Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Boiling this down, there appears to be a single point of contention for Farage - whether his wife and son do the work they are paid to do (if his son is indeed employed), remembering of course that hiring them isn't illegal. If they do, then really it is just a matter of whether voters and party members approve of nepotism and the political judgment this shows. The article doesn't suggest that either of them isn't doing the work they are paid for, nor does it provide his son's salary. Obviously the direct comparison to Conway is intended to suggest that, but without knowing whether his son receives a full time salary it is impossible to judge much about this.

It's not a great vote winner, and however much Farage may claim it is necessary/convenient for him to hire his wife and son (if that is the case), this issue is going to get dragged up continuously by his opponents and he will never be able to criticise the gravy train again with any credibility, if he does in fact employ his son as well.

The other major issue, covered many times here, is the issue of Regional Organisers. It could potentially be argued, as in the Denis Brookes case, that they do indeed act full time as political advisors. The sticking point, as I mentioned before, will be the two ROs who work in unrelated regions (as far as I am aware). It is going to be hard to provide any evidence that a Welsh RO provides any geniune non-party work for Roger Knapman, IMHO.

More often than not, these things tend to blow over and what seem like massive scandals turn out to be rather less interesting once light has been shone on them.

I have tried to provide a balanced analysis of the situation; does anyone disagree with any of it?