No compromise

Sometimes I get a bit frustrated with the situation I find myself in. By that I mean that I don't feel comfortable about supporting any of the political parties because there simply isn't one which I completely or even mostly agree with.

In truth, most of the parties have one or even several policies that I can agree with or, at least, see some merit in - even the Labour Party (although, oddly enough for a conservative, the party I least have anything in common with is the Tory Party - but perhaps that is because I expect them to conservative which they clearly are not).

In that sense most people prioritise. They decide what is important to them politically and then vote for the party which they least disagree with. For example, the recent revival of Labour in the polls is put down to most voters believing that Labour are better placed to steer us through the economic maelstrom. It's not that they necessarily think that what Labour is doing is right - chances are they don't - but they do think it's less wrong than what the Tory party is proposing (if anyone actually knows what the Tories are proposing, 'cos I'm damned if I do).

Does that make sense? It does to me.

Essentially, what I am saying is that the party that wins elections is not the one that most people support - it is the one that the fewest disagree with. Actual support is reflected in membership numbers - i.e. the people who most agree with a political party's policies are likely to sign up as members to that party - and the fact that support for all the main political parties has waned considerably over the last 10-20 years or so is indicative of just how few people actually support the policies of the Labour, Tory or Lib Dem parties.

People still turn out in large numbers to put their X next to those parties candidates, but they do so not because they support them - they do so because they disagree with them less than they do the other parties. I've done this myself in the past. The last time I voted for a party I actually supported was in 1979 when, as a Liberal party member, I voted Liberal (hey, I was only 18 - if I can't be stupidly idealistic at 18 then when can I be?).

I'm just not comfortable in voting that way anymore. Next time I go into a polling booth I want to be able to put my mark next to the name of a candidate whose party I mostly agree with. If there was one I completely agreed with that would be even better, but such a party does not exist (and with my rather unusual mix of political philosophies they are unlikely to).

And if I'm not happy with any of the options available to me on the day I won't vote for any of them - but I will spoil my ballot paper.

For what it is worth, I'd like to urge everyone else to do the same. If you really agree with the Tory party policies then vote for them - but if you are thinking of voting for them just because you disagree with them less than you disagree with the Labour party then don't. Check out all the options too - whether it is UKIP, the Greens or BNP - and if you feel that any of those match your views better than the Tories, vote for them.

Vote for a party that you actually support. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if you could see yourself as a member of that party - if you can't then you probably shouldn't be voting for them. Whatever you do, don't vote for a party just because you think they aren't as bad as the other lot.

Something sinister at the BBC

On the face of it, this report from the BBC website seems reasonable.

But check out the picture of Lord Pearson. Do you think it would have been possible for the BBC to have found a more sinister picture of the UKIP leader?

I don't - and I don't think it is a coincidence either. This is another example of the BBC's institutional bias showing through its rather thin veneer of "impartiality".

I know that news organisations put a great deal of effort into finding the "right" pictures for their articles. The old adage that a picture speaks a thousand words is as true today as it has ever been and the BBC use this to promote their particular ideology.

The BBC is not impartial.

It does not deserve to be publicly funded.

Burka ban is the wrong approach

I gather that UKIP are planning to ban the burka if they achieve power - which isn't very likely.

But whether a UKIP victory is likely or not, I don't think the correct approach to the rise of militant Islam is to ban the visible symbols that remind us of its oppressive and illiberal nature. Instead, what we need is the freedom to be allowed to discriminate and make personal judgements the way we once used to.

The reason things like the wearing of the burka have become commonplace is due to the enforcement of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" by liberal progressive governments. Laws brought in to force us to "celebrate" this "diversity" have restricted our ability to make personal judgements about what is or isn't acceptable to us.

The thing is, equality and anti-discrimination laws sound good in theory, but in practice all they will do is entrench feelings of injustice and favouritism on both sides. What we have here - with this UKIP proposal - is the law saying on one hand that you and I may not discriminate against people who wear the burka and then the law discriminating against people who wear the burka!

The right thing to do is to peel pack the layers of anti-discrimination laws as it is those that cause racial, religious and ethnic tensions far more than anything else. Moslems should be free to wear the burka if they wish, but non-Moslems should be just as free to shun those that do if they so wish.

It should never be the job of the law to tell people what it is they may or may not tolerate. It is ridiculous in this age of "human rights" that the government use the law to suppress one of the fundamental human rights - the right to exercise free will.

Will UKIP take the opportunity?

Despite the best efforts of the media to minimise the damage to their appointed successor to Tony Blair becoming Prime Minister at the next election, David Cameron's Tory party is in complete disarray.

Call Me Dave's "cast iron pledge" has turned out to be nothing more than a sandcastle washed away by the tide of EU integration and he knows damn well that his promise of a referendum over future powers being ceded to the EU is pure hogwash. The Lisbon Treaty is designed to make it possible for the EU to take new powers without the need for future treaties and therefore bypass member states requirements to hold referendums.

Meanwhile, many current and experienced Tory MPs are furious over the way they've been treated by Cameron regarding their expenses. While Cameron has stamped hard on certain MPs for their misdemeanours he has let those close to him off with the merest slap on the wrist and Cameron himself is far from squeaky clean on this matter. Consequently, some MPs have decided to stand down at the next election while others have been forced out against their will .

All of this provides a huge opportunity for UKIP. I said after two Tory peers defected to UKIP a couple of years back that UKIP now need to get similar defections from MPs - but, as usual, UKIP missed the opportunity preferring instead to indulge in another round of internal wrangling and argument.

But now they have the perfect opportunity to snap up a number of disaffected and highly experienced Conservative party members. UKIP need to be reaching out to those Conservative MPs who feel hard done by and convince them to join UKIP and to stand for UKIP in the next election.

It will only take a couple of successful defections of former Tory MPs to make others consider their options and if by doing so UKIP manage to capture a seat or two in parliament then the conservative grass roots support which the Tory party relies on may well start to support UKIP in growing numbers.

Will UKIP seize this fantastic, once in a lifetime opportunity? I have my doubts. The problem is that the UKIP leadership will worry that a bunch of experienced former Conservatives - particularly if there are one or two well known names - will represent a challenge to their own ambitions.

It would be great if, for a change, UKIP could actually put the future of this country ahead of their own personal ambition, but I fear this will not be the case. It's a shame - because I believe this is a golden opportunity for UKIP and if they fail to take it then they will fail as a party.

Oh, brother!

Over on The Telegraph, Stephan Shakespeare announces the saviour of democracy - a voters union.

Voters must be a central part of the renewal process and the National Union of Voters will be a democratic movement that makes it easier for people to represent themselves.

I don't actually think many people want to represent themselves - they are generally too busy getting on with the day to day things like earning a living - they want their elected MP to represent them. That is, after all, what they are there for.

The union starts with the belief that there are four big weaknesses in our democracy.

Indeed there are.

First, the problem of too many MPs thinking they have a safe seat for life.

Err, no - that's not on my list. That's a problem with constituency boundaries, but nothing to do with democracy per se.

Second, the political class has hidden important information about its income, expenses and connections for too long. We need complete transparency.

Nope, not on my list either. Transparency is important, but our democratic system more or less has that. Politicians on the take is nothing new.

Third, political parties rely on a few big donors for their money. They would be a lot more responsive to voters if they had to raise their funds from them.

Well - sort of. Some of the "big donors" are actually private individual voters who happen to be wealthy and anything above £5000 has to be declared. I'm all for limiting donations from individuals to £500 and making it illegal to accept donations from business or corporations (including unions and NGOs), but more important for me is to end the professional lobbying that goes on from these groups.

Fourth, the mainstream parties agree on too many big issues, denying debate as they cling to each other like spent boxers.

At last we agree on something! The biggest problem in our democracy that I can see is the lack of choice and the replacement of real argument and debate with mud-slinging and name-calling. The three main parties each believe in our membership of the EU which means they each have more or less the same political agenda give or take some minor detail differences.

In recent years two significant parties have emerged that differ from that viewpoint - BNP and UKIP - and have tapped in, in differing ways, to the groundswell of disillusionment and disinterest in our political system with varying degrees of success.

They both agree on withdrawal from the EU and share a belief in some form of British nationalism, but other than that there are few similarities between the two parties. It would make a huge difference to our democracy - in my opinion - if those two parties were somehow able to make a meaningful breakthrough that actually led to real debate about the issues that concern British people.

Unfortunately, both BNP and UKIP have reverted to modern political styles and opted for exchanging insults rather than meaningful debate. Were they to pursue the latter rather than the former I think we could see a real grass roots democracy movement grow in this country.

Imagine what would happen if UKIP and BNP arranged to have a series of political debates in various towns and locations up and down Britain where ordinary people - rather than the media - were able to hear them debate, proper debate, and ask questions. Don't bother with the other parties - chances are they wouldn't take part anyway - just UKIP and BNP for now.

The important thing would be to keep the meetings civil and restrict discussion to genuine political issues - not name calling or spurious arguments about party constitutions or the misbehaviour of various current or former members.

The debates could be filmed and posted on You Tube as well as the parties websites allowing more and more people to see and hear for themselves some real political dialogue.

UKIP and the BNP represent the only true opposition to government - whichever party is governing at the time. If they were to unite - not politically, but strategically - they could seriously invigorate our politics and our democracy much more than some half-baked, ill-conceived "union" of voters.

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.

One man, one vote is all we need

As I have hinted before, I'm strongly inclined to support UKIP for a variety of reasons. One area, however, where I strongly disagree with them is on the issue of voting reform.

UKIP want to bring in an Alternative Vote (AV) system for all national and local elections whereby, rather than just indicating your preferred candidate by a single mark in one box, voters are encouraged to mark several in order of preference.

Not only do I consider this as unnecessary, it is also open to fraud and, most of all, misuse. By asking people to list their preferred candidates rather than just a single X in a single box the potential is there for more mistakes to be made and therefore more ballots to be discarded.

There isn't really anything wrong with the current system - the only real failing it has is in the fact that people have become disillusioned with the political parties that are on offer (they're all the same) and that widening the use of postal voting has increased the potential for fraud. New technology is neither desirable nor necessary (rather than increasing security it is likely to lead to more vote rigging) - voting in Britain has traditionally been simple and easy and should remain so.

The only changes I really want to see are an end to ex-pat voting - if you don't live here, you don't have a vote - and an end to non-British subjects having a vote (if you're not British you shouldn't have a vote in our elections). I wouldn't be adverse to trials of weekend voting, though - the traditional Thursday election day is problematic for many people in this day and age.

Other than that, leave it as it is.

BNP or UKIP?

In the previous post I referred to this article about Trevor Phillips and his suggestion that the white working class will turn to "right-wing extremism" unless they get some sort of government help during this recession.

There are two problems with this. First of all, the British people don't do "right-wing extremism" and, even if they did, there isn't actually any extreme right wing party to support. What he actually means, of course, is the BNP - but the BNP are neither extremist or particularly right wing. Socially conservative? Yes. Racist? Maybe - but racism per say does not make someone or something "extremist".

Let's be honest, Trevor Phillips has made a career out of being racist. The organisation he leads has spent decades promoting the causes of black and Asian immigrants over the rights and freedoms of the white indigenous population. That is racist.

The reality of the BNP is that their policies are socially conservative and surprisingly socialist. UKIP are much more right wing in traditional politics than the BNP. The two of them are much more like the old Labour and Conservative parties than they are anything else and their differences are divided by what used to be the centre ground 50 years ago.

What is clear is that fifty years of far left politics has left Britain in a worse state than it was before the main parties started their leftward drift back in the sixties. I think there are many people who, like me, haven't really moved politically in the same way that Labour and the Tories have. We are the people who have stopped voting because we know it makes no difference - the three main parties are all the same.

I'm sure that these people, like me, are now starting to realise that the only real alternative to the left wing stranglehold is either a vote for BNP or UKIP. Both parties, to me, have an appeal - the problem is deciding which is the best one for me to support.

I've never denied that I was, once, fairly left wing. I was a member of the Liberal Party (not the Lib Dems) for a short time when I was young (before voting age). The first time I was allowed to vote was in 1979 - and I didn't vote for Thatcher! I was, I guess, more traditional Labour than I was Conservative. That is why there is a part of me that likes the BNP even though their policies are, in many ways, rather socialist.

I like the fact that they are nationalistic, but I don't agree with their ethnic policies. The idea of banning mixed race marriages is preposterous - the state should never have the right to interfere with the free choice of the individual to that extent - and they'd never get it past the House of Lords (unless the Lords is also an elected House). I like the fact that they are prepared to back British manufacturing and industry, but I'm not so keen on their unqualified support for the NHS - an institution which, mawkish sentimentality aside, is seriously inept at doing what it is supposed to do.

So, for me, the BNP is the equivalent of the Labour party. And to the right of the centre ground we have UKIP - the modern day equivalent of the old Conservative Party.

I also like UKIP - or rather, I like their potential. Again, they are fairly nationalistic and prepared to put the people of Britain and this nation first and foremost in their policies - but they are so hung up on the issue of the EU that they do themselves no favours with the voters. Unless they change that then they are always going to struggle. I don't mean they should abandon their policy of withdrawing from the EU - heavens no! - they should just stop using every opportunity they have to bang on about it.

As long as they keep referring to the EU and blaming everything on the EU then they will remain, in the eyes of the voters, a single issue party. In reality they are much more than that. They've put out more policy in the last couple of years than the Tories managed in 10 years of opposition, but because they don't seem to be able to mention that without referring to the EU much of this gets missed.

UKIP need to take a leaf out of the BNP's book. The BNP are also committed to EU withdrawal, but they have the sense to frame most of their policies in terms of what it means for Britain rather than focussing on the EU.

Over the last year or so I have been researching these two parties as well as one or two others (the English Democrats and UK Libertarian Party) and I have decided that I am going to join one of them. I still don't know which, though. As things stand, the BNP appeal to me as a party with real potential to make positive inroads into the left wing alliance, but politically I am much more drawn to UKIP. Because of that, at the moment, UKIP are favourites, but I'm open to persuasion.

Tory dissent is UKIP's opportunity

The news that a number of Conservative MP's have called for a no confidence vote on leader David Cameron should have Nigel Farage reaching for his telephone.

If UKIP is serious about making inroads into Conservative territory - a territory which they have virtually deserted in recent months - then the best way they can demonstrate that intent is by convincing some of those dissenting MP's to defect to UKIP.

It only takes one to get the ball rolling. Once they have an insider in the House Of Commons who is close to the action and close to the other MP's who are unhappy with the direction Cameron has taken the Tory party it will be easier to convince others to follow but the history of UKIP is blighted with in-fighting and power-struggles and the arrival of a sitting MP, even a minor back-bencher, will inevitably put their structure to the test again.

This is a big chance for UKIP - I'm not convinced they are up to it.

The cost of desertion

So the Conservatives have taken a battering at the by-elections in Southall and Sedgefield. Are they likely to learn anything from it?

What they should be realising is that the direction David Cameron is trying to take them is towards an area already occupied by the Labour party and Liberal Democrats - the left of centre - and there really isn't anything to be gained by trying to muscle into their domains.

All in all, there was little to get excited about for any party in these by-elections.

On the face of it the Lib Dems did well slashing the Labour majority in both seats, but with turnout so low this is really to be expected. I've no doubt that they - and their supporters - will do their best to talk it up, but they know that nothing's really changed.

Labour and Gordon Brown will be able to feel well satisfied that they've hung on to their seats fairly comfortably despite the low turnout. They won't get complacent about it, but they'll be fully aware that come a General Election their voters will turn out in greater numbers and will get a comfortable majority once more.

The Tories must be sick this morning, though. Soundly beaten by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats they are the party who will view the results with the most concern. Not least because in Sedgefield, the BNP candidate, Andrew Spence, polled around half as many votes as their candidate.

As I've mentioned before, by deserting their traditional ground on an ill-judged yomp to enemy territory, the Tories have left their rear unguarded. Perhaps they felt this was safe to do as there was no party which was apparently well placed to take advantage of it.

The BNP have shown that they will take advantage of it. Oddly enough, the BNP have been surprisingly helped by the media who frequently refer to BNP as right wing - while any look through their policies will reveal that many of their ideas owe more to old-fashioned left-wing socialism than conservatism. By portraying the BNP as "right-wing" the media have actually managed to make them attractive to middle-class conservative voters as much as working class voters.

One of the most disappointing aspects of UKIP has been their inability to take advantage of the Conservative party desertion to Labour. They were probably the most natural successor to the Tory party, but have steadfastly refused to push at the open door of conservative England. The UKIP leadership should be listening to every Cameron speech, reading every Cameron penned op-ed and every word uttered by the Tory front bench and using them as opportunities.

When Cameron says no grammar schools, UKIP should leap in and confirm their support for grammar schools - and do it publicly and frequently. When Cameron talks euphemistically about supporting "families", UKIP should leap in and say that they'll promise support for the traditional married two parent family above any other relationship.

Every little bit of ground the Tories concede is an opportunity for one of the new parties to gain ground. In theory it should be UKIP taking advantage of that, but they're making about as much impact as the English Democrats while BNP are doing a far better job even though they are far from being a traditional conservative party.