EU Referendum

Showing posts with label UKIP. Show all posts

pearson[i-pearson]"Imagine an election campaign that actually talked about the things that really concern the British people rather than what the wives of the party leaders think about their husbands."

So writes the Lord Pearson in The Daily Express, who then asks what issues should be tackled and what the election should be about.

It will come as no surprise, of course, to find that the noble Lord, in answering his own question, notes that the election will not be about the issues that really concern us: mass immigration, massive waste in the public services, crime, the European Union and our very democracy. These things, he writes, will be avoided like the plague.

The simple reason is that the power over these and so many other issues no longer resides in Westminster, it has moved to Brussels. The promises of the establishment political parties melt away like the grin on the Cheshire cat once this stark reality shines upon them.

Predictably, the focus of much of the rest of the piece is on immigration, with Pearson asserting that 5,000 people a week are moving to this country to live, a city the size of Southampton every year. Yet, last week, he says, all three establishment parties sang in harmony: Turkey must join the European Union.

You heard that right, says Pearson. Not content with throwing our doors open to all European countries with the result that millions have moved here they want Turkey to join as well.

Sadly, with such emphasis on immigration, many other relevant issues are given short shrift. And there is no specific mention of climate change - only a passing nod at energy policy, with a reference to "the looming energy crisis". Environmental policy is dictated by Eurocrats, we are told.

Nevertheless, the conclusion is sound and one with which we could hardly disagree. This election should be about who governs Britain, Pearson asserts.

"Should it be politicians elected by the people of Britain? Politicians whom we can fire if they do not perform or prove themselves corrupt and dishonest? Or should it be run by ranks of foreign bureaucrats, unelected, unaccountable and immovable? Why shouldn’t it be the people themselves who have the power to govern?"

To ask the question is to answer it, declares the noble Lord. "To answer it is to vote UKIP." There are many who would agree.

COMMENT THREAD

Viscount Monckton, better known as Christopher Monckton, the journalist and author has today joined the UK Independence Party. UKIP Leader Malcolm Pearson said, "I am delighted that Lord Monckton has accepted my invitation to join UKIP as our chief spokesman on Climate Change.

"He was Margaret Thatcher's Special Adviser in Downing Street on a number of areas, including science. He is now perhaps the world's leading expert on the case against Man-made Global Warming, and as such is a household name in the United States and elsewhere."

Now, on top of Climategate, the media have another reason to ignore the party.

UKIP THREAD

pearson[i-pearson]
Three days - that's all it's taken for The Daily Scarygraph to put the Lord Pearson on the front page.

"UKIP leader Lord Pearson claimed £100,000 allowances for £3.7m London home" the headline screams, telling us that this was "on the basis that his £3.7 million house in London was his second home while also owning a 12,000-acre estate with servants in Scotland."

It turns out that these allowances were paid between April 2001 and June 2007, at a standard rate of £174 a night "for the purpose of attending sittings of the House". That works out at about £16,000 a year. Add the rest of the period and, in just over eight years, he has claimed £115,683 plus £56,685 subsistence – working out at about £20,000 a year.

Add another £5,000 a year for travel expenses and the Lord Pearson over eight years has cost us about £200,000 – compared with a typical MP who, over the same period, will have cost us about £1.8 million in salaries and expenses.

Pearson, unlike many, is a working peer, and puts many hours in the House, for which he is paid no salary. Nor does he get a secretarial allowance, funding his secretary from his own pocket.

That he is also a very rich man is beyond dispute. That is not yet a crime in this country. But the paper is making a big deal of the fact that he has a country estate, while citing his London home as his "usual" address on company documentation, "for convenience" in dealing with business correspondence. Yet, as anyone who knows Pearson even slightly will attest, his estate really is his main home, to which he returns at every opportunity.

That is basically all the Scarygraph has – a non-story. But hey! Better than doing Climategate properly.

COMMENT THREAD

We are, of course, very pleased that UKIP members or, at least, those who have bothered to vote managed to elect the best candidate, to wit Lord Pearson of Rannoch, something of a hero to this blog. The most exciting development will be, as I explain over on Your Freedom and Ours, reading positive comments by the Boss about the Leader of UKIP. Now that's something we have not seen in these parts before.

COMMENT THREAD

dominoes[i-dominoes]We said that Tom Wise was not the only one. Next in line is Mike Natrass, fingered by Daniel Foggo in today's Sunday Times.

There are reasons why an increasing number of people will not touch UKIP with a barge pole, and they are beginning to emerge. Behind Natrass are many more, men (largely) who have been running the party as their own private fiefdom, having lost sight of its aims and sold out to their own private greed and ambitions.

Fatally, such is their arrogance that they have been neither cautious nor discrete in the handling of their affairs, leaving themselves wide open to intervention by the authorities. The forces of darkness were always going to be gunning for UKIP, but the current actions of the leadership are equivalent to their standing in no-man's land having painted bull's eyes on their foreheads.

There has grown within that claque a belief of invulnerability, the feeling that "they can't touch us", not least because of the willingness to play the "victim card", as was done with the electoral commission affair, with many willing to believe that poor, innocent UKIP is being picked on.

Well, they asked for it, and the forces of darkness are beginning to close in. One by one, they are set to fall, and they brought it on themselves, betraying the party and the cause in the process. The only hope now is that there will be enough wreckage to salvage, allowing the party to be rebuilt with what is left.

COMMENT THREAD

Wise2[i-Wise2]With Tom Wise awaiting sentencing for fraud, after changing his plea to guilty last week, Daniel Foggo in The Sunday Times gives the background to the case. Neither Wise nor UKIP come out well.

Not least, as Daniel is now able to record, UKIP – contrary to its claims – went to great lengths in an attempt to cover-up Wise's criminal activities. This segment from his article makes particularly interesting reading:

In court, the bearded and bespectacled Wise cut a pathetic figure for a man once elected in the name of a party committed to ending the EU "gravy train", though his arrogance remained intact.

It was a quality that had first struck me four years ago when he had attempted to bluster his way through my questions about his employment of Jenkins. Later, when he had been supposedly "exonerated" by the EU payments office, he had pompously said that my "attack on his character" had not deterred him from his important work. Wise even took legal advice on how to sue a political commentator who wrote blogs on the story, paying for it — although he did not proceed — with taxpayers' money from the same fund he was accused of abusing.

Arrogance is a quality that is not in short supply within UKIP; nor is an ability to dissemble and prevaricate. As Wise awaits a possible jail term at his sentencing this week, who knows which politician and which party will enter the dock next.

Those of us – including this blog – who have seen more of the evidence of misconduct within the Party than has so far been revealed are partially vindicated by Foggo's article. But we are aware that there are many other rotten apples still residing in the barrel.

And it is not enough to say that politicians in other parties are just as venal – if not more so. A central part of the UKIP message has always been that its people were not career politicians, and were above the corruption which disfigures politics and the EU. Such is their self-proclaimed image that they were the major beneficiaries of the MPs' expenses scandal, during the EU parliament elections.

We once had high expectations of UKIP. Wise has tarnished its reputation, and there is more to come. The self-serving behaviour of the "rotten apples", however, should not be allowed to detract from the greater cause.

Their actions do not reflect on the ordinary members, many of whom are hard-working, dedicated and sincere in their efforts to rid us of the occupying power that has become our government. Thieves like Wise do not represent eurosceptics. They are simply parasites who have lined their own pockets at our expense.

COMMENT THREAD

Farage[i-Farage]Mixed feelings attend the news that the Nigel Farage Party UKIP has been "stung by a devastating court ruling, which ruled £367,697 of donations were impermissible" and are subject to forfeit.

Farage is now suggesting that the party could collapse because of the case, which is the culmination of a two-year saga. It arose in the first instance when the party accepted 67 separate donations from Alan Bown and his company Nightech Ltd, without checking that Bown's name was on the electoral register.

Originally "fined" in Westminster Magistrates Court a sum of only £18,481, the Electoral Commission appealed the decision, which brought today's ruling which has UKIP "staring at the political abyss."

Those in the know suggest that this is a spectacular "own goal" by Farage who personally intervened to prevent a response to the Electoral Commission which would have kept the issue out of court, more-or-less goading the Commission to take action in what has become a battle of wills – from which there could be only one loser.

For the dwindling membership of UKIP, however, this is a hard and undeserved blow. Up against the might of the established parties, with the tainted record of their leadership making it harder than ever to attract substantial donations, they had been hoping to field up to 550 candidates for the general election.

Although many candidates are expected to pledge their own funds to the campaign, to put up a full slate will require external funding. Unless new donors are forthcoming, today made it just that bit harder.

The primary beneficiary of this will, of course, be Mr Cameron's Modern Conservative Party (whose marketing gurus don't seem to realise what MCP stands for), which otherwise would be battling in the marginals for a share of the decisive eurosceptic vote.

Without a four-letter word (UKIP) to turn to, voters disaffected by Cameron's "Europe" non-policy will be having to consider three letters, either BNP or ABC. In the absence of UKIP, however, the MCP may get a more comfortable ride than it deserves.

COMMENT THREAD

Genyes2[i-Genyes2]Asked about the "spontaneous" demonstration against the arrival of Nigel Farage, in Ireland to campaign on the Irish referendum, Sharon Waters, a spokesperson for Generation Yes, said that the protest was simply a gathering of private individuals who arrived to make their feelings known.

Ms Waters said there was no place in an Irish referendum campaign for politicians from outside Ireland. And she certainly does not like UKIP, if this statement is any guide. The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), a byword across Europe for right-wing extremism, xenophobia and bigotry, it says, continuing thus:

Generation YES are outraged at this intervention by foreign interests into this crucial debate on Ireland’s vital national interests. We can be sure that UKIP are promoting their own repugnant agenda, with no concern for the welfare of the ordinary people of Ireland. They want to use the Irish referendum for their own ends – to get England out of the EU. They seek to dismantle the Belfast Agreement, reintroduce the death penalty and abolish social security, they prevent disabled people from standing for election on their ticket, and they also deny climate change and the Holocaust. We need to reject these offensive people, and to continue our own progressive, positive relationship with Europe that has served us so well.

But Ms Waters admitted there had been no protest against Lech Walesa, the former President of Poland, who was also in Dublin to campaign for a "yes" vote. Nor would there be protests against José Manuel Barroso, the newly re-elected EU commission president, when he arrives in Ireland, also to campaign for a "yes" vote.

This is, incidentally, the same Sharon Waters who is a campaigner on human rights and environmental issues, most notably for Amnesty International and the Australian Red Cross.

She might also have a word with her colleague, Clodagh Power, on the Generation Yes team. This little lady has just spent a year at De Paul University Chicago. While she was there, she worked as an intern at the International Human Rights Law Institute and was a volunteer at the Obama presidential campaign at his Chicago Campaign Headquarters.

One can see a glittering future set out for these little lovelies in European politics … just the right brand of total hypocrisy that should go down well in Brussels.

COMMENT THREAD

poster_1[i-poster_1]"We are confronted by a venture that is using anti-democratic means to establish an anti-democratic power structure, to no useful end for the people of these isles. Since this unwelcome revolution is being forced upon us, perhaps it is time to end the long taboo and ask whether we must inevitably go along with it."

That is from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, as part of the ongoing "debate" on the European Union in The Daily Telegraph.

His piece is juxtaposed with an article by Nicholas Fraser. He went to a midsummer crayfish party near Stockholm packed with the affluent, the good-looking and the politically correct. And he couldn't find anyone who didn't view British Euro-scepticism with reprobation. Then we get Stephen Wall who writes that "there is no viable alternative" to the EU – Britain has to make the best of it.

So there you are. If you want to find favour with the Scandinavian glitterati and you accept the view of Stephen Wall, then we should roll over and let this venture use anti-democratic means to establish an anti-democratic power structure, to no useful end for the people of these isles.

Actually, we don't get a choice – although Lord Tebbit has warned David Cameron that he must hold a referendum on the "European constitution" or risk losing voters to UKIP.

Tebbit charges that Cameron has backtracked on a pledge to hold a vote if, "as expected" the Irish vote "yes" because the constitution would already be in force by the time he came to into office.

I'm not so sure that the Irish are that ready to roll over, but it's difficult to read. The Tap blog detects signs that the rats are making preparations to desert the sinking ship, while the Telegraph is sending none too subtle signals to its Irish voters as to which way it thinks they should jump.

Those who are thinking of jumping UKIP's way will find that the desertion of the King Rat from the leadership – but not very much else – has opened up the prospect of a contest for his replacement between the Lord Pearson of Rannoch and a six-foot-four lesbian. Not much of a contest, some might say, except that Pearson is Farage's choice, which may give some UKIP members pause for thought.

Whoever wins, it is unlikely to make much difference to the vote at the general election. Tebbit might have fond illusions about UKIP sucking votes from the Europhile Cameron, but such is the head of steam building up against Brown that the bulk of voters will probably vote Tory for no other reason than to ditch an unpopular prime minister. On recent form, UKIP is unlikely to do well.

During the general election campaign, Mr Cameron and his euro-luvvies will do their best to keep "Europe" off the agenda – as always – which will leave UKIP gasping for the oxygen of publicity. Only perhaps the Irish can inject a bit of fire into the issue, and then only if they vote "no" in just over two weeks time. And which way they will jump is anyone's guess. There is no alternative but to wait and see.

COMMENT THREAD

EU+flagged[i-EU+flagged]Bruno did it yesterday. Klein Verzet takes issue with it. They've been trying it on for years and, in the fullness of time, will succeed – as they always do.

The great strengths of the EU are its persistence and its extremely narrow focus. It is useless at doing anything, except expanding its own powers and establishment, which it achieves with consummate skill.

But it only wins because we let it: because our political classes are too feeble, too introspective and self-centred to do anything about it, because the Great British Public can't be bothered, and because the media is in the entertainment industry.

Meanwhile, UKIP loses a treasurer and, according to some accounts, will shortly lose an MEP – a widely predicted outcome. All in the world is normal therefore – UKIP in turmoil and the EU goes marching on, waving its flag in all corners of the world at someone else's expense.

COMMENT THREAD

pol-nigelfarage045a[i-pol-nigelfarage045a]Having previously announced that he is to stand against speaker John Bercow in the general election, Nigel Farage has now announced that he is to stand down as UKIP leader, ostensibly to enable him to concentrate on fighting Bercow's Buckingham seat.

The decision to take on the Bercow is politically astute as, by convention, none of the main parties field candidates against the speaker. Although nominally Tory, Bercow is universally detested by his own side and, therefore, there is an outside chance that enough local Tories will break ranks and vote for the "cheeky chappie" to give him a run at becoming UKIP's first elected MP.

With Farage though, nothing is ever entirely what it seems. There are strong rumours that our Nigel has overstayed his welcome in Brussels and that the forces of darkness are not a million miles from feeling his collar, making his continued tenure as an MEP expensive and increasingly insecure. Reinventing himself as a Westminster MP – his lower salary fortified by his MEP pension - could head off the wolves and give him protection from impending disaster.

On the other hand, divesting himself of the leadership means very little. Farage still holds the leadership of the MEPs and thus the purse strings. As lead candidate for the general election, he will also be able to bask in more than his fair share of publicity.

Having assiduously driven out of the Party any potential rivals, he is left with little serious competition and will, most likely, be able to appoint a trusted placeholder to keep his seat warm. That will pave the way for his triumphal return at a later date, when his current batch of critics have dissipated their energies on his successor, and the membership is crying out for his hand back on the tiller.

Meanwhile, his temporary placeholder can hold the poison chalice, dealing with the divers unpleasantness which is about to hit the Party – not least some unfinished business with the electoral commission – leaving a squeaky clean Farage free to concentrate on his Westminster re-birth.

Should the "cheeky chappie" prevail against the loathsome Bercow, another of Farage's gambles will have paid off. Once more he will make Teflon seem like superglue as walks away from the wreckage of his own making, without a stain on his character. As a politician, it seems, Farage has what it takes to succeed, and he could just pull it off.

COMMENT THREAD

Simon Heffer says that David Cameron and his friends are not Tories. But, he says, little Dave doesn't care.

Heffer thinks he should. Fringe parties like UKIP, usually only given big support during marginal electoral contests, could find themselves the repository of protest votes by those who wish – as a result of the widespread disillusion caused by the expenses scandal – to smash up the old, cosy system.

It won't happen in time for the next election but, with a low turnout and a significant proportion of votes going to fringe parties, any hold on power that the Tories have will be fragile, and their supporters not remotely loyal.

More and more people who should be traditional Tory supporters are no longer – a terrifying number see the only way out is for the system to self-destruct. And there's the rub. They know Dave doesn't care. The thing is, neither do they ... about him or his friends.

COMMENT THREAD

Chloe+Smith[i-Chloe+Smith]It says something either of this writer, politics in general, or both, that the by-election in Norwich North is very low down the batting order. But then, the only outcome is to vote in another "useless mouth" to the provincial parliament, while the real government gets on with its business in Brussels.

For the record, the "victor" was Conservative, Chloe Smith, 27 – a former "management consultant" and therefore able to bring her extensive experience of business into play, as to how to comply with EU legislation.

The Times tells us the fair Chloe won a bigger than expected 7,348 majority, overturning Labour's lead of 5,459 in the 2005 general election. With 6,243 votes, Labour was down 26.7 percent on the general election, with 14,854 voters deserting the party since 2005.

Interestingly, the turnout was 45.8 percent – pathetic but only to be expected – which means that the Tories now hold the seat with votes from just over 18 percent of the electorate. A sweeping mandate it ain't, especially as the majority is attributable more to a collapse of the Labour vote than a positive endorsement of the Cameron agenda.

Ukip's Glen Tingle apparently did quite well, bringing in 4,068 votes, taking 11 percent of the vote. Lib Dims only made 4,803 votes, two percent less than in the 2005 general election – a very poor showing for a party that is supposed to specialise in by-elections. Nick Clegg's message is not wowing the voters.

The UKIP vote is interesting. Together with the Greens (3,350 votes), BNP (941) and Craig Murray (953) running as an anti-sleeze candidate, the "tiddlers" polled 14,115 votes, more than the Conservative's 13,591, taking over 40 percent of the vote cast, better than the 39.5 percent which the Conservatives took.

This did not prevent the Tories winning the seat, but this is a significant tranche of votes. If the minority vote holds up across the board in the general election (a very big "if"), we could see variations of the UKIP effect, with unpredictable results.

Predicting results is a mug's game at the best of time, so all that can be said is that this result injects an element of unpredictability into a situation already fraught with unpredictability. We could be in for an interesting time – or not.

COMMENT THREAD

... in the machinations of "Tory" MEPs, like wot the propper media is.

Actually, McMillan Scott never was a Tory, and now he's been kicked out of the not-the-Tory group in Brussels, for something or other, leaving the Poles in er ... pole position. UKIP are wetting themselves with mirth. First day back at school and the Tories have lost one of their number. This time five years ago, UKIP had just lost its first MEP, when they had to ditch Ashley Mote.

It is rather funny in a way, I suppose ... doesn't compare with Moldavian gun-runners flying dodgy choppers for the British Army, but you can see why the "colleagues" are all a-twitter.

COMMENT THREAD

Clarke[i-Clarke]The Guardian - and others, including the BBC - are reporting that Ken Clarke has "softened" the Tory line on Lisbon treaty.

This was during the BBC's Politics Show yesterday, when he declared that, "If the Irish referendum endorses the treaty and ratification comes into effect, then our settled policy is quite clear – that the treaty will not be reopened ... I don't think anybody in Europe … is in the mood for any more tedious debates about treaties, which have gone on for far too long, which is why this needs to be resolved."

Clarke added that a Tory government would still seek to negotiate the return of some powers back to Britain, mainly in the employment field.

It was only last month, however, that David Cameron was telling us, "I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power ... from the EU to Britain ...". At the time, we were extremely dubious as to whether he meant what he said and, if Clarke is to be believed, it appears not.

Interestingly, Booker yesterday expressed the same degree of cynicism over Cameron's good faith, telling us that the last thing Cameron wants is a referendum in which Britain would be likely to vote against the treaty by a huge margin. He knows this would provoke the most almighty row with the "colleagues".

With the way the Tory "top team" have been playing games on this issue, it thus comes as no surprise that Clarke should express himself the way he has, all the more so when a Tory spokesman said Clarke had not changed party policy. As always, we get the tired and entirely unconvincing mantra that, "if the Lisbon treaty is ratified and in force across the EU by the time of the election of a Conservative government, we would not let matters rest there."

The Sunday Times was also yesterday suggesting that the cynicism was more than a little widespread. Its YouGov poll indicated that smaller parties were retaining the support of the electorate, up from 12 to 18 percent, pointing to a "significant backlash" against the main parties.

With 2.5 million having voted for UKIP is the euros, Mr Cameron may be banking on many of those voters returning to the fold in the general election but, it seems, many might not. Whether he likes it or not, the EU does mean a great deal to a sizeable minority, who are not prepared to take "more of the same" from the Tories. They are going to take their votes elsewhere.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]The Independent reports that Declan Ganley, the would-be saviour of Europe, has quit politics. Mr Ganley had asked for a recount in the horribly complicated Irish voting system because he thought that some of his votes had been allotted to another candidate. It turned out to be the other way round and the votes, allotted properly put Mr Ganley 13,000 behind the front three runners in the North West euro constituency. (That is, clearly, not the same as the North West euro constituency in England.)

Mr Ganley has rather grandly announced that Libertas was not about him and his return to the private sector will not affect the campaign in the second Irish referendum one bit.

On the whole, this can be described as utter tosh. Mr Ganley made quite sure that much of the campaign was about him. Even if that were not true, his behaviour has done great damage to the cause, damage that it may not recover from.

As readers of this blog know, we were sceptical of Mr Ganley and Libertas.eu both for personal and political reasons. Mr Ganley and the Former British Soldier, Robin Matthews, who led the UK campaign, did little to endear themselves to people who were interested in their activity. (As I said before, I do not take kindly to people who patronize me, unless it happens to be the boss.)

Their political ideas were muddled, (and here) to put it mildly. The idea that there could be some sort of a reform of the European Union through the Toy Parliament, no matter who is elected is laughable in its ignorance of the structure of the political entity they were haughtily explaining to others. (Haughtily but rather vaguely.)

Added to that was the incoherent campaigning that consisted of appeals to eurosceptic groups interspersed with assertions that Libertas.eu was definitely Europhile, as, indeed, it was.

I lost track of the number of press releases I was sent, all of which attacked UKIP. When I asked for a reason, I was told that they were anxious to make sure that UKIP did not benefit from the expenses scandals and, therefore, they had to keep reminding people of such dubious characters as Tom Wise.

This would be logical if people voted solely on the basis of what they thought about the expenses scandal. But that was not so. The fact that UKIP came second, the vote for the various eurosceptic parties added up to a sizeable chunk and the BNP got two seats in the Toy Parliament would indicate that there was a great deal more on people's minds. That is why neither Libertas.eu nor Jury Team did particularly well. It was not simply an anti-politician vote, though there was an element of that.

Finally, there was Libertas's unfortunate tendency to be less than completely transparent in its descriptions of its activity.

For those or other reasons Libertas.eu did as badly as we expected in Britain and 25 other member states. Perhaps a little worse than we expected in Poland. What was rather shocking is how badly the party did in Ireland where the only other one to oppose the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty was Sinn Fein. Did the Irish really vote on domestic issues only or did they feel they had had enough of Mr Ganley and his merry men (and women)?

The answer can come only from someone who is better acquainted with the situation in that country. However, it seems to us obvious that Mr Ganley made a monumental mistake when he allowed his vanity to lead him into trying to form a pan-European party.

Flushed with the triumph of the No vote in the first Irish referendum he ought to have sat back and said that he was interested only in stopping the treaty. This could not be done in the Toy Parliament (a point that escaped Mr Ganley, I suspect) and, therefore, Libertas was not going to get involved in those elections but wait for the second referendum and campaign there.

At most, he should have campaigned only in Ireland, making that into a back-up referendum. He and his colleagues might have done quite well.

Instead, Mr Ganley decided to promote himself and his followers into a band of brothers dedicated to the salvation and reform of the European project. They failed miserably and deservedly. In the process, though, they destroyed Libertas's political credibility in Ireland and damaged, very severely, the chances of a No vote in October when the second referendum is likely to take place. (Smart money is on October 10 but no decision can be taken until the Referendum Bill is passed by the Dail in July.)

The battle in Ireland will be a tough one, made much tougher by Declan Ganley's recent antics and failure. We, in this country, must do all we can to help. This blog is standing by.

COMMENT THREAD

nigel-farage[i-nigel-farage]
In a piece which records UKIP's victory at the polls, we are treated to a photograph of the smiling leader, with the caption: "UKIP leader Nigel Farage is delighted with party's European election result".

That is fair enough. Farage has every reason to be delighted, not least because his party has now acquired the mantle of the establishment's approved protest party.

On the other hand, a full-page feature on the BNP by Philip Johnston has a photograph of Nick Griffin, clearly celebrating his victory. But the text has it: "The smirk on Nick Griffin's face as he walked on to the platform at Manchester town hall in the early hours of yesterday morning said it all … ".

Thus, Farage "celebrates" while Griffin "smirks". The contrast is an interesting illustration of how journalism is shaped by perceptions and then how journalism shapes perceptions. Here, it may be warranted but, every day, in a thousand different ways, our own realities and perceptions are being thus shaped.

Similarly, mainstream politicians are rushing to the barricades, anxious to portray the BNP vote as a reaction to the expenses debacle. This is a legend with which they are comfortable. An alternative scenario, however, is that the major beneficiary of that debacle was UKIP. Had that party not Hoovered up so many votes, the BNP might have gained more seats, not less.

Clearly, there would be difficulty for the politicians is accepting such a scenario. Shorn of this comfort blanket, they would then have to accept that people (some of them, at least) voted for BNP because of such issues as immigration or that they objected to Labour's refusal to give the nation a referendum on the Lisbon treaty – yet did not trust UKIP with that message.

Furthermore, this disease of political myopia extends way beyond the BNP. Challenged on BBC News about the poor performance of the Lib-Dims, Charles Kennedy rejected the suggestion that this was somehow related to his party being out of touch with public sentiment on the EU. To Kennedy, this was simply part of the fallout on MPs' expenses.

Thus do we see the establishment closing ranks. For want of addressing issues about which many ordinary people feel passionately, and which have been neglected (and ignored) by the mainstream, that same establishment is now inventing its own rationale for the events its is witnessing. But in this approach lies a greater danger. Says The Guardian:

To dismiss the BNP as a protest vote is both wrong and dangerous. A consistent voting pattern is emerging, partly driven by material concerns linked to issues of class and race. Yet the notion of the "protest" vote absolves parties from addressing their own shortcomings and the policy issues that are deemed unfashionable within SW1. Unless this approach changes then support for the far right will grow. Now is the time to act and now is the time to fight.

By wilfully refusing to come to terms with the reasons for their own rejection, establishment politicians will thereby perpetuate the very discord they claim to seek to avoid. If the BNP is a disease of the body politic – as some would have it – then the virus is the political establishment.

COMMENT THREAD

For reference, here are the key statistics of the election (so far):

Conservatives came first taking 28.6 percent of the vote, with 24 MEPs. UKIP came second receiving 17.4 percent, winning 13 MEPs. Labour took 15.3 percent, also picking up 13 MEPs. The Lib-Dims crawled in fourth with 13.9 percent of the vote, getting 10 seats. The Greens took 8.7 percent and two MEPs. The BNP won two seats, in Yorkshire and the Humber, where it gained 10 percent of the vote, and in the North-West, getting 8 percent of the vote. Turnout was 34.8 percent.

By contrast, in the 2004 elections the Tories pulled 26.7 percent of the vote and Labour got 22.6. UKIP grabbed 16.1 percent, beating the Lib-Dems into third place, trailing with 14.9 percent. The Greens got 6.3 and the BNP 4.9 percent. Then, the candidates were fighting for 78 seats, the electorate producing a turnout of 38.2 percent.

COMMENT THREAD

number-crunching[i-number-crunching]The post-mortems are in full flow – with a good discussion on National Review. We thus thought we would have a closer look at each of the regions to see what, if anything, a detailed analysis of the figures tells us.

Making a start on home territory, Yorkshire makes a fascinating case study of the electoral system in practice. As a reminder, the crude figures are as follows:

Conservatives 299,802 (24.5 percent, down 0.2), Lab 230,009 (18.8 percent, down 7.5), UKIP 213,750 (17.4 percent, up 2.9), Lib-Dims 161,552 (13.2 percent, down 2.4), BNP 120,456 (8.5 percent, up 1.8) Greens 104,456 (8.5 percent, up 2.8), English Democrats 31,287, SLP 19,380, Christian Party 16,742, No2EU 15,614, Jury Team 7,181, Libertas 6,268.

This was on a turnout of 32.3 percent. Thus, 1,226,180 people voted out of an electorate of 3,792,415.

The first and most obvious thing that emerges is that none of the three main Westminster parties made any gains in voting share. The Tories dropped marginally, Labour nose-dived and the Lib-Dims were lacklustre.

What is also fascinating though is the voting share of what the pollsters like to call the "others". Taking UKIP, BNP, the Greens, English Democrats, the SLP, the Christian Party, No2EU, Jury Team and Libertas, their combined vote was 519,520 or 42.3 percent of the total votes cast.

In terms, significantly more people voted for the "others" than they did the lead party – the Conservatives – which only took 24.5 percent of the vote. In fact, since all three Westminster parties only took 56.5 percent of the vote, there was very nearly parity between the established parties and the rest.

The next thing of interest is the "anti-EU" vote. Here, we can take UKIP, BNP, the English Democrats, the SLP and No2EU as the core vote. Collectively, they polled 400,487 which, at 32.7 percent share, far outstrips the winning Conservative vote. In other words, the Tories, with their pro-EU policy are firmly in the minority.

When the anti-Lisbon treaty vote is examined, however, we can add in the Tories, the Christian Party, Jury Team and Libertas. That brings the vote to 700,289 or 57 percent of the vote cast. It can be assumed, therefore, that in Yorkshire at least, the government has no mandate whatsoever to implement the Lisbon treaty.

Overall, another factor that emerges is how seriously some of the polls have been under-estimating the "others". A YouGov opinion poll in January, for instance, had the Conservatives on 35 percent, Labour on 29 percent and the Lib-Dims on 15 percent, accounting for 79 percent of the total vote, giving the rest a mere 21 percent. In fact, at 42.3 percent, they scored double that – an error margin of over 100 percent.

Interestingly, in June, however, another YouGov poll had the Westminster parties on 57 percent, putting the "others" at 43 percent, as near spot-on as can be achieved.

Where the "others" form such a large part of the electorate, polling dynamics change considerably and it cannot be assumed that these will not bleed through into the general election.

In the 2005 election, we drew attention to what we called the "Ukip effect" where the votes cast to the others considerably exceeded the victor's winning margin. Variously, we estimated that this could have cost the Tories 25 or more seats.

With a resurgent UKIP, and a more aggressive BNP, plus the other tiddlers in the field, we could be looking at a completely unpredictable electoral picture where all the old assumptions are no longer valid.

And, although the EU will not feature highly in the general, Andrew Stuttaford suspects that it is a mistake to think that the increasing powerlessness of the Westminster parliament will mean that voters will feel that it's "safe" to vote for BNP in a national election. If they are angry enough, he writes, they won't care one way or the other about that, but that's a big "if."

As far as it goes though, there are bigger "ifs".

COMMENT THREAD

Griffin+002[i-Griffin+002]"The British National Party achieved its most significant electoral breakthrough last night when it won two seats in the European Parliament."

That is the view of the august London Times - a value judgement rather than a straight reporting of fact. What, after all, does "significant" mean?

If the experience of UKIP in 1999 is any guide, when it managed to get three MEPs elected, last night's events mean not very much at all. The combined forces of the establishment, including the political classes and the media managed to encapsulate UKIP, declining to report its activities and driving it into near obscurity.

Certainly, not reporting issues is something at which the British media excels and, after what will be a brief flurry of recriminations, that bit of the establishment will settle down to do what it does so well. Very quickly, Nick Griffin will find that being elected to a remote, irrelevant institution provides very little in the way of a platform. As before, every attempt will be made to ignore him.

What will make the difference is whether he and his Yorkshire colleague Andrew Brons can avoid the internal party bickering that came with UKIP's success, and build a firm foundation for further electoral success. But for the fluke of Kilroy's intervention in 2004, and the amazing fluke of the MPs' expenses issue breaking when it did, UKIP would be on its way down and out.

Internally, BNP is as big a mess as was UKIP. It is going to be struggling to rise above its own internal party rivalries and jealousies and, in a sense, yesterday's success will be a challenge for it. It will either make or break the party.

Here, its strongest asset is the visceral hatred exhibited by the establishment which fails to understand that BNP's attraction to those who increasingly feel disenfranchised is precisely that it is hated by the establishment. Griffin has been clever enough to understand that and, the more vitriol that is directed at his party, the easier he will find it to attract voters.

The response, of course, should be to take on the BNP full frontal. Its prejudices are obvious, its politics are loathsome and its policies are incoherent. Against an open, intelligent, coherent challenge, it would not last five minutes.

Where the traditional parties have their difficulties though are that they too are unable to offer coherent policies. Not least, they are constantly having to hide or deny that "elephant in the room", the European Union – which has given the BNP its opening. And, as long as the major parties attempt to build their own electoral base on a foundation of deception and lies, their support will always be fragile and prone to peeling off by the "extremists".

It is, therefore, all very well for ConHome to complain – as it is doing – that Labour opened the way for BNP's victory. In another time, some of those voters who broke away to vote for BNP should rightly – as they did with Thatcher's time – have voted Conservative. That they did not is as much a reflection of the Tories as it is Labour.

And neither is there any mileage to be gained from killing the messenger. We would like to think that we picked up the vibes earlier than many and were writing freely on what is, after all, a political phenomenon.

That we write about the BNP does not imply or in any way convey our support for that party, any more than the MSM and the blogs who are today writing about the same subject. We just got in earlier, before the event, warning about something we felt might happen and now has.

Nor, despite establishment attempts to encapsulate the boil, can it be assumed that BNP can be safely contained. The reason why so many people felt it "safe" to vote for BNP as a protest was because, ultimately, the EU parliament does not matter. Conventional wisdom has it that they will come into the fold for the general election.

However, increasingly, people are beginning to realise that the Westminster parliament doesn't matter either. As long as we are ruled by the malign nexus of Brussels, international and largely obscure organisations and the growing ranks of the quangos (one of which is to take control of parliament), that realisation will grow. With it will lift any restraint on voting for such parties as BNP.

What will be the measure of success however, will not be the noise but the silence. The silence of the politicos about BNP is testament to how scared they are running, we wrote earlier. A healthy political system could take on the BNP with ease and defeat it. If the political parties maintain their silence, Griffin can only prosper. In that silence, you will hear him laughing.

COMMENT THREAD