Reform UK's chronicles

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

And Hugh did at least answer the question (quite well too) about what Farage is probably going to do with the cash

Hugh gave a very good answer.

Normal service resumes…

[papa smurf]

would anyone like a sour grape

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

would anyone like a sour grape

Are you sourcing them from the same turquoise blue website that sells 'playing the victim' scripts?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Normal service resumes…

Pretty sure that 'parody' just means someone is taking the pee, but yes that's probably quite normal for social media

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are you sourcing them from the same turquoise blue website that sells 'playing the victim' scripts?

I thought they were only available for Remain voters?

Originally Posted by Carth

Pretty sure that 'parody' just means someone is taking the pee, but yes that's probably quite normal for social media

John 8:7

I thought they were only available for Remain voters?

No, unfortunately Leave voters bulk-purchased them all when they didn’t get the outcome they were promised by those who had no plan to deliver…

We had no plans for government, no plans for negotiations, because it was not our job

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s no big deal. There was no public outrage when Liberal Democrat Cameron Thomas was arrested on suspicion of assault and controlling and coercive behaviour last June. Or any of the others over the years.

Even when John Prescott punched that guy on the High Street all those years ago, Tony Blair didn’t think it was a big deal.

“John is John!” he said, blithely and with a big grin on his face.

But when it’s a Reform UK politician, people tear down walls in the rush to condemn them and their party. It’s pathetic, really, isn’t it?

Made no comment about either of these things , however in this case I feel the ms should resign, in Wales the vote was for the party not the candidate.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, you’re right - getting money from Unions who gather it from millions of individual workers who all reside and pay tax in this country and who have opted-in to make a contribution to a Political Fund is almost exactly the same as receiving tens of millions of funding from money-laundering billionaires who decided to live overseas to avoid paying tax…

Actually, the two donating millionaires are British citizens, they have the right to vote and they are living in this country, paying their taxes.

Many union members don’t even realise that some of their money is being used to go to Labour. There was a news item about this on the Beeb a few days ago.

In any case, this is just a blatant attempt by Labour to prevent the newcomer that is Reform UK from competing on the same footing as them. I think most people can see through this.

---------- Post added at 17:40 ---------- Previous post was at 17:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Dingbat

That’s the second leader Reform have lost in the Senedd, after their Russian asset Nathan Gill was jailed.

You talk as if only Reform UK has this sort of problem! It happens a lot to other parties, but they don’t get the same kind of publicity as Reform get, which is then used to try to make them sound irrelevant.

We should limit political donations, including to Labour. And our politicians shouldn't take money that could influence them. Be that Starmer getting free clothes and concert tickets or Farage getting £5 million.

It's inviting corruption and, once again, it's not in our interests to have political parties or politicians owing something to those who have all the money. A crypto-billionaire is not nessaily concerned with how the other 99% of us live.

[jem]

Originally Posted by Damien

We should limit political donations, including to Labour. And our politicians shouldn't take money that could influence them. Be that Starmer getting free clothes and concert tickets or Farage getting £5 million.

It's inviting corruption and, once again, it's not in our interests to have political parties or politicians owing something to those who have all the money. A crypto-billionaire is not nessaily concerned with how the other 99% of us live.

I do get the reasoning behind your post, but the practicalities and unintended consequences are quite a problem.

"We should limit political donations....."

Limit the amount of a single donation or the total that can be donated to a party?

"And our politicians shouldn't take money that could influence them."

Well yes of course not, but how can you prove that a particular donation influenced them?

"it's not in our interests to have political parties or politicians owing something to those who have all the money. A crypto-billionaire is not nessaily [sic] concerned with how the other 99% of us live."

Absolutely true, but how to guard against this? I think that the current system of making all gifts to politicians or parties, disclosable, in a register that is freely available to all voters, is the fairest solution. Everyone is free to donate as much as they want to whoever they want, but it's open, everyone can find out about it. Let the electorate decide if they think that the politician was bought, and vote accordingly.

Originally Posted by jem

I do get the reasoning behind your post, but the practicalities and unintended consequences are quite a problem.

"We should limit political donations....."

Limit the amount of a single donation or the total that can be donated to a party?

Up for either. Certainly the first one. I don't really have a problem if a party has a lot of small donations because they're not in hock to any single one of them, but you need to make sure it's not open to abuse. There is already a limit on how much you can spend in an election as well.

"And our politicians shouldn't take money that could influence them."



Well yes of course not, but how can you prove that a particular donation influenced them?

You can't, so I think the 'gifts' they are legally allowed to get should be very limited.

Maybe pay them more, but no 2nd jobs unless it's in the public sector (doctors need to practice to maintain their licence, for example), and no personal donations. Not even the fee for being on Have I Got News For You, that has to go to charity.

Absolutely true, but how to guard against this? I think that the current system of making all gifts to politicians or parties, disclosable, in a register that is freely available to all voters, is the fairest solution. Everyone is free to donate as much as they want to whoever they want, but it's open, everyone can find out about it. Let the electorate decide if they think that the politician was bought, and vote accordingly.

As I said, you just ban it. There is certainly no good reason to allow politicians to get expensive personal donations as gifts; I doubt they were getting them for being great guys.

They're public servants; they should be paid by the public. If they don't like it and would rather be rich then being in charge of the laws that govern us isn't for them.

I'll admit I don't care too much about the small-ticket items. Not going to lose sleep if someone wants to buy Farage a Wimbledon ticket or some whiskey, but getting millions of pounds is a joke; how is that not dodgy?