Thursday, August 09, 2007

UKIP victorious?

It seems that UKIP only have to pay over £18,000 to the Gobblin' King. It's a fairly hefty chunk but it could be worse (it equates to roughly £1 per member); the Electoral Commission were looking for a payment of £367,000.

Biased though I may be, I think that it is a victory for justice; even Iain Dale agrees and, as we know, he holds no brief for UKIP.

Iain reports that the Electoral Commission were “disappointed” at the result.
This is the first time that the law on donations has been tested in court. We will study the judgment carefully and will consider whether to appeal. Public confidence in our democracy depends on political parties abiding by the rules. The commission will continue to intervene where necessary to make sure those rules are followed.

I am not surprised; if I were to decide to take the risk that my organisation were going to look like a collection of party-partial vindictive knob-jockeys I, too, would actually want to win the case.

The Electoral Commission are a total farce; they have failed to act over far dodgier donations to the LibDems and NuLabour; they have totally failed to act against the utterly corrupt postal-voting system, and the ludicrous farce in the Scottish elections (when, in some areas, the number of spoilt ballots was larger than the winning candidate's majority).

They are not only partial and pointless, but toothless too. That this is the first time that the donations law has been tested in court is, in itself, slightly unbelievable; that they should lose in the one significant action that they have brought is—whilst a relief to us UKIPpers—almost beyond belief.

Let's abolish this bunch of cowboys and form an Electoral Commission that might be of some use in monitoring and enforcing parity and probity in our elections.


Mark Wadsworth said...

Mick McG has some fascinating background info on how the LibDems wriggled out of forfeiting the £2.4m they got from that chap in Switzerland.

anthonynorth said...

If political parties were policed in the way they should be, there wouldn't be any political parties.
OK - good - let's do it!

Steve_Roberts said...

"Public confidence in our democracy depends on political parties abiding by the rules. "

Up to a point, old chap. It also depends on those rules being at least a little bit sensible and not completely slanted to the benefit of incumbent parties.

Mark Wadsworth said...


Parties can take money from whomever they like, provided there is FULL DISCLOSURE of EVERY LAST PENNY, whether in loans or donations or whatever.

If a party gets loads of donations from abroad, then (hopefully) people will get suspicious and won't vote for them.

Who is Nighteck Ltd? Sounds dodgy to me. But £4,000 hardly suggests that they are a major influence over UKIP policy so I don't care.

If UKIP had received a £400,000 donation from Nighteck Ltd without a chuffing good explanation of who they are, I'd cancel my membership forthwith.

Which in turn begs the question what sort of moral standards members of the other parties have!!


Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...