 years of expenses, it's a funding commitment over the next 5 years after an election.

 

Ed resigned the leadership on day one, he doesn't get any of it. His successor will get it (or not, or not all of it) as and when Labour decides who he/she is.

[retep]

Does the light of your PC screen bends around you, by any chance?

 

Short money is not paid in arrears for the last 5 years of expenses, it's a funding commitment over the next 5 years after an election.

 

Ed resigned the leadership on day one, he doesn't get any of it. His successor will get it (or not, or not all of it) as and when Labour decides who he/she is.

 

It obviously bends round you, Ed already had the money before he resigned, for the previous year.

Edited May 13, 2015 by retep

[altus]

I don't know how it works and I bet the vast majority don't either. If they don't accept the money I doubt it will go back into the countries coffers it'll probably be shared out by other parliamentary groups.

The link I posted explains how the funding was decided for each party last year. There's no indication that if a party didn't claim the maximum the surplus would get shared amongst the others.

 

Ukip should have accepted it and then decided what to do with it. If it can only be spent on an office for their member then they should have come up with some plan to embarrass the other parties who accepted the money..

If the other parties are spending the money for the intended purposes there wouldn't be any reason for embarrassment.

 

Keep in mind that this issue was caused by UKIP getting lots of votes but only one MP. The funding calculations resulted in UKIP getting far more per MP than the other parties (e.g. based on the figures in the link I posted and just the general funding, Con get about 22K per MP, Lab 23K, LD 67K, SNP 21K and UKIP 650K). Even allowing for UKIP not being able to share facilities with other MPs it's still way more than could reasonably be justified.

[SteveJ68]

Facts please! He said he would resign as Leader if he lost. He lost and resigned as promised.

The NEC after consulting Members refused to accept his resignation.

What's wrong with that? It's happened even within the Cabinet before.

Just another excuse for UKIP bashing?

 

What was I saying yesterday about a cult of personality?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32732129

 

Economics spokesman Patrick O'Flynn told The Times Mr Farage risked turning the party into a "personality cult".

[loraward]

UKIP would love the money - it's only Carswell who realises the public will think £650K to support one MP is grossly excessive and undermine UKIP's claim to be different to the other parties.

 

Short money is allocated for specific purposes:

 

If that MP represents 4 million people wouldn't they need substantially more support than an MP that represents 20,000 people.

[LeMaquis]

If that MP represents 4 million people wouldn't they need substantially more support than an MP that represents 20,000 people.

 

Carswell doesn't represent 4 million people. He represents just his own constituents. In any case it was Carswell who turned it down. Farage is the one trying to get his hands on it and he's not a MP.

[loraward]

Carswell doesn't represent 4 million people. He represents just his own constituents. In any case it was Carswell who turned it down. Farage is the one trying to get his hands on it and he's not a MP.

 

That's incorrect, the elected MP in the area where I live doesn't represent me, but I have been represented by an MP from a different area, I contacted them, made an appointment to see them and they took up my case.