One size doesn't fit all

When the previous mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, decided to get rid of the Routemaster double decker buses and replace them with continental style, articulated bendy buses he forgot the reason why we had double decker buses in the first place. I say "forgot" - the chances are that he never knew in the first place, so, just in case anyone else was wondering the reason was simple.

British roads - and particularly London roads - were just too small. What was needed was a vehicle that could carry seventy or more people while being able to negotiate the multitude of tight, narrow corners and streets that proliferate in England's capital city. Consequently, they had to be short and narrow - by bus standards - but they could be tall as most bridges allowed clearance for a horse drawn carriage with a driver sitting atop carrying a driving whip in the upright position - hence double decker buses and thus an icon of Britain was born.

The vehicles were, of course, designed and built in Britain - for two reasons. Firstly, because we had the industrial base and technical know how to do it then and secondly, because British designers understood British requirements and nowhere was this more apparent than in car design.

American car designers were able to build large cars which suited their wide, straight roads. French car designers tended to concentrate on soft, long travel suspension to make driving over rutted cart tracks which proliferated in rural France less arduous and German designers concentrated on over engineering everything to the nth degree as they always have done because Germans are obsessed with such things.

In Britain, we made cars to suit British roads and this meant - on the whole, small and nimble. However, since globalisation we no longer have such diversity and choice. Everything is made pretty much for the some fictional ideal that only exists in the world of advertising. So the BMW 3 series is now more than seven inches wider than it was in 1992.

It's hardly surprising that more and more minor scrapes and accidents are happening on British roads with such large machines roaming around the countryside. Add on the fact that many of our roads have been narrowed to accommodate painted "cycle lanes" and are clogged with parked cars - many of which park on the pavement making it difficult for pedestrians to get by - and you can see why these accidents happen.

It also explains why few of us bother to put our cars in our garages anymore - they just don't bloody well fit! My garage was built in the seventies and, while it may have been wide enough to fit a Cortina into and still allow space for the driver to get out, the only way I could have got my Alfa in was if I climbed out of the sunroof (which it didn't have, so I couldn't have done).

However, since the Alfa was totalled last winter by a brainless idiot who thought (or didn't think) that just because he had a four wheel drive he could drive two yards behind my car in snow and ice and still be able to stop in time (he couldn't), I've been making do with a 1989 Ford Escort which fits in the garage nicely.

It also explains why parking spaces seem a lot smaller these days than they used to - and why my Alfa, despite me never personally having put one dent, scratch or mark on it - was covered in various dings and scrapes from other people opening their doors carelessly in car parks.

Actually, going off at tangent for a moment, that reminds me of something which sums up Britain today. I remember years ago when my mother and I returned to her ancient and battered Ford Anglia sitting in a car park in Maidenhead to find a note under the windscreen wiper. It had been left by a gentleman who had inadvertently clipped the bumper of the Anglia while reversing his car out of the space beside it. The note apologised and gave the gentleman's phone number along with an offer to pay for any damage.

To be honest, the bumper was already crooked and dented and it was hard to see any new damage, but when my mother called the gentleman and said that there really was no need to pay he nevertheless insisted and consequently sent a £20 postal order to my mother (it was a long time ago and that was a lot of money then). We didn't get the bumper fixed, but it did go a long way to paying for the family holiday that year!

It was symptomatic of those times - when people owned up and took responsibility. I've never had anyone own up to damaging my car in a car park despite the fact it has happened on at least half a dozen occasions. I think that is symptomatic of our times.

Anyway, back to my original point - the fact that one size doesn't fit all. That not only did we used to have cars designed specifically for the needs and requirements of British roads, but we also used to have laws designed to suit the British legal system; we had regulation to suit and benefit British industry; we had rules that made sense for British businesses and we had societal institutions that were tailored to meet the needs and requirements of the British people, its customs, traditions and quirks of constitution and culture.

Just as continental bus design doesn't suit British roads and cities so do a lot of EU inspired regulations, directives and laws fail to meet the needs of Britain. The countries of Europe are as diverse and different as chalk and cheese and it simply isn't possible to have a one size fits all approach to them all. It's stupid to even try, but it's even more stupid to insist it can work when common sense and evidence of your own eyes tells you it doesn't.

Nice to know they're listening to me

I understand that the 500 euro note (about £430) is to be withdrawn from circulation as it turns out that 90% of them were tainted by criminal activity.

It's quite gratifying to realise that the powers that be are actually listening to yours truly ;)

It is, I suppose, an example of the law of unintended consequences, but I wonder if it is in fact possible to devise a system better suited to money laundering than the euro currency?

Beware of Greeks bearing gilts

Yes, I know Greece doesn't issue "gilts" - but I like the pun! OK?

I am, of course, referring to the decision to downgrade Greece's credit rating to "junk" status meaning that they are now paying the sort of interest on their borrowing that you or I might face on our credit cards - bad enough when you owe £1000, but a total disaster when you owe £1000 billion.

This will, of course, make borrowing prohibitively expensive for Greece and they will have to rely on handouts from the rest of the EU and the IMF to meet their financial commitments - and they'll have to slash public spending massively at the same time.

Greece is not going to be a nice place to be for the next few years - they are, effectively, in a deep depression which is going to last for a decade or more and it is only a matter of time before other European nations join them (including us). It wouldn't be so bad if they could rely on tourism - but what with the euro, Greece is just so damn expensive when compared to Tunisia or Turkey.

Anyway, my post isn't really about bashing Greece, but bashing their decision to join the euro - after all, it is that choice which has shackled Greece's ability to do anything about their debt and finance problem - and has hamstrung, Portugal, Spain and Ireland too - and made the country a much more expensive place to visit.

It also demonstrates just how wise a decision it was for Britain to keep out of the euro - a fact which most of the euro supporters have not mentioned over the last couple of years for some reason - particularly the Liberal Democrats who were once pushing for Britain to join as soon as possible, something which that nice man and financial genius, Vince Cable, seems remarkably reticent to talk about these days.

And let's be honest, here - the only reason the Tories and Labour parties didn't take us into the euro was because they didn't think they could get it past the British people. The truth is that they both favoured the idea privately - and some of them publicly - but knew that it was pushing the people too far too soon to make them ditch the pound.

Of course, all three main parties remain committed to our membership of the European Union and remain determined to take us into the euro as soon as they practicably can.

Just bear that in mind when you listen to them discussing how they would deal with this economic crisis (which hasn't even really started yet) in the run up to the election. They don't have any answers - so they'll just lie - but don't be fooled. If the politicians of all three of our main parties had had their way we would be as deep in the mire today as Greece.

The "special" one

A group of MPs have questioned Britain's "special relationship" with the USA and some parts of the media have suggested that this means the relationship is over.

In truth, all they have actually done is attempt to restate what the "special relationship" is - and they got it more or less right. Over the last twenty years or so - and the last decade in particular - the general assumption has been that the "special relationship" consists of some sort of unwritten reciprocal arrangement to scratch one another's back.

This is mostly a media driven assumption - because the media today is extremely lazy and largely ignorant - but it is fairly easy to understand given the lengths Tony Blair went to ingratiate himself with the US authorities and public. But Blair wasn't doing that for Britain's benefit - because Blair is no fool.

Blair knew that he wasn't going to be PM for ever and he knows that most ex-Prime Ministers end up comparatively scratching an obscure living once they depart office. That was never going to be enough for the vain Blair and his crone wife. They wanted fame and money and they knew where that money was and where the pursuit of fame is rewarded - so Blair manipulated that "special relationship" for his own ends.

Personally speaking, that is enough to condemn Blair as a person and a politician - that he put his personal goals before those of the country he was supposed to be leading - but most people still don't understand that about Blair. I don't blame them - after all, we've become used to our politicians putting personal ambition before national interest ever since we joined the EU and the lines are now so blurred that few people recognise this when it happens.

Blair manipulated the "special relationship" to serve his own ends in the same way that many politicians on both sides of the House of Commons manipulate our relationship with the EU for their own ends. The difference is that the relationship with the EU is an enforced and uncomfortable one which is causing considerable damage to our national status and culture.

The "special relationship" with the US was not a political one. Instead it was about two distinct and separate nations who happened to have a lot in common - shared values, culture and even history. It was never about what we could do for each other except incidentally - it was about what we had in common with each other.

What ruined that relationship was not anything that happened in the last twenty years - it is what happened in 1973 when Heath took us into an alliance with a bunch of countries with whom we had little in common and nothing to learn from.

Our "special relationship" with the USA is the same now as it was in 1940 - and the same as it is with Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It's never had an official name, but generally it is known as the Anglosphere. The Anglosphere consists of other nations who, mainly due to our imperial past, have a lot in common with British values and culture and it is an accident of history that one of those happened to be the most powerful nation of the 20th century.

That's all the "special relationship" ever was and will be. The only way it can be changed is if something happens to change the values and culture of one of those nations. Well, something is happening that is changing the values and culture of one of those nations, but it is not in America, or in Canada or in Australia - it is happening here and it is called the EU.

No to Clarke and the euro

Over on The Telegraph, Simon Heffer is doing his best to annoy me again.

He is suggesting that Dave Cameron should replace the Boy George with Ken Clarke as shadow chancellor and, should Dave's party win the election, hand Clarke the keys to Number 11. Please allow me to explain why this is plain wrong.

First of all, Mr. Heffer goes to great lengths to confirm his anti-EU credentials.

No one who regularly reads this column could be in doubt of my attitude towards our masters in Brussels, and how they have robbed us of our money, our sovereignty and many of our freedoms over the past 37 years.

Yes, but knowing that and being prepared to do something about it are two very different things, Mr. Heffer. Anyone who is seriously opposed to Britain's membership of the European Union can not possibly approve the appointment of someone like Clarke to such an important position in government.

Clarke doesn't just want us to be part of the EU - he wants us to be part of the Eurozone. Indeed, if he had got his way, Britain would already be using the euro as our currency. Clarke was so adamant about this point that he was prepared to support Labour in their push for the euro - the sort of behaviour that should have seen the man sacked from the Tory party!

Had Britain joined the euro then our economic position would be even worse than it currently is. The dilemma that faces Greece is nothing compared to the disastrous state our economy would be in - and Clarke wanted that.

That would make his position as Chancellor - or even shadow chancellor - untenable. How can Heffer not know this? Labour strategists aren't stupid - they'd have a field day laying into Clarke's stance on the euro and they'd make damn sure the people of Britain were aware of this.

What is more, the very idea of putting such a committed supporter of the EU into such a position in government should be a serious concern to any real EU sceptic. I don't want Clarke as Chancellor - I don't even want him on the front bench whatever side of the House he sits. I want him where I want all the other MP's who support our membership of the EU - unemployed.

There's no doubt that Cameron's front bench is inexperienced, weak and extraordinarily immature - that's the price you pay when you choose your people based on how they look rather than what they can do. The Boy George has been out of his depth since day one of his appointment and I'm not the only one who has mentioned this.

And there can be no doubt either that our economic state is such that it will require a firm and expert hand on the tiller - but appointing a man committed to handing control of our economy to a foreign government is not the way to resolve this.

Could this happen here?

To be honest, I don't know much about Wilders politics or that of his Freedom party - but the fact they are described by the media as "far right" suggests they are probably something like the BNP and, according to the Telegraph piece, Wilders is on course to become the next Prime Minister of Holland.

Personally, I've always thought it unlikely that a party like the BNP could ever make serious inroads into our political system. It happens all the time in Europe because - well, most Europeans are more reactionary and less stoical than us British. The politics of other European nations have always been a little flaky and swings towards extremism on the right and the left are not uncommon. On the whole, Europe does not have a great history on democracy - which is one of the reasons why I can not understand why we allow them to tell us how to do it!

However, I always thought Holland - of all the European countries - was the one most like us. The Dutch are a famously stoical and tolerant bunch as well. They are a constitutional monarchy and they don't have a history of political swings towards extremism. As I said, I don't actually know just how "extremist" Wilders is (probably not at all), but the fact that someone described as "far right" is seriously being touted as the next PM of Holland is still quite a surprise.

So could it happen here?

No - not under our present system.

You see, the factor in Wilders favour is the voting system - proportional representation - and we don't have PR in Britain.

At the moment.

But if some people get their way we will have - and then the prospect of a genuinely far right or far left party becoming a significant factor in our political system will be far greater.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Frankenstein must die

The question of whether or not EU "leaders" will approve a bail out for the Greek government is a foregone conclusion - of course they will. They have to.

It won't be on any moral or legal ground that a bail out is agreed - although I'm sure they will try and frame it as such - but simply out of the necessity of saving their own skins and the whole EU project itself. The only question really at stake is how much all of this is going to cost us in Britain - not just for bailing out the Greeks, but in terms of the knock on effects on sterling, our economy and, potentially, having to step in and help out the Irish, Spanish and Portuguese too.

The problem for the Greeks isn't simply that their economy is in trouble - there aren't that many countries whose economy isn't faltering - it's that the mechanisms a government would normally use are not available to them because they do not have the control over their currency any more. Worse still, the currency they do use is controlled principally for the benefit of France and Germany - everyone else using the euro is just a "hanger on" - and as the German and French economies are very different to that of Greece, what is good for France and Germany isn't always so good for Greece.

But the euro can not be allowed to fail. To allow this to happen will mean the end of the European Union project itself. Of course, it is already doomed and will eventually collapse entirely anyway, but that doesn't mean that they won't keep the dying patient on life support for as long as they can.

If the quango NICE had a say in whether the treatment for saving the euro was economically viable they would deny access to the bail out and if the EU was a patient in the NHS there would be a sign over the bed reading "DNR".

But there's no "do not resuscitate" orders for the EU Frankenstein project. The EU "nation", stitched together over five decades from the body parts of two dozen different, disparate and incompatible countries and recently brought to life by the shock of its new constitution can only be kept alive with expensive artificial stimulants - and it's going to cost Britain an arm and a leg to stop the Greek fingers and Spanish ears from dropping off.

It's a waste of money. Let the monster die.

In the gutter

I've been critical of UKIP in the past for the way - when asked a question - they turn every little issue into something about the EU. Whether it is about education, immigration, defence or crime, whatever they are asked to comment on, they mention our membership of the EU.

My criticism is based on the fact that by doing so they tend to alienate potential voters. It's not that UKIP are wrong - it's just that voters are rarely able to see or comprehend the big picture required to fully grasp the implications of how our membership of the affects how some policy areas.

From my point of view, I would rather that when UKIP are asked about something - crime, for example - they would just simply and clearly explain what their policy is on crime without mentioning the EU. If, and only if, someone then says "you can not do that, because the EU won't allow it" then you explain that they can and will do it because they will have taken Britain out of the EU.

There are many, many problems and challenges facing this country. Some of them are a direct result of our membership of the EU; some are an indirect consequence of our membership of the EU and some have nothing to do with our membership of the EU. However, our membership of the EU does prevent us doing what is necessary to start putting a lot of what is wrong right.

UKIP are right to insist that we can not even begin to start sorting out the mess we are in until we leave the EU, but they must be careful not to be seen as blaming the EU for all the ills we suffer. That is what turns voters off.

The fundamental cause of our decline was not our joining the EU, though. It was, instead, the result of Gramscian cultural Marxism and "the long march through the institutions" that began in the 1930's. This "long march" made some limited progress during the next thirty years, but it was slow and remained on the fringe of society. It wasn't until the 1960's when real progress started to be made and the main reason for this was the removal of the one thing that Gramsci foresaw as the biggest barrier to cultural Marxism - the presence of Christianity that underpinned societal morality.

It was only when this morality was torn down - principally, by the students of the 1960's who now sit in government of virtually every western nation - that cultural Marxism really took hold. The vast majority of Britain's problems today can be traced back to the 1960's and that cultural revolution - the explosion of crime, welfare dependency as a way of life, the assertion of rights over responsibilities, the rise of teenage pregnancies and abortion, increased violence - just about everything.

The reason was simple - Christianity was the crutch that upheld society. When you kick away the crutch, don't be surprised when it ends up in the gutter.

So who can you trust?

I suppose it depends on your viewpoint that decides how you would react to the fairly predictable news that the Tories are going to abandon plans to offer a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

There are people like me who were always sceptical of Cameron's pledge and never believed for one minute that he or his party planned to honour it - but then I think Cameron is a lying, manipulative populist who will say whatever those he is talking to at the time want to hear while meaning absolutely none of it.

Then there are those who still support the Tories and will accept the excuse that, once the treaty is ratified by all 27 countries there is nothing we can do about it. That same argument applied in 1975 when we last had a vote on our relationship with the EU, but somehow the promised referendum managed to be held.

But there are many who will see this as the final stab in the back. Once upon a time - quite a long time ago now, but still in my lifetime - a manifesto pledge was exactly that. If a party made a promise in its manifesto, then the leaders of that party felt honour bound to abide by that promise.

But honour means nothing to today's breed of politician. We're talking about people - like Peter Mandelson, Chris Patten and Tony Blair - who swear an oath that "no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm" which they then ignore and, worse still, they then go and work for that organisation which they swore an oath to defend this country from!

So who can you trust? UKIP or the BNP? Not really. Both those parties claim they want to take us out of the EU, but they then stand for and win seats in the EU parliament. I'd have more respect for their position on the EU if they refused to have anything to do with it - but they take their place on the gravy train like all the others. If they were genuine then why do they feel the need to stand for the EU parliament?

I really don't think there is a single political party in existence today that I feel I can trust. Does anyone disagree?

Isn't that the most damning indictment of modern politics possible?

Campaign or coronation?

The prospect of a President Blair has reared its ugly head again over the last couple of weeks. As the EU Constitution edges ever closer to taking full effect (many parts of it have already been introduced) the talk has moved from if to when.

Cue various politicians and political commentators telling us why we should or shouldn't accept Blair as EU President - as if we have any say in this whatsoever!

The reality is that we have no choice in this matter. Blair may or may not be appointed EU President regardless of what we or anybody else in Europe think or want. There is no election for this post - just a simple coronation followed by a huge salary and entourage for the new President.

And don't fool for all this garbage that we're hearing from the geeky Milliband or grumpy Brown about Blair being there to represent British interests. The post of EU President requires that person not to represent the interests of any particular nation. What he will do is represent the politics of his preferred ideology - socialism - and with the vast majority of the EU in the thrall of socialist doctrine there is no doubt that the appointment of Blair (or any other candidate) will not be in the interests of Britain.

This isn't an election. This is the coronation of the new socialist Emperor of Europe.

All hail Anthony Blair - the new Charlemagne.

And these are our "allies"?

The revelation that French soldiers were killed in Afghanistan after the Italian secret service stopped paying the local Taleban bribes to stop attacks in areas they controlled may cause revulsion and shock amongst many - but it should also serve as a signal warning to Britain.

When the Italians handed over the areas to the French the threat was underestimated and, as a consequence, a patrol was ambushed, ten soldiers killed and a further twenty one injured. The French people were rightly horrified - although the French press were not horrified enough for them not to arrange to meet and photograph the enemy soldiers who had killed their countrymen and stripped their mutilated corpses of guns and equipment.

You have to give modern photo journalism credit where its due - they are as adept at feigning shock and revulsion as anyone, but they never let that get in the way of a good photo op. Why the rest of the world then feels the need to publish those pictures around the world is beyond me - it can only serve as propaganda for our enemies, but ........ well, it's increasingly hard sometimes to tell whose side some people are on.

Anyway, this story - and the conflict in Afghanistan in general - should act as a wake up call to the EUPhiles in Britain who seem to think that we can rely on our European "partners" should things ever get sticky. We can not - nor will we ever be able to. Sure, there are a few EU nations who we can always rely on to back us up when the going gets tough, but they don't include Italy, Germany or France.

It's no coincidence that the bulk of the actual fighting in Afghanistan is being done by the same nations that did the bulk of the fighting in Normandy - Britain, Canada and the USA. This is how it was in 1944 and thus is how it will always be because they are our true allies - the nations of the Anglosphere. To the main nations of the EU what matters is looking after their own interests first and foremost while other countries soldiers are just considered cannon fodder - particularly British soldiers.

Our geographical location does not mean that we have anything in common with the other nations of Europe. In fact, other than our geographical location just about the only thing we do have in common with most of Europe is our Christian cultural heritage - and most of the EU nations (including Britain) are doing their best to dump that as fast as they can!

The allies of Britain do not lie across the English Channel. Our allies exist in the Anglosphere - USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. The rest are only our allies as long as it suits them to be so. Once that stops being the case they will drop us as fast as they can. That alone is a good enough reason to leave the EU.

The EU and BBC bias

As expected, the Irish people - faced with a mounting economic crisis and the offer of substantial bribes coupled with thinly veiled threats - have reversed their original vote against the Lisbon Treaty and have now voted to accept it at the second time of asking.

No doubt some people will argue that this proves that the Irish media, business and political establishment have successfully argued the case for the Lisbon Treaty - personally I think it more accurately reflects the pragmatism of the Irish people who, realising that they will be repeatedly asked to vote again and again until they say "yes", decided to concede now rather later.

So the Irish vote tells us nothing new - just reinforces the point that any attempt by any member nation to reassert their national sovereignty as a member will be received with the usual cold contempt by the architects of the EU.

For me, though, the most infuriating thing about the run up to the Irish capitulation was that whenever the BBC mentioned the impending vote they always referred to the treaty as ".... the Lisbon Treaty - designed to improve/reform/modernise the way the EU works" or something along those lines. This is the worst sort of subliminal indoctrination there is - repeatedly slipping in some term with positive connotations for the explicit purpose of making the subject more acceptable.

Who says that the Lisbon Treaty was "designed to improve/reform/modernise" the EU? The designers! Yet they know full well that that is not what the Lisbon Treaty was designed for. It was designed to give the EU full legal status - to allow for the imposition of a permanent EU presidency and foreign office. It was designed to make sure that the Irish, French, Dutch, British or whoever - regardless of their constitution - will never ever be allowed a referendum on such things again.

Yet not once did you hear any of this from the BBC. And while we are on the subject of BBC bias - I watched this morning as Bill Turnbull interviewed Boris Johnson on breakfast television and asked him about his time in the infamous Bullingdon Club while at university with Cameron - as if this is somehow relevant or important.

It isn't. Sorry to dismiss all the conspiracy theories, but members of parliament and the political establishment belonging to elite clubs and behaving in arrogant, superior ways when they were young is nothing new. It's been going on for centuries and still goes on today. There have been countless ministers of the state who have belonged to these sorts of clubs from both sides of the house.

What is new to British politics is that there are now ministers of state who have been - and may be still are -active communists, but they never get asked about their past by the BBC. I wonder why that is?

Only a fool makes the same mistake twice .....

..... so our politicians must be complete imbeciles!

A Conservative Government would be prepared to increase Britain’s financial contributions to the European Union in exchange for reforms to European farm subsidies.

Which is exactly what the Labour government did - and the result? Huge increases in our EU contributions for bugger all reform.

Critics including the Conservatives have attacked Labour over a 2005 deal to cut the British rebate in exchange for changes to the Common Agricultural Policy system of farm subsidies.

There has since been little change in the CAP, but Britain’s EU membership fee is rising nonetheless.

Ever since we joined the "Common Market" various politicians of various governments or governments-in-waiting have promised to "reform" the EU - and got well and truly shafted by that organisation. Even Maggie Thatcher, hardly the most gullible or naive of our politicians, had her fingers very badly burned playing with that particular hot potato.

And yet, they still keep deluding themselves that they can reform the EU! How stupid are they? Does anyone really believe that the boy Dave is going to sweep in to power and change an organisation which has rolled relentlessly along the same path - and over far more able politicians than Cameron - for more than 50 years.

Idiots!

Intelligent design?

Over on Burning Our Money, Wat Tyler addresses the issue of money laundering and the ludicrous (and ineffective) legislation which now requires us to jump through hoops to prove our money is actually ours.

It's worth noting that this legislation was imposed on us through the EU and came about as the result of the emergence of the euro currency - a system whereby a number of different banks, produce a number of different notes with the same face value and which are perfectly legal in a number of countries where they can be worth more or less than they are in other countries.

It is, I suppose, an example of the law of unintended consequences, but I wonder if it is in fact possible to devise a system better suited to money laundering than the euro currency?

My thoughts on the BNP election victory

There's been an awful lot of talk about the election of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons from the BNP to the EU Parliament. The MSM have been falling over themselves to give various political luminaries the chance to say how "sickened" or "horrified" they are by the thought that these people have been elected by British voters.

The first thing that crosses my mind is that a lot of these people - such as Nick Clegg - are supporters of the shitty PR voting system that allows for fringe parties to get elected. If you want PR, then get used to parties like the BNP winning seats, because it will happen - but don't then blame the British people for the crappy voting system you introduced.

The other thing that struck me was that if we weren't members of the EU then the BNP wouldn't be sending BNP members to Brussels to attend the mother of all mickey-mouse parliaments.

Don't blame the British people for their election - blame PR and Ted Heath!

EU elections prove nothing

As expected the media have gone into a frenzy over Labour's dismal performance in the EU elections with many people suggesting that this could translate into a whitewash in a General Election. I'm still not convinced.

First of all, the "constituencies" and the method of voting in these elections are nothing like those at a General Election meaning that it is all but impossible to draw comparisons. As a rule, the Tories tend to do well in larger, more rural constituencies while Labour tend to dominate in large towns and cities. The only real place where you could make some sort of judgement is in London where the Labour vote held up surprisingly well all things considered.

Secondly, despite the Labour Party vote share collapsing, it was clear that the Tories were not the beneficiaries of defecting Labour voters - and nor were UKIP. It's true that UKIP tended to pick up seats that Labour lost, but on the whole it appears to me that the biggest beneficiaries of Labour disaffection were the Greens and BNP.

If anything, the results are as much of a body blow to Cameron as they were to Brown. There is no indication from these polls that the Tories will achieve anything near the required swing to gain even a modest majority in parliament - and if they want a working majority they are even further from the mark.

What is also clear to me from this is that it is highly unlikely now that the Labour party would ditch Brown. They could not possibly have a new leader and not hold an immediate General Election. I really believe there would be widespread revolt if they tried - and even if there wasn't, people would be so infuriated by such disregard for the electoral process that they'd give Labour an even bigger kicking when the election did come.

I suspect a lot of people will look at the way UKIPs vote held up and judge that these voters would normally vote Conservative in a General Election giving the Tories more than enough to achieve the required swing. Possibly, but the vote share of both groups is roughly the same as it was in the previous EU elections and that wasn't enough to defeat Labour in 2005.

I've no doubt that there is some serious soul searching going on at Labour HQ today, but if I was Cameron I'd be even more concerned and wondering what it is I need to do to convince voters to support the Tories - because on this showing the best he can hope for is a hung parliament.

If not UKIP then who?

The Telegraph leader today says that a vote for UKIP in the upcoming EU elections is a "wasted vote"

The European and local elections offer an opportunity for a protest vote, a vote that expresses disgust at the moral collapse of an entire political class. But there is only one meaningful protest that the electorate can register at the polls, and that is one that helps force the Government to call a general election in the near future. And that excludes voting Ukip.

Why does it? The only reason Brown will call an election is if he believes he has a chance of winning it. The only thing that will make him believe that is if the Tories get a bloody good kicking at the EU elections - and the only party that is likely to do that is UKIP.

The latest polls look grim for Brown - with one suggesting that they are likely to come third behind UKIP with just 16% of the vote - but the same polls are not exactly inspiring for the Tories as they are expected to collect a mere 30%.

A 14% lead over the Labour Party might look good on paper, but a share of just 30% for the main party in opposition to a government in such a disarray is, frankly, shit.

The Telegraph then goes on to say we shouldn't vote for the BNP either.

If a vote for Ukip is extremely foolish, a vote for the BNP is something much worse. We argued the other day that this clownish outfit is not as dangerous as it would like us to think; nor should its political programme be taken very seriously, as it is crude and self-contradictory.

This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the current mindset of the electorate. The Tories are not gaining support lost by Labour and there is no evidence to suggest that it is UKIP who are benefiting from Labour supporters drifting away from their usual refuge. It is Labour supporters who are more likely to vote BNP.

The suggestion that those of us who are likely to vote for minor parties are wasting our time is ridiculous. How else can we demonstrate to both main parties that we want a new approach to the EU and a complete review of our relationship with that organisation and our own parties?

If we don't vote for UKIP then who should we vote for? The Tories? Let's suppose that a considerable proportion of potential UKIP voters did vote Tory - how, exactly would a poll rating of, say, 40% Tory to 16% Labour encourage Gordon Brown to call an election which he knows would result in a complete stuffing for his party?

The Telegraph seems to think that the expenses row is reason enough to call an election. It might be, I don't know - (though, in my opinion, it is not) but what I do know is that all three main parties are tainted by the same brush in that row so if that is the reason why The Telegraph wants an election they should be encouraging us to vote for anyone BUT the main parties.

Why do we keep falling for the same old lie?

It's incredible. It's been thirty six years since we joined the EU - or the Common Market as it was then. Since then we've had a succession of Prime Ministers - Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown - and a number of party leaders - Foot, Smith, Steel, Owen, Jenkins, Williams, Ashdown, Kennedy, Campbell, Clegg, Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard - all telling us that we can change the EU better from inside.

And not one of them ever has.

Nobody - ever - has changed the EU in any way that it did not want to change.

Now I hear Cameron make one speech full of empty promises which he knows he can not keep and we're all falling for the same old lie. Return power from Brussels to Britain! Yeah - like that has EVER happened before. Thatcher tried - Thatcher failed. All she managed to achieve was a minor rebate on our expenses as a concession for giving away even more of our sovereignty - and that concession was time limited and eventually given up by Blair.

And yet I still hear what I would normally consider to be reasonably sensible, rational conservatives saying that Cameron can change the EU!

How many times are you people going to fall for this garbage?

The objective of the EU is to achieve political union into a single EU state. For the first 30 years they didn't actually admit that, but for the last five years or so it has been more or less openly admitted.

It will not be stopped. It will not turn back. It will not change.

Come on conservatives of Britain - WAKE UP!!!!

Meanwhile, the real fraud goes on

OK, it's out now. The Lib Dems are having their day in the sun and the MP expenses furore has, if nothing else, been seen to be completely non-partisan. All three major parties are on the fiddle.

And this will make a difference .... how, exactly?

Tory voters will continue to vote Tory, Labour voters will continue to vote Labour and Lib Dem voters will continue to waver around depending on which way the wind blows - but will ultimately vote for one of the big three - or the Greens if they are feeling particularly pious and self-flagellating.

The honorable members will show some contrition, pay back some of the cash and then set about finding other ways to fund their lifestyles at taxpayers expense. Essentially, absolutely nothing will change - except, maybe, a fresh crop of people will be added to the growing number who don't vote anymore because "it doesn't make any difference".

Meanwhile, the real fraud will continue. The ongoing con-trick that has been perpetrated by the ruling elite on the people of Great Britain for more than thirty years - membership of the undemocratic, anti-British and unremittingly socialist European Union.

The House of Commons will continue to pretend that they are our lawmakers when they know full well that they do nothing more than rubber stamp 75% of our law which originates from the EU (and much of what doesn't is the precursor to something that will).

They'll continue to deceive us by claiming that we have some influence over this when they know damn well that in a lot of cases - and in an increasing number of areas - we don't. Our opt outs and vetos are being eroded one after the other.

They'll carry on insisting that the EU is democratic using the EU parliament as an example when they know damn well that the EU parliament is a mere fig leaf and that the laws themselves are drafted in secret by unelected and unaccountable appointees and bureaucrats.

Gordon Brown will pretend that he has the interests of "British jobs" and "British workers" when the reality is that he is incapable - thanks to the EU - of doing so.

David Cameron will persist in his claims to repatriate areas of sovereignty which he knows only too well it is impossible to do without withdrawal or wholesale renegotiation of previously ratified treaties which has never ever been done by anyone at any time - despite several attempts. All that happens is a new treaty comes out where even more sovereignty is swallowed up!

Nick Clegg will continue to ..... well, look like an overgrown schoolboy completely out of his depth.

Nothing that has happened over the past few weeks will alter the basic fact that we are being systematically defrauded by our politicians and have been for more than thirty years. Tebbit might have a whinge about it, but he's s culpable as the rest.

It's cost us our industry, control of our borders and laws, our pride and billions of pounds every single year. Now that is worth talking about - isn't it?

Nuts in May

Is it me or has everyone gone a bit barmy over the MP expenses row?

It's something that I really find hard to get excited about, but it seems to be just about the only thing occupying the thoughts of not only the MSM but the blogosphere as well. I know it's an important issue, but it's not THE important issue and with a major election coming up I'm sure there are some important issues which are being overlooked.

Not least the fact of the EU. We're about to have a vote for the EU Parliament where expenses abuses and gravy trains abound far more than they do in our own parliament. There's the EU constitutional treaty to worry about and the various vague promises to hold a referendum on that disgraceful document.

Both the Tories and the Lib Dems have been remarkably quiet on the issue of expenses - hardly surprising as they are up to their neck in it as well - but they've not exactly been vociferous in debating the issues that this up coming election is all about either.

As far as I can see, although these revelations have been embarrassing they aren't going to change our voting preferences in any substantial way. All the main parties have been exposed by this, but they know damn well that they operate in a closed shop - voters will still vote Lib Dem, labour or Tory and they'll still dominate parliament come the next General Election.

It's time we started having a proper debate about the issues at the heart of this election - and the fact is that all three parties are once more operating a closed shop. There is no debate because they all agree. The expenses row actually gives them the opportunity to avoid talking about those issues and the fact that they do all agree - so, in a way, we're actually letting them off the hook.

With even a Tory grandee like Tebbit telling voters not to vote for the main parties, this should be a great opportunity for UKIP to make some political capital. Although he never mentioned them by name, his words are a clear indication that he is backing UKIP - I doubt they could get a better endorsement bar Margaret Thatcher wearing a UKIP rosette.

It's also being suggested that Tebbit will be expelled from the Tory party for failing to back the Conservatives. What an opportunity that would be for UKIP!

Personally, I've still not decided who I will vote for - if anyone - but if there is any party I suppose it is UKIP. They are, after all, the party which reflects my own views closer than any other, but I do find them utterly infuriating. They have such potential, but they fail to maximise it again and again. If UKIP could be as motivated, organised and direct as the BNP they could really make some progress. I really believe there is a huge untapped, disenfranchised, conservative voter base crying out for UKIP to make themselves more electable - but they always seem to muck up any opportunity that comes their way.

A lot of that comes from UKIP wanting to run before they can walk. They've failed to build the core support at the grass roots in the way BNP does and their electoral gains in 2004 went to their heads.

From what I understand, the UKIP share of the vote in the coming election is likely to collapse substantially - they will have only themselves to blame if it does. Whatever happens, UKIP must start to concentrate on building that core support in the way the BNP does. You may not like the BNP, but you have to admire the way they've built their share of the vote - slowly and determinedly.

UKIP must learn from that. Are they able to? I'm not sure.