UKIP attack women who wear burka

Some controversy for UKIP on the announcement of their wish to ban women from wearing the burka in public.

It led to a series of letters in yesterday's Times where Alan Sked, one of the original founders of UKIP said: "Sir, During the greatest financial crisis facing this country since the 1930s, how typical it is of UKIP’s present pathetic leadership that its flagship policy for the forthcoming general election should be to attack the less than 1 per cent of our female population who wear the burka. This is desperate and inane.

If the party is really so obsessed with race, immigration and Islam, it should simply merge with the BNP, which it increasingly resembles. Why have a competition in intolerance? Why not present a united front? After all the political expediency that drives both these anti-EU parties to take up seats in the European Parliament surely dictates such a measure. But let us dismiss any thought that either of them represents “British values”.

I founded UKIP as a tolerant, liberal and democratic party. By 1997 I could already see the far-right writing on the wall and quit as party leader and member. It is a decision that I have never regretted, now least of all. I hope that all decent people will condemn the party as you did in your splendid leading article.
Dr Alan Sked
London N1

The Leader article "Veil of Ignorance", which was published on the 16th January, was a very thoughtful piece and went on to highlight UKIP's inconsistencies. After all, were they worried about women being "marginalised" when Godders said "any small businessman or woman who employs a woman of child-bearing age needs their head examined” or that women don't clean behind the fridge enough"? UKIPwatcher thinks not.

Nigel Farage knows a bandwagon when he sees one and jumped on board at the speed of light - it is already known that is his successor as leader of UKIP, Lord Pearson, has said he wants to step up the party's campaign against radical Islam. Nigel said "What we are saying is, this is a symbol. It's a symbol of something that is used to oppress women." "And the real worry - and it isn't just about what people wear - the real worry is that we are heading towards a situation where many of our cities are ghettoised and there is even talk about Sharia law becoming part of British culture."

UKIPwatcher

Godders reprents The City?

The good citizens of Yorkshire will be no doubt be tad irked to find that their UKIP representative in the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom, feels his time in the Parliament is better spent talking on behalf of the City of London!

Godfrey "........makes no apology for speaking on behalf of the financial services of the city of London" In contrast, Linda McAvan, Yorkshire and Humber's Labour MEP said "I represent Yorkshire. It's where I come from, it's where I live and the people of Yorkshire elected me."

Godfrey Bloom (born in London!) is a UKIP MEP for Yorkshire. Every time there is a new set of 27 Commissioners (one from each member state) they have to come before the European Parliament to answer questions. If the MEPs are unhappy, they get chucked out (technically the MEPs threaten to chuck them all out, and an agreement is made), a bit like the Hearings for the presidential appointment in the US.

One Commissioner-designate, Michel Barnier, who is a very able French politician, faced the European Parliament's internal market committee. He performed extremely well. The UK press are very interested as he will be responsible for upcoming reforms in the banking/finance/City area. Godders asked a question about financial regulation. He asked the Commissioner-designate a question including the phrase "I am talking here on behalf of the financial services of the City of London". Other MEPS were asking him "Question? Where is the Question?" and the Commissioner (who has had a lot of contact in the meanwhile with The City, the FSA etc.) replied, including the phrase "You have the right to express your belief. It surprised me that you were speaking on behalf of the London Financial Services Industry, I believe you are supposed to speak on behalf of your constituents?" (people laughed and smiled). Godfrey then goes on to say " I make no apology for speaking on behalf of London." You can watch for yourself by clicking here. Godders starts at about 18.51

UKIPwatcher

And it continues.............

The European Unions anti-fraud unit has been investigating claims of expenses fiddling by Mike Nattrass. There are claims he paid Dennis Brooks, one of his former aides, through public funds while he was working as a regional organiser for the party, which isn't allowed under EU rules. The Sunday Times also reported that Mr Nattras broke the rules on paying agents for his assistants' salaries. INTERVIEW: MIKE NATTRASS MEP - I did use EU funds to pay Dennis Brooks, it wasn't breaking any rules. I've had a problem with this person - he has taken me to an industrial tribunal and lost, taken me to the Inland Revenue and lost. Then he took an appeal to the Commissioners and lost again. Anybody can start an OLAF investigation against an MEP.
BBC 1 West Midlands, The Politics Show, 06/12/2009, 12:46:56, 00:04:00

It looks from this as though he was breaking the rules and paying Brookes to be a UKIP regional organiser out of his parliamentary assistance allowance.

Besides, only OLAF can start an OLAF investigation into an MEP - that would seem to be fairly logical common sense


UKIPwatcher

In a letter to the Western Morning News on 8 Dec,a certain Jeff Beer of UKIP tried to defend UKIP's record of corrupt Members. Ashley Mote, he says, was (eventually) "thrown out of the party" but "under EU rules" still held his seat as an Independent (quite what "EU rules" have to do with it is unclear: British electoral law says, and always has said, that you keep your seat if you change party). As to Tom Wise, he "was caught by party officials who reported him" (but did nothing about it for years).

As to Nigel Farage, Mr Beer is revealing: apparently, we should not worry about reports that Farage was "boasting about his wildly excessive expenses tab", because "Mr Farage has legally and properly spent them on party affairs".

If indeed he is using his parliamentary expenses on party affairs this would be illegal. Can we assume that UKIP officials will now report him too?

Who is Lord Pearson and what does he stand for?

In a week in which UKIP has attacked European Council President Herman Van Rompuy for being "unelected", they have chosen an unelected peer, rather than one of their elected MEPs, to lead them. Malcolm Everard MacLaren Pearson, Baron Pearson of Rannoch was elected leader of UKIP with 47.7% of the vote, followed by Gerard Batten MEP with 25.8%. Nikki Sinclaire MEP with 12.2%, Mike Nattrass MEP with 11.0% and and Alan Wood 3.2% .

So who is Lord Pearson and what does he stand for?

According to wikipedia he was born in 1942 in Devizes and educated at Eton. He is chairman of the Pearson Webb Springbett (PWS) Group of reinsurance brokers, which he founded in 1964 and was made a life peer by Mrs Thatcher in 1990, sitting as a Conservative until he was expelled by them in 2004, joining UKIP in 2007. He is also the co-founder of an pro-globalised free trade think-tank, Global Britain. Pearson has been married three times: to Francesca Frua de Angeli in 1965, with whom he had one daughter and whom he divorced in 1970; to the Hon. Mary Charteris in 1977, with whom he had two daughters and whom he divorced in 1995; and to Caroline St Vincent Rose in 1997.

But beyond this, It seems he is not just eurosceptic, but a climate sceptic, an opponent of all muslims, anti-gay and a strong supporter of reversing the ban on cruel forms of hunting. Oh, and there is a little matter of his parliamentary expense claims.

His voting record in the House of Lords, according to "They Work for You" is that he has:

Voted strongly against the hunting ban. votes, speeches
Voted very strongly against equal gay rights. votes, speeches
Voted a mixture of for and against laws to stop climate change. votes, speeches

On Europe, from his own website, his personal manifesto says:

"What of my political philosophy? I am essentially interested in conserving the British constitution against all who threaten it, most particularly from those 'Traitors within the Gate', the British politicians who have betrayed their own people."

"My ambition is for UKIP to do well enough in the General Election to trigger a revolutionary realignment of British politics. In place of our current ‘one party state’, with all the older parties blindly deferring to the EU, we desperately need a new and genuine Opposition."

"UKIP policies should be short and incisive and targeted to emphasise what can only be achieved by leaving the EU. They should also be selected to embarrass the old parties by showing how their political correctitude has left them out of touch with the basic common sense of real people. Examples abound: Their refusal to entrust us with education vouchers or to insist on work permits for foreigners; their failure to maintain our borders and their appeasement of militant Islam."

But it is not just the EU that he hates, it is government in general: "We don't need these monkeys in Westminster," he said bluntly on getting the UKIP leadership. "And we've had enough of Brussels too. We're going to change it." (BBC website article Friday, 27 November 2009).

On climate change, denial is an attitude common to many eurosceptics (for instance BNP's Nick Griffin, UKIP's Godfrey Bloom, the Conservatives' Roger Helmer), all of whom claim that it is an exaggerated conspiracy by the political elite to screw more money out of the taxpayer.

On islam, in the words of the New Statesman blog: "We have blogged before about the odious Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the UKIPer and front-runner for the leadership of that EU-obsessed party. But is Europe its only obsession? The Telegraph's Ed West says that "Lord Pearson told me that, if elected, he will make the threat of radical Islam the major focus" of the UK Independence Party.

It is not "violent Islam" that exercises him; it is the presence of Muslims -- all Muslims! -- in Britain. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you that his alarmist and ill-informed predictions about the Muslim birthrate, and the demonising and dehumanising language ("breeding ten times faster than us"; "resist their demands"), mirror the language employed by the far right about the Jews in the 1920s and 1930s."

In February 2009, he invited Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders to show the anti-Islam film Fitna before the House of Lords. However, Wilders was prevented from entering the UK on the instructions of the Home Secretary. In response, Pearson and Cox accused the Government of "appeasing" militant Islam.

On hunting, he is a supporter of the pro-field sports and conservation Countryside Alliance, serving as chairman of its deerstalking committee.

But questions about his expenses are potentially the most embarrassing for UKIP (especially after two of their former MEPs have already been in jail). According to the Daily Telegraph website, he has made substantial expense claims as a peer. According to the Telegraph:

"The new leader of the UK Independence Party, Lord Pearson, claimed more than £100,000in publicly-funded expenses on the basis that his £3.7 million house in London was his second home while also owning in a 12,000-acre estate with servants in Scotland. He has told the Parliamentary authorities that his estate beside Loch Rannoch, Perthshire, is his “main home”. This enabled him to claim about £100,000 in taxpayer-funded overnight subsistence allowances (“for the purpose of attending sittings of the House”) between April 2001 and June 2007 for staying at his town house in Victoria, one mile away from Parliament in central London, where he had no mortgage to pay.

After selling the flat for £3.7 million In June 2007, Lord Pearson moved to another London flat two miles away in Kennington. He paid £1.2 million for the flat, again without a mortgage. He then claimed another £15,000 in allowances on the basis of his overnight stays there.

Lord Pearson has repeatedly declared in official company documents that his London home was his “usual residential address”.

His London house was also given as the address to which applicants wishing to work as a housekeeper or gardener at the Scottish estate should send their CVs, in an advert placed by Lady Pearson in The Scottish Farmer in January this year.

Lords rules state: “Members whose main residence is within Greater London cannot claim night subsistence.”

As well as claiming £115,683 for overnight subsistence, since 2001 Lord Pearson has claimed £56,685 in “day subsistence” allowances. Peers can claim £86.50 a day for meals, drinks and taxis while working in Westminster, with no need for receipts.

The peer – who was paid £40,000 a year for his remaining City work until being elected UKIP leader – also claimed £48,471 in travel expenses – including £10,064 for the cost of flying between Scotland and London in the last two recorded years alone."

"He said: “My (main) home is in Scotland. I spend almost exactly half the year there.” He said he had cited the London home as his “usual” address in company documents “for convenience” in dealing with business correspondence".

Yet, it is Lord Pearson who warned that the MPs' expenses scandal exposed a “growing gulf between the political class and the British people”.

A newly emerged controversy is about his alleged offer to make a deal with the Conservatives: 'UKIP faces resignations over offer to disband if Tories held EU referendum’ (Times, 30 Nov. p10).
UKIP faces a ‘wave of resignations’ amid grassroots fury over the revelation that its new leader offered to stand down candidates at the next election and disband the party if the Tories agreed to hold a referendum on EU membership. Lord Pearson faces a rocky start to his leadership after it was reported that he proposed a deal to the Tory leader in the Lords. Nikki Sinclaire MEP said that she was being called by outraged members threatening to resign. Gerald Batten said: ‘I am appalled they can offer to sell the party down the river to the Tories — it is a betrayal of the members, and we will probably see a wave of resignations over this. If he had run in the leadership election telling people that is what he had done, he would have come bottom. The membership do not want it and it has caused outrage."

But is he completely mad? Some comments on the blogosphere might lead one to wonder. For instance: "Pearson underwent a profound religious experience in 1977, and has undertaken to raise his banner for the Light in the Manichaean battle between good and evil, and would join battle in the name of Good with the baleful malignity of Ahriman and Lucifer, the twin evils of Euro-Federalism and Jihadist Islam. For Pearson it's about a morality so fundamental that all else is spume."

Interesting times!

UKIPwatcher

The mental health of UKIP activists with their obsessive hatred of anything and everything to do with the EU is highlighted by the BBC report of their leadership hustings in Peterborough.

Tellingly, the BBC reporter notes that “every conversation seems eventually to land up in Brussels and its evils”.

He speaks of “hard core political activists whose every moment seems dominated by the threat of a European super state.”

The activists are, it seems, mostly “in their late middle age, but there is a smattering of younger types, dressed twenty years too old for their age”

The BBC reports that “none of the candidates are household names”, but that “whoever wins this contest will have a highly committed bunch of believers” to pursue their policies which one of their activists admits is about “fishing in the same pond as the BNP".

UKIPwatcher

Here we go again!

Daniel Foggo (The Times, page 15) reports on yet another UKIP MEP fraud inquiry.

Mike Nattrass is now being investigated by OLAF, the EU’s anti-fraud watchdog over how he has used his Parliamentary expenses. Nattrass was elected to represent the West Midlands in the European Parliament in 2004 and the inquiry focuses on whether he paid Denis Brookes, then supposedly his parliamentary assistant, through the public purse while he was in fact working as UKIP's Regional Organiser.

It also seems that Nattrass has misunderstood the very strict Parliamentary rule that an MEP cannot be his/her own paying agent for salaries to staff. It would seem that since 2004 until earlier this year, the staff salaries allowances were put through “the business account of Nattrass Giles, a chartered surveyors in Birmingham which he founded nearly 30 years ago.”

Nattrass claims that although he was a signatory to the account, all the administration was carried out by another partner in the firm. He also claims that Parliamentary officials said it was OK for him to use his Birmingham company.

It seems all UKIPwatcher’s posts at the moment are about MEPs, elected to represent UKIP, either getting jail sentences for fraud or being investigated for fraud. How many more are there?

Ukipwatcher