From an interview in The Grauniad:
He stresses that Ukip and the BNP couldn't be more different – Ukip are libertarian and would legalise pretty much everything, the BNP are a hang 'em and flog 'em party. A vote for Ukip, he says, is a vote for flat income tax (and no tax for those earning less than the minimum wage averaged over a year), grammar schools, smoking, small government, and of course two fat fingers to Europe.
Amen to that!
* Based on votes cast at last week's EU elections.
----------------------------------
As a separate issue, following some guidelines or other, the article includes the obligatory sentences:
People are expected to embrace the party as a protest vote, but the protest is likely to have nothing to do with Europe – it will be about perceived corruption in the three main parties. And one final irony – Ukip have potentially the dodgiest financial record of all; of its 12 MEPS one, former policeman Tom Wise, has been charged with money laundering and false accounting, while another, Ashley Mote, elected for Ukip in 2004 before becoming an independent, was jailed for benefit fraud in 2007.
See also today's FT:
Ukip's apparent increase in support on the back of the expenses scandal comes in spite of difficulties over its own record on probity. Mr Farage recently admitted legitimately taking £2m of expenses and allowances in spite of his anti-Brussels stance. One Ukip MEP, Ashley Mote, was expelled and jailed for benefits fraud while another, Tom Wise, has denied charges of false accounting relating to EU expenses.
More or less identical, eh?
Jesus H F**k. Is it obligatory for every article about the Labour Party, the Tories or the Lib Dems to mention every rumour or scandal that any MP or councillor has ever been involved in, and if not, why not? UKIP have never denied that they messed up badly with their MEP candidate selection procedures in 2004, but hey, they sorted it out, tightened up procedures (MEP candidates are now selected by party members on basis of one-member-one-vote), and moved on.
Monday, 8 June 2009
It's so nice to hear the leader of the UK's second biggest party* say this
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Why would anyone say they're similar?
Making us guilty by association, I guess.
Don't worry - Farage played it very well on each challenge and was able to show that UKIP dealt with fiddlers quickly and with out compromising, regardless of them being a small party.
There was no sense of making excuses - it made a better showing than Brown or Cameron.
The damaging part is the thing about taking the compulsory allowances and using them. It is very hard for people to get their heads round that.
The media narrative is a propaganda arm no less...
The media and their mates in cons/lab/libdems are scared.
Nigel was on the radio trying to explain the difference between expenses and allowances to some brain dead interviewer on Radio 4. Either they didn't comprehend or were deliberately muddying the waters because they kept asking about his £2m in expenses and he kept saying they were allowances.
There does seem to be an agenda in the beeb when it comes to UKIP.
Post a Comment