UKIP MEPs exceeding expectations.

As explained here, I expected about one-third of UKIP's 2014 intake of 24 MEP's to have resigned by this year, i.e. down to 16.

This is all rearranging deckchairs now, so it doesn't really matter, but they appear to have beaten their target, from Wiki:

UKIP has 15 members in the European Parliament, with representatives in eleven of the twelve European Parliament constituencies in the UK. Twenty-four UKIP representatives were elected in the 2014 election, but ten have since defected.

"Defected" is a bit harsh. One of them resigned and UKIP appointed a replacement MEP. Most of them quit out of principle, see e.g. here or because another MEP beat them up.

UKIP MEPs well on course to hit 2019 target number of resignations

Back in 2014, I ran a Fun Online Poll on the topic of how many UKIP MEPs would have resigned by 2019 (the end of the current term of the current EU Parliament).

During previous terms, on average just over a quarter of their MEPs resigned/were sacked (summary here). Having gained 24 MEPs - the highest number of MEPs of any UK party in the 2014 elections, please note - I would expect at least six of them to have resigned/been sacked by the middle of next year.

The weighted average result in the Poll was six, although the results were pretty evenly spread between "none" and "more than half".

According to the BBC, their sixth MEP resigned yesterday, which the BBC says that brings them down to 18.

The UKIP page still shows 19 (having promptly removed Jonathan Arnott). I suspect that the difference is because one UKIP MEP, Roger Helmer didn't resign or leave UKIP, he did the decent thing and retired, which allowed somebody else to take his seat (as a UKIP MEP). So a bit of misreporting by the BBC there, methinks.
--------------------------------------------------
On a personal note, I really liked Jonathan Arnott. He was highly intelligent, approachable and seemed pretty liberal. IMHO he was too good for UKIP, but I couldn't swing him round to a more Georgist point of view.

Checklist for UKIP leaders

The current UKIP leader is taking this really seriously, see today's Metro:

Checked flat cap? CHECK

Green Barbour wax jacket? CHECK

Carry large golfing umbrella while giving the distinct impression you'd rather be carrying a shot gun? CHECK

Leave wife for woman half your age? CHECK

You wonder whether the cap and jacket get passed down from UKIP leader to UKIP leader, like a badge of office...

Economic Myths: The European Investment Bank

Former UKIP leader Diane James, in City AM:

... at the same time as demanding that Britain must settle its divorce bill before trade can even be discussed, the EU has decided that the UK must wait decades to have what rightfully belongs to us.

Werner Hoyer, president of the European Investment Bank (EIB), has declared that the UK won’t get back its 16 per cent stake in the bank – worth several billions euros – until 2054.

She then treads the fine line between perpetuating myths and debunking them for a few paragraphs.

Point is, the UK government has lent/invested a large sum of money to/in the EIC; and various UK quasi-governmental bodies have received large loans from the EIB. Two large numbers in equal and opposite directions. Minus one from t'other and you end up with a much smaller number.

The loans which the EIB has made presumably have fairly long-term repayment schedules, so it's not unreasonable for the EIB (going with the fiction that it truly is an independent 'bank') only has to repay the UK's original investment/loan/accumulated profits at a similar speed. The UK government bodies only have to repay their loans to the EIB over decades. Again, in the normal course of events, minus one from t'other and the net annual payment is a much smaller number.

So it would be cleaner and simpler to cut out the middleman and to transfer the UK govenrment's investment in and loans from the EIBs (assets and liabilities) back to the UK government, at which stage the whole lot can be netted off and disappears in a puff of smoke. The UK government can't owe itself money.

There will probably still be a net small balance owed by the EIB to the UK government, which we can just chuck into the mix with all the other amounts which the UK owes the EU (membership fees for the next two years) and which the EU owes the UK (UK's pro rata share of value of EU assets, like all the land and buildings in Brussels and Luxembourg).

If you keep doing this long enough, the balance owed in either direction will be chump change and nobody will care.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

The right way

From a London Assembly press release:

Recommendations include:

• The Mayor must take a visible lead in tackling FGM. The delivery of the Police and Crime Plan must demonstrate this commitment and drive a multi-agency response to FGM.

• A pan-London campaign to raise awareness of the real dangers of FGM, signposting women and girls to the support they require.

• Communities affected by FGM should be engaged to raise awareness, strengthen community-based prevention work and provide training for professionals.

• The Mayor must support the provision of bespoke training for London’s frontline practitioners.

• Support should be given to the police, health, social care and education services, voluntary organisations and communities.

The wrong way

From Sky News:

Mandatory checks are already law in France, which has had far greater success prosecuting FGM cases. Although it has been illegal in the UK since 1987, there have been no successful prosecutions.

Ms Parker said: "All these measures to combat this despicable crime are already law in France, a country that has a far, far better record than us on FGM. Not only have they proven effective both in protecting girls in France from FGM, they also help provide essential evidence to mount prosecutions where FGM has taken place. It is time the United Kingdom caught up."

Hookem, Hook, Hokum?

It seems that The Express still has a forensic interest in the prostrate body of UKIP's Mr Woolfe. It has become something of an iconic image.

Having no idea who Mr Hookem was, I had assumed that the figure standing over the political corpse was just a security guard who had arrived late on the ramp and found the body. I am now wondering if the figure leaning over Woolfe is in fact Mr Hookem. Anybody UKIP savy put me right on this point?

Fun Online Polls: UKIP MEPs & future Prime Ministers

The results to last week's poll were as follows:

Now that their mission is accomplished, will UKIP MEPs resign en masse and renounce their Euro-pensions?

Yes of course, they are all honourable people - 11%
Er…well… - 89%

I'm with the majority on this one, there were some quite angry comments at the poll though.
---------------------------------
Politicians are taking themselves far too seriously again; they imagine that the Brexit vote means were are in some sort of "crisis" and therefore they have to rearrange some deck chairs and we'll all love them again.

Fact is, most people don't care either way and in practice, there won't be much difference between Bremaining and Brexiting. Is Switzerland really that different to Austria? A bit? Yes. A lot? No. is Switzerland 'better' or 'worse' than Austria - that depends on what you like.

Nontheless, both the major UK parties have decided to play musical chairs at the top and we are going to have to put up with whoever they choose.

So that's this week's Fun Online Poll:

"Please indicate the ones you would definitely NOT like to see as Prime Minister."

Deselect the ones you really can't stand here or use the widget in the sidebar.

Fun Online Polls: That referendum thingy & UKIP MEPs

The responses to last week's Fun Online Poll were as follows:

What's the most likely outcome of next week's referendum?

Majority for Bremain - 21%
Majority for Brexit, followed by actual Brexit - 15%
Majority for Brexit, months of (re)negotiations and a rigged second referendum - 65%

So we managed to guess the result in the referendum, only time will tell whether we were right about the next bit...
-------------------------------
This week's Fun Online Poll:

"Now that their mission is accomplished, will UKIP MEPs resign en masse and renounce their Euro-pensions?"

Vote here or use the widget in the side bar.

UKIP must be laughing themselves silly over this...

From The Electoral Commission:

The Electoral Commission has today (8 January) removed the British National Party (BNP) from its register of political parties in Great Britain for failing to confirm their registration details with the Commission - a legal requirement that must be submitted annually...

The BNP’s statement of accounts were due on 7 July 2015. Their annual confirmation of registered details was therefore due on or before 7 January 2016. The Electoral Commission did not receive the notification by this date and is required by law to remove the BNP from its register of political parties in Great Britain.

Now that the party has been removed from the register, BNP candidates cannot, at present, use the party’s name, descriptions or emblems on the ballot paper at elections. The party can, however, submit an application to re-register at any time and their name, descriptions and emblems are protected under PPERA for two years to prevent other parties using them. Any application will be considered by the Commission in line with its usual processes for assessing new applications to register political parties.

Quote Of The Year 2015

AK Haart has posted his favourite, so here's mine.

From the BBC:

Mr Carswell said UKIP "needs to change gear and to change its management if it's to go the next level"…

In a reference to Mr Farage's claim that the Oldham by-election postal vote was rigged, he added: "I don't want to wake up the morning after the European referendum and hear it was the postal votes."

UKIP and The Election

From the Daily Echo

Ukip is well placed to replace Labour as the natural party of the north, its only MP has said.

Douglas Carswell told the BBC Sunday Politics programme the party's success in winning more than 100 second place finishes at the general election showed where its future was.

OK, everyone's been talking about this point. Paul Nuttall's 2020 strategy is based on winning lots of 2nd places, to be the rival party for the next election. In many seats, there's some wisdom to this strategy. Under FPTP, people group around the top 2 parties in a constituency. If you're running say, the Labour party and you can get above the Lib Dems in a seat, next time, you'll be the non-Conservative party that people will vote for. You'll be the rival that can win the seat. Amongst all the crap in party election flyers, this is one thing that's emphasized: "we're the only party that can stop the Tories" with a chart showing them above the Lib Dems.

So, using the Guardian's map, I'm going to pick 20 constituencies at random that have UKIP in 2nd. 10 Labour, 10 Conservative:-

Rother Valley: 7,300 Labour majority over UKIP.
Liverpool Walton: 28,000 Labour majority over UKIP
Doncaster North: 11000 Labour majority over UKIP
Oldham West and Royton: 14,800 Labour majority over UKIP
Rotherham: 8400 Labour majority over UKIP
Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford: 14,500 Labour majority over UKIP
Houghton and Sunderland South: 12,900 Labour majority over UKIP
Blyth Valley: 9,200 Labour majority over UKIP
Heywood and Middleton: 5,200 Labour majority over UKIP
Liverpool West Derby: 27,300 Labour majority over UKIP
Dorset North: 21,100 Con majority over UKIP
Surrey South West: 28,500 Con majority over UKIP
Worcestershire Mid: 20,500 Con majority over UKIP
Hereford and Herefordshire South: 16,800 Con majority over UKIP
Rochester and Strood: 7,100 Con majority over UKIP
Surrey Heath: 24,800 Con majority over UKIP
Wiltshire South West: 18,000 Con majority over UKIP
Christchurch: 18,200 Con majority over UKIP
Rutland and Melton 21700 Con majority over UKIP
Cambridgeshire North East 16800 Con majority over UKIP

Of the seats randomly picked, there's really 3 that have any hope of swinging anytime soon. Swinging by more than 7,000 would require a Lib Dem level meltdown or New Labour level victory in that seat. Which might happen, but doesn't look likely any time soon.

As far as I can tell, all they really have is Farage in South Thanet, who is a couple of thousand behind.

UKIP fun, UKIP fun - this one will run and run.

I set up a Fun Online Poll last year, results as follows:

How many of UKIP's 24 MEPs will leave the party by 2019?

None - 18%
1 to 3 - 30%
4 to 6 - 14%
6 to 9 - 12%
10 to 12 - 9%
13 or more - 17%

A year into the new European Parliament, so far they have lost two (h/t Rohen Kapur by email):

Ukip has suspended another MEP, Janice Atkinson, one of its highest-profile female parliamentary candidates, over allegations of a “serious financial nature”.

The decision to withdraw the whip from Atkinson comes less than two months after Ukip suspended Amjad Bashir, also an MEP, over financial matters just before he defected to the Conservative party. He strongly denied any wrongdoing.

So, yah boo sucks to those who voted "None" and a provisional pat on the back to those who chose "1 to 3", but I'm sticking with my original prediction of "6 to 9", which is looking rather more likely now - if one leaves and/or gets caught with fingers in the till and/or falls out with Mr N. Farage every year, then we are bang on target.

James Higham is a bit more fundamentalist about this.

Nigel Farage on Discrimination Laws

From the BBC

Mr Farage told the BBC his remarks, recorded last autumn, had been "wilfully misinterpreted", saying he was talking about nationality not race.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today Programme he said he was making the point that employers should be able to discriminate in favour of British workers.

Is there actually any demand out there for this? I challenge anyone to find a case of a company that hired a Pole but wished they could have hired an English person. How would you even get to that situation?

We already have an advantage - if I sit down 2 programmers, one from Poland and one from the UK with equal skills and experience that both seem to test OK, I'd hire the one from the UK because communication would be better with the person in the UK. You're not going to have language difficulties.

What's Farage's imaginary situation here? That an employer sits a Pole and a Brit down, and the Pole is a whiz programmer, and the Brit is a bit average, but the employer would want to hire the Brit over the Pole because of Queen and Country?

UKIP's Nigel Farage wants return to policy 'normality'

From the BBC

UKIP would cut the number of half-baked policy announcements but would not set an annual target, Nigel Farage said.

The party wants bar room policies to return to "normal" levels, said Mr Farage, with between 20,000 and 50,000 dog-whistle ideas given publicity.

A UKIP spokesman said last week that bullshit populist ideas should be capped at 50,000 a year.

Mr Farage insisted the party had not done a U-turn, but said the public were sick of talk about caps and targets, until they're not.

"Nigel Farage trapped in Ukip's Rotherham office for two hours"

From The Express:

Police advised the leader of the anti-Europe party to remain in the office after threats from the office manager. He was forced to stay late and help volunteers stuff and label a thousand envelopes for a mail shot before being led to safety by officers.

Mr Farage had been due to saunter in, cut the ribbon on the office of Ukip's general election candidate Jane Collins and then swan off to his next photo opportunity. But the office manager said that Mr Farage was not welcome in the town unless he was prepared to muck in with the administrative work.

A party spokesman branded the manager "hard-line Stalinist". Mr Farage added that he was the victims of office bullying. Insiders confirm that they later overheard Farage speaking on the phone, saying "No, darling, this time I really am trapped in the office. Literally. They've locked the bloody doors."

"Nigel Farage fails to get a round in because of immigrants"

From the BBC:

Nigel Farage has blamed high levels of immigration for denying him the opportunity of getting a round of drinks in at a meet-the-leader event ahead of UKIP's first Welsh conference.

Ten minutes before closing time, the UKIP leader jotted down everybody's order on the back of a beer mat and made his way towards the bar. About 10 people out of his drinking party had already bought a round, and it was the UKIP leader's turn to put his hand in his pocket, but he returned empty handed just after the final bell on Friday evening.

He laid the blame squarely on "a bunch of thirsty Poles ahead of me in the queue who seemed to want to drink the bar dry" and was thus prevented from doing his bit.

The event at Margam Park was part of his party's conference which was held on Saturday. Labour criticised Mr Farage calling his excuse "absurd", insisting that he had been spotted at the bar knocking back a pint of bitter long before the bell rang.

Barmaid Imie Nazwisko confirmed that she had served him with a pint just after last orders were called. "He nice man but very cheeky! He say he not send me back, and wink at me!"

Speaking to the BBC's Sunday Politics Wales, Mr Farage said: "It took me half an hour to get the barmaid's attention - it should have taken no more than three minutes.

"Nigel Farage laughs off local Ukip branch mistaking Westminster cathedral for mosque"

Seriously!

Remind me? Why is this a Bad Thing...

Here

Nigel Farage & Exodus 20:3

Well done, Douglas Carswell in yesterday's by-election, but now comes the interesting bit and the reason why UKIP - with it's easily understandable manifesto* - isn't bigger than it is.

Exodus 20:3: "You shall have no other gods before Me"

Farage was always perfectly nice to me, but I was just a humble bean counter and form filler. It's people who show a bit of free spirit and possible rivals to share what little limelight is shone on UKIP who he can't stand (let alone people who seriously stand against him in leadership elections). I suspect that Carswell falls into one or more of those categories, so my money's on him standing as an independent in May 2015.

* "If you don't want all your taxes to be spent on concreting over the green belt with social housing for Romanian and Bulgarian welfare claimants, vote UKIP!"

UPDATE: The Stigler adds...

That's UKIP manifesto (South). UKIP Manifesto (North) is:-

"Note UKIP and we'll keep making sure you get lots of lovely benefits by keeping the Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants from getting their hands on them."

Politicians called "Flynn" vs Starbucks

I was Googling around and stumbled across the following two items.

From the FT:

Mr [Patrick] O’Flynn also delighted the [UKIP conference] by promising to scrap inheritance tax. “Tax was already paid on this money in life, it should not be levied in death as well.”

He also took aim at “the Starbucks economic model” as he proposed a new “turnover tax” for large businesses to ensure that companies paid a set proportion of turnover in corporation tax and other taxes. It comes amid political and public anger over tax avoidance by foreign denominated companies such as the coffee giant.

Early Day Motions:

That this House notes that despite having almost one-third of the UK coffee shop market, Starbucks has paid corporation tax only once in the past 15 years; calls for Starbucks and other multinational companies to be taxed on the real value of their production in the UK, not an arbitrary feel-goodamount and, failing this, for each individual outlet to be taxed on its profits, as is the expectation for businesses in Worksop and Retford such as Miss Poppy's Coffee Shop or The Bay Tree...

Signed by, among others, Paul Flynn, a Welsh Labour MP.
----------------------------------------------------
*sigh*

Both Flynns, from populist right and populist left have gloriously missed the point(s).

Just to muddy the waters with a few, er, facts:

1. Starbucks outlets already pay a turnover tax, it's called VAT. With their computerised tills and sales records and everything, it is highly unlikely that they evade a penny of that.

2. I have no reason to assume that Starbucks outlets evade or avoid any Business Rates or PAYE obligations either.

3. Many Starbucks outlets are franchises, licensees or other kinds of sub-contractors, who no doubt pay just as much - or as little - tax as Miss Poppy's Coffee Shop.

4. AFAIAA, the reason why Starbucks pay so little UK corporation tax relative to UK sales is because they pay large licence fees or royalties to whoever owns the "brand". Those payments are tax deductible here and taxable in the country of the recipient. (If you ask me, the concept of an overseas entity earning such royalties in the UK without having a UK trade is complete nonsense, so in an ideal world, the royalty owner would be assessed to UK tax as per normal, but leave that aside for now).

The default rule is that the payer has to deduct 20% income tax from such royalties, so if you pay £1 royalties, you pay 20p or 21p less in corporation tax but 20p more in withholding tax, the whole thing is a wash and not a tax avoidance strategy.

But under most double tax treaties, i.e. with civilised countries, the royalty is then taxed somewhere else instead. From the point of view of Starbucks, this is only shifting the liability around but not reducing it. To the extent that Starbucks are evading tax - and I have no inside knowledge on whether they are or aren't - it can only be if they are paying royalties to non-treaty countries without deducting tax.

So if you want to get Starbucks to pay the 'right' amount of tax, then all you have to do is make sure they are deducting and paying the withholding tax where appropriate, and if they are doing this properly, then for G-d's sake, give them credit for it.

There's no need to invent new fantasy taxes, just make sure that the existing rules are being followed.

/sigh