UKIP in trouble

#1
I understand that UKIP is in trouble for accepting big donations from some one who was not allowed to donate. They are now faced with having to pay back the cash and may become bankrupt.

Their leader is of course doing the 'it was just a silly mistake and making us pay back the money for breaking the law is over the top'. I suppose he has a point if it is OK for our Jaqui it must be OK for UKIP.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6881013.ece
 
#2
Strange this story. The reason that UKIP have run into trouble is because they accepted money from someone who was not at the time of the donation on the electoral register – through no fault of his own, says the donor and he is now back on the register.

But what I find particularly strange about this affair is that the money taken from UKIP doesn’t go back to the donor, but instead to the treasury. Why? :dontknow:

Also, the rule is designed to prevent donations from foreign individuals or bodies, not British citizens, so to rule that UKIP have to repay this money might be accurate to the letter of the law, it’s certainly not in the spirit of the law and seems particularly petty on the part of the Electoral Commission.

I wonder how much of this ruling is politically motivated. ooh, I smell a conspiracy comming on. :wink:
 
#3
Why haven't the Electoral Commission pursued the Christian Peoples Alliance who openly solicit donations from anyone. I tested out their Paypal donations and at no stage did they indicate that I needed to be either on the electoral register or even a British citizen. The illegal UKIP donations arose because a donor didn't realise he was no longer on the electoral register. The CPA are deliberately soliciting & accepting donations from anyone. There is a morally stronger case for prosecuting the CPA than UKIP.
 
#4
LP_Blower said:
Strange this story. The reason that UKIP have run into trouble is because they accepted money from someone who was not at the time of the donation on the electoral register – through no fault of his own, says the donor and he is now back on the register.

But what I find particularly strange about this affair is that the money taken from UKIP doesn’t go back to the donor, but instead to the treasury. Why? :dontknow:

Also, the rule is designed to prevent donations from foreign individuals or bodies, not British citizens, so to rule that UKIP have to repay this money might be accurate to the letter of the law, it’s certainly not in the spirit of the law and seems particularly petty on the part of the Electoral Commission.

Strange that we should find people saying that there is no need for UKIP to pay back the money when NuLabor was found to have done the same thing, 'by accident' people were clamouring for the people to be sacked as MPs jailed etc. This is no more an admin mistake than Jaquis expenses. If these people cannot abide by the rules they do not deserve the money ful stop. Do you really think that some one who 'forgets' to register to vote is a suitable person to be involved in politics
I wonder how much of this ruling is politically motivated. ooh, I smell a conspiracy comming on. :wink:
 
#5
thingy said:
Why haven't the Electoral Commission pursued the Christian Peoples Alliance who openly solicit donations from anyone. I tested out their Paypal donations and at no stage did they indicate that I needed to be either on the electoral register or even a British citizen. The illegal UKIP donations arose because a donor didn't realise he was no longer on the electoral register. The CPA are deliberately soliciting & accepting donations from anyone. There is a morally stronger case for prosecuting the CPA than UKIP.
Have you complained or are you just going to sit in the corner muttering?
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#6
thingy said:
Why haven't the Electoral Commission pursued the Christian Peoples Alliance who openly solicit donations from anyone. I tested out their Paypal donations and at no stage did they indicate that I needed to be either on the electoral register or even a British citizen. The illegal UKIP donations arose because a donor didn't realise he was no longer on the electoral register. The CPA are deliberately soliciting & accepting donations from anyone. There is a morally stronger case for prosecuting the CPA than UKIP.
What proof do you have that He didn't realise that he wasn't on the ER, or are you just accepting his word for it because it allows you to bring forward a rant against the CPA (or any other organisation that you don't favour?)
 
#7
Its just another way of denying the majority of English people, who want out of Yurope, a party to vote for.
A politicised Civil Service, Judiciary and Police. Nearly there my friends, nearly there.
Roofs
 
#8
janner said:
What proof do you have that He didn't realise that he wasn't on the ER, or are you just accepting his word for it because it allows you to bring forward a rant against the CPA (or any other organisation that you don't favour?)
At present I’m taking the word of the donor, however it’s not his honesty I’m interested in so much as why the electoral register was selected as being a reasonable criteria for legitimising donations to British political parties, considering the turnover of names. Surely whether one is a British citizen should be all that’s required?

Also intrigued by the fact that the money deducted goes to the treasury, effectively fining the donor for having incorrect paperwork. A little extreme, don’t you think?

I wonder how many other parties have been stung by this one.
:|
 
#9
RoofRat said:
Its just another way of denying the majority of English people, who want out of Yurope, a party to vote for.
A politicised Civil Service, Judiciary and Police. Nearly there my friends, nearly there.
Roofs
So you like Baroness Scotland only need to comply with the rules that suit you.

The fault in this does not lie with those who enforce the rules, but with those who failed to comply with them.

ps I at least care enough about politics in this country to ensure that I do stay on the electoral register.
 
#10
Maxi_77 said:
RoofRat said:
Its just another way of denying the majority of English people, who want out of Yurope, a party to vote for.
A politicised Civil Service, Judiciary and Police. Nearly there my friends, nearly there.
Roofs
So you like Baroness Scotland only need to comply with the rules that suit you.

The fault in this does not lie with those who enforce the rules, but with those who failed to comply with them.

ps I at least care enough about politics in this country to ensure that I do stay on the electoral register.
Peter
Fair point and we are talking here about "political" donations
 
#11
janner said:
thingy said:
Why haven't the Electoral Commission pursued the Christian Peoples Alliance who openly solicit donations from anyone. I tested out their Paypal donations and at no stage did they indicate that I needed to be either on the electoral register or even a British citizen. The illegal UKIP donations arose because a donor didn't realise he was no longer on the electoral register. The CPA are deliberately soliciting & accepting donations from anyone. There is a morally stronger case for prosecuting the CPA than UKIP.
What proof do you have that He didn't realise that he wasn't on the ER, or are you just accepting his word for it because it allows you to bring forward a rant against the CPA (or any other organisation that you don't favour?)
I'm accepting that he acted in good faith. Why would anyone interested in politics enough to make party donations not be registered? I personally think that British citizenship and residency should be sufficient criteria. I disagree strongly with both UKIP and to a lesser extent the CPA, but do not think that donations by resident British citizens should be barred. I suspect the UKIP have been targetted because of the size of this single donation and to make an example in order to force compliance by the rest of the sector. It is worth remembering that hundreds of small political parties are registered with the Electoral Commission. If the EC wish to avoid the accusation of a politically inspired campaign against the UKIP they need to investigate ALL the political parties on their register and prosecute regardless of size or status.

The donor IMHO should have his money returned to him. UKIP should be fined instead, say 10% of their annual income over the period in question.
 
#12
thingy said:
I'm accepting that he acted in good faith. Why would anyone interested in politics enough to make party donations not be registered? I personally think that British citizenship and residency should be sufficient criteria. I disagree strongly with both UKIP and to a lesser extent the CPA, but do not think that donations by resident British citizens should be barred. I suspect the UKIP have been targetted because of the size of this single donation and to make an example in order to force compliance by the rest of the sector. It is worth remembering that hundreds of small political parties are registered with the Electoral Commission. If the EC wish to avoid the accusation of a politically inspired campaign against the UKIP they need to investigate ALL the political parties on their register and prosecute regardless of size or status.

The donor IMHO should have his money returned to him. UKIP should be fined instead, say 10% of their annual income over the period in question.
NuLabor have been hauled over the coals several times for this so it is not picking on UKIP, just it has taken time to get round to them as they are a minor party. And Nulabor had to pay back the donations. The reality is that more and more of these donations are coming under scrutiny.

As for knowing or not, is some one who cares so little about the political process to 'forget' to register some one who should be allowed to fund any party never mind UKIP.

I must admit that I always thought it amusing that the first party and for a long time the only party to fall foul of this law was the party who introduced it.

As for UKIP if they want to be taken seriously by the mainstream they need to fight on their policies rather than clain special priviledges because they can't be bothered to check in the rules.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Maxi_77 Current Affairs 13
slim Diamond Lil's 9
N Current Affairs 8

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts