UKIP/Reform NF Ltd and their non-racist well informed supporters

[Jon]

There's no valid reason people can't do remote/electronic (Ie online) voting either. Would be a piece of pee to set up, and would undoubtedly encourage 'turnout'.

[Rodders]

mandatory voting for me, with the necessary options "reject all of the above / disagree with the voting system or however you phrase it for those who don't want to take part / reject the system ) 

[tonyh29]

35 minutes ago, Rodders said:

mandatory voting for me, with the necessary options "reject all of the above / disagree with the voting system or however you phrase it for those who don't want to take part / reject the system ) 

sounds good  ... and then we can fight the establishment by not voting

[limpid]

3 hours ago, Jon said:

There's no valid reason people can't do remote/electronic (Ie online) voting either. Would be a piece of pee to set up, and would undoubtedly encourage 'turnout'.

Almost impossible to do securely though.

[snowychap]

3 hours ago, Jon said:

There's no valid reason people can't do remote/electronic (Ie online) voting either. Would be a piece of pee to set up, and would undoubtedly encourage 'turnout'.

As Limpid says, there are some real security issues with electronic voting, apparently.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, Rodders said:

mandatory voting for me

With what kind of penalty?

The switch to individual voter registration was bad enough.

[Rodders]

I don't know really. Financial penalty would be harsh.  An off the cuff suggestion but  I'm fed up of apathy. I think being forced to think a bit before registering a rejection of the vote helps. At the least I would suggest a full day/ maximum half day worked on voting day. 

There are tooany lazy claims 'they're all as bad as each other' which is just utter **** bollocks. Think andnread for 5 minutes at least ffs.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

43 minutes ago, snowychap said:

With what kind of penalty?

The switch to individual voter registration was bad enough.

A financial one. It's around $30 in Australia.

Those who are in real hardship could be exempted (but only upon the provision of correct documentation quickly after the vote). 

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

A financial one. It's around $30 in Australia.

Those who are in real hardship could be exempted (but only upon the provision of correct documentation quickly after the vote). 

And who is going to follow that up? The same goons that are doing the voter registration forms on behalf of the local council or the G4S heavies that were following up on the census?

I think that mandatory voting is a load of old cock, personally.

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, snowychap said:

And who is going to follow that up? The same goons that are doing the voter registration forms on behalf of the local council or the G4S heavies that were following up on the census?

I think that mandatory voting is a load of old cock, personally.

Fair enough. 

I suspect it isn't a sensible investment of time for me to try to persuade you. 

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Fair enough. 

I suspect it isn't a sensible investment of time for me to try to persuade you. 

I just really don't see the point in it unless it's merely to achieve greater numbers and for the system to feel better about itself. I doubt it would lead to greater involvement in the issues just a lot more crosses put in boxes without thinking.

[Jon]

18 hours ago, limpid said:

Almost impossible to do securely though.

How secure is the current system though si? 

You could make it quite secure, from my experience in this area.  Not infallible , but fraud would be identifiable.

[limpid]

14 minutes ago, Jon said:

How secure is the current system though si? 

You could make it quite secure, from my experience in this area.  Not infallible , but fraud would be identifiable.

The current system is secure in that it requires extraordinary effort to influence an outcome. A system built on technology can be subverted using technology and once compromised, control is significant tending towards absolute.

From my experience in this area, it's not even close. There is no root from which to build the necessary trust network. There is no standard for identity and the idea of a standard identity is anathematic to most.

Way off topi  

[Chindie]

The physical ballot isn't completely secure of course but it's incredibly difficult (and usually obvious) to influence en masse. It's just unfeasible to alter the physical ballots to such a degree to make a difference.

I'd have less faith in an online ballot. An online version only needs one flaw to be exploited, which potentially hundreds of people thousands of miles away will be searching for, to allow a very easy mass alteration of he ballot. And nobody may even notice. And public government systems are notoriously rubbish.

But anyway, UKIP. Their new leader, who strikes me as someone who just walked off the set of a bad sketch show, did the now traditional 'woe betide those who go against the will of the people' tweet yesterday. Clearly much to learn from Nigel, you need to carefully threaten riots, not vague threats.

[Davkaus]

Just in case people weren't sure quite how big a tosser this bloke is

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/ukips-paul-nuttall-backs-donald-trumps-stance-on-torture

The Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall, has said techniques such as waterboarding could be justified if they saved lives, following comments by President Trump this week that torture “absolutely” works.

The issue has been one of the main focuses surrounding Theresa May’s current trip to visit the new US president. In a television interview on Wednesday, Trump said he believed waterboarding and similar tortures worked, and his country should “fight fire with fire”.

Nuttall, who is standing in next month’s byelection in Stoke, was asked about the issue during a campaign visit to Cumbria, where the Copeland seat will also be up for grabs on 23 February.

The stories you need to read, in one handy email

 

Read more

Echoing Trump’s comments, Nuttall said: “I think sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.”

He said: “I think that these people are incarcerated because they are bad people and they want to do us harm, and if waterboarding ensures that it saves a number of lives in this country, or America, because someone admits to something that is going to happen in terms of a terrorist attack then through gritted teeth I probably would be OK with that.”

A draft US presidential order made public this week envisages a review of interrogation methods for terror suspects, the possible reopening of “black site” prisons outside the US and the continued use of the Guantánamo Bay camp.

May, who has reiterated the UK’s opposition to waterboarding or any other forms of torture, has faced calls from MPs to make plain her stance when she meets Trump on Friday.

Asked whether the government would maintain its position of not sharing intelligence potentially obtained by torture or extraditing people to countries that use it if the US began to waterboard prisoners, May’s spokesman said the questions were “very hypothetical”.

He said: “We don’t condone torture or inhumane treatment in any way.” Asked about the extradition policy, he added: “Our position on this has not changed.”

On Thursday, the Conservative MP Bob Stewart argued that torture was sometimes justified and could work as an interrogation method. The former Army officer said he had been “kind of a torturer” when he served in Northern Ireland.

Nuttall is seeking to replace the departing Labour MP Tristram Hunt in Stoke-on-Trent Central. He was campaigning in Copeland ahead of the byelection caused by the resignation of another Labour MP, Jamie Reed.

The byelections are a major test for Nuttall’s revamped Ukip, particularly of whether he can take the party out from the shadow of its long-time leader and figurehead, Nigel Farage.

Nuttall was announced as the new leader in November, taking over from Diana James, who had resigned after just 18 days in the role. Nuttall said he wanted Ukip to “replace the Labour party” electorally.

[choffer]

Our Nige gets trolled at the Euro Parliament by Labour's Seb Dance today:

[snowychap]

Nigel Farage among Ukip MEPs accused of misusing EU funds

Quote

Nigel Farage, Paul Nuttall and six other Ukip MEPs are under investigation by the European parliament for alleged misuse of funds, which could lead to repayment demands totalling £500,000.

Financial controllers are looking into eight of Ukip’s 20 MEPs, who are suspected of having broken rules that ban full-time EU-funded parliamentary assistants from working for the national party.

It is understood that Farage and his fellow Ukip MEP Raymond Finch will be asked to repay around £84,000 paid to their joint assistant, Christopher Adams, who is also Ukip’s national nominating officer. Adams is described as one of the party’s “key people” on its website. Parliament officials have suspended Adams’s contract because they are not convinced he was working as an MEP assistant.

Under EU rules, full-time MEP assistants are not allowed to do paid work for a national political party; part-time assistants need to have second jobs, paid and voluntary, vetted by European parliament authorities to prevent a conflict of interest.

Financial controllers are investigating the work of several other MEP assistants, where they suspect a conflict of interest between their EU-paid job and national party role. It is understood three of the assistants worked for Nuttall, who is vying to become Ukip’s second MP in Westminster in the Stoke-on-Trent Central byelection later this month.

Each of the European parliament’s 751 MEPs is entitled to €23,400 a month to pay for staff to run offices in Brussels and their home constituencies, plus a further €4,342 in office expenses. If Ukip MEPs had claimed the full allowance in 2016, the party would have gained administrative support worth €7.3m.

Farage’s wife, Kirsten, is caught up in the investigation because she was paid as an MEP assistant while running her husband’s office for the national party.

Kirsten Farage was named as an assistant to Finch, who represents the party in the south-east of England. He has been asked to repay more than £20,000 over her employment because the European parliament’s financial controllers were not convinced she was doing real work as his assistant.

Finch employed Kirsten Farage in his constituency office to do secretarial work between 2014 and 2016. During the same period, she was full-time office manager for her husband, according to European parliament information.

Roger Helmer, a Conservative defector known for his controversial remarks on climate change and rape, faces a repayment bill of about £95,000 for employing the Ukip chairman, Paul Oakden, as his assistant. Oakden, who held the post of party director while working for Helmer, emerged into the spotlight last autumn as he sought to steady the party during the rocky period of the leadership contests to replace Farage.

One source estimated that Ukip MEPs could be asked to repay about £500,000 in EU funds if the party is shown to have broken the rules in each case currently under investigation. It is understood that the other MEPs being investigated are Jonathan Arnott, Louise Bours, James Carver and Margot Parker.

A Ukip spokesman rejected the allegations. “We have been here [as elected MEPs] since 1999 and have scrupulously applied the rules of the European parliament with very few problems. It would appear that post-Brexit there is an element of vindictiveness in the way in which the European parliament is behaving.

“We are appealing each and every one of the allegations that have been made.”

Helmer, who faces the largest bill known so far, said the parliament administration had “mistakenly” got the idea that Oakden worked for him full time. “So far as I am concerned there is no case to answer – merely an administrative misunderstanding to resolve.”

If MEPs refuse to repay misspent funds, parliament can withhold up to half their annual salaries (€79,332 a year after tax) and daily allowances (€52,104 a year), until the money has been recouped.

The European parliament’s financial controllers began the latest checks after a separate investigation revealed that a Ukip-dominated group in the institution had misspent more than €500,000 of EU money. The Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe, a Ukip-controlled pan-European party, was found to have spent EU funds on Nigel Farage’s failed attempt to win a seat in Westminster, flouting the ban on using European money for national campaigns.

Parliament is considering extending its investigation to the 2009-14 legislature, when Ukip had 13 MEPs. The current inquiry covers the current parliament, elected in June 2014.

Ukip is not the only party accused of misspending EU money to fund its national activities. The leader of France’s far-right Front National, Marine Le Pen, was last year ordered to repay €339,000, after the EU’s anti-fraud office, Olaf, found she had misused EU funds following a European parliament inquiry. The French presidential hopeful had received EU funds to pay the salaries of two assistants, but the anti-fraud watchdog said the pair worked almost entirely for the national party.

The FN leader missed a deadline at midnight on Tuesday to repay the money and now faces losing half her salary and allowance. Le Pen has denied allegations of fraud and says she will not “submit to persecution” by repaying the money.

The European parliament has played a vital role in Ukip’s political success, giving the Eurosceptic party a platform and funding it has never matched on the domestic stage.

A spokesperson for the European parliament declined to comment on the ongoing investigation. Olaf referred questions back to the European parliament.

Nicholas Aiossa, a campaigner at Transparency International, said the Ukip case may need to be referred to the EU anti-fraud office. “Recovery of these funds is essential, but the parliament needs to take a harder look at whether MEPs have been intentionally engaging in fraudulent activities and if so they should refer these cases to Olaf.”

 

[snowychap]

Ukip MEP ordered to pay £150,000 in libel damages to Labour MPs

Quote

A Ukip MEP has been ordered to pay more than £150,000 in libel and slander damages, and faces an additional costs bill of 196,000, after alleging that three Labour MPs knew about the widespread abuse of children in Rotherham, but deliberately chose to do nothing.

The high court in London ordered Jane Collins to pay £54,000 each to Sarah Champion, Kevin Barron and John Healey, the MPs for Rotherham, Rother Valley, and Wentworth and Dearne respectively.

The judge, Mr Justice Warby, ordered the MEP to make an interim payment of £120,000 costs, plus the damages, within 21 days.

It is understood that Collins will have to cover the bill herself, with Ukip not expected to contribute.

Collins, an MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber, made the comments in a speech to Ukip’s annual conference in Doncaster in September 2014.

...more on link

 

[Chindie]

Not really relevant but it's always nice to have Farage in the headlines because he's done something wrong..

He's ditched his German missus in favour of a French version apparently. For someone so opposed to Europe, he likes it's women. His wife seems rather happy to be rid of him.

[dAVe80]

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Not really relevant but it's always nice to have Farage in the headlines because he's done something wrong..

He's ditched his German missus in favour of a French version apparently. For someone so opposed to Europe, he likes it's women. His wife seems rather happy to be rid of him.

European women coming over here, doing the jobs British women don't want to.