The Myths of the Griffin

With just a few days left until the European elections, I think it is of paramount importance that we step up the campaign against the fascist BNP. You may have seen their recent party political broadcasts with Nick Griffin using the themes of the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill and "traditional Christian values" to try and legitimise his racist views. This comes a week after Nick Griffin called black and Asian Britons, "racial foreigners" who should be "repatriated back to their own countries."

Unfortunately many people may be nievely taken in by this shallow attempt at associating all things British with the racist BNP, and with the recession affecting people's livelihoods, many people are looking for somebody to blame. Some are laying the blame firmly at the foot of the politicians by not voting at all. Some are going as far as to blame immigrants for all the problems in this country. Whilst I shouldn't need to go into the reasons why the latter is completely unreasonable and unjust, a protest of no vote because you believe that politicians are corrupt, plays into the hands of the BNP. The motto of "use your vote, or someone else will" rings true. Make no mistake, the election of a BNP MEP would be far worse than an MEP of any other political party. Full stop.

Therefore we all must make sure and use our vote on June 4th to deny the BNP a seat. If they were to win even one seat, the increase in funding they would receive will allow them to step up their advertising campaign, put a glossy leaflet through every door in Britain, and legitimise themselves still further. That is why they must be stopped now before their diseased hatred and lies is allowed to spread. We have already seen a so called "freedom march" in Luton on the 24th May, which BNP activists were involved in, and where many showed their true colours with Nazi salutes. We don't want to find ourselves in the same situation as Austria or France where openly neo-fascist and racist parties, whom incedentally have links with the BNP, are considered legitimate, receive state funding, and consequently a worrying share of the vote.

Interesting Times

A recent poll published in the Times on voting intentions in Scotland on June 4th made for interesting reading. Whilst it showed an increase in support for fringe parties, these gains are unlikely to translate into a seat. The article focused on Labour's fears of an election catastrophe, and whilst the election may turn out to be just that elsewhere, I for one don't think that Labour will find themselves unseated in Scotland.

The poll quotes a senior Labour spokesperson as saying that there "is a lot of concern for us. We think we might manage to keep the second seat but it's going to be very close." Now by taking the projected vote as published, with the SNP on 37%, Labour on 25%, the Tories on 17% and the Lib Dems on 12%, and working that into an expected low turnout, the results couldn't be further from the truth. The turnout in 2004 was 30.9% mustering 1,176,817 voters, but in 1999 it was only 988,310 with a shoddy 24.7% showing up at the polls.

It is generally accepted that low turnout is to be expected, due in no small part to the expenses scandal. If we transpose the poll onto the 1999 turnout therefore, we see 435,422 votes to the SNP, 294,204 to Labour, 200,058 to the Conservatives and 141,218 to the Liberal Democrats. Under the d'Hondt method this would deliver the 1st seat to the SNP, the 2nd seat to Labour, the 3rd seat to the SNP, the 4th seat to the Tories, the 5th seat to Labour and the 6th seat to SNP.

The poll was correct on it's assertion, and on the basis of their projections, that the SNP could capture enough votes for 3 MEPs. However in order for Labour to lose Catherine Stihler MEP, either Labour would have to hemorrhage a significant number of voters to the Lib Dems, there would need to be an enormous swing to the SNP, or a much larger than expected turnout. All of the above are somewhat unlikely, if you want my very humble opinion, it's George Lyon and the Liberal Democrats who should be considering a plan B.

I think that the allocation of seats in Northern Ireland will be all the more interesting. Sinn Fein essentially unseated the SDLP in 2004, as they had been anticipated to do, to take what is seen as the Nationalist seat at Brussels. They may see their political fortunes in Northern Ireland revived further. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who have been the strongest Unionist party in Ulster for over a decade, may see their fortunes decline somewhat due in no small part to Jim Allister MEP, the man whom they selected as a candidate to replace Ian Paisley in the European Parliament. He left the party and formed Traditional Unionist Voice in 2007, over his anger at power-sharing agreements agreed to by the DUP and Sinn Fein, “No power sharing with terrorists” is his motto. Once loyal DUP voters could vote for a man whom they have seen work hard for them in Brussels, thus splitting the vote. To add salt to the wound, the Ulster Unionist Party, tired of seeing their fortunes wane, have forged an alliance with the Conservative party and David Cameron, giving them a stronger voice, and making them more electable.

Whilst this may give the DUP cause for concern, as the Irish Times shows, neither Jim Allister or the UUP are likely to garner more votes than the DUP's candidate, Diane Dodds. However Northern Ireland politics are a partisan affair, and there are only so many unionist votes, just as there are only so many nationalist votes. The effect of this, and my prediction, will be to split the unionist vote, which could result in Sinn Fein winning the first seat, the DUP the second, and the SDLP the third. After all they lost out to the UUP for third place by only 4,000 votes in 2004. This would be the first time in Northern Ireland that nationalists have topped the polls, and profess a total sea-change in Northern Irish demographics.

Electors Count

The expenses scandal has dominated the news over the past week. Tory MP Anthony Steen's schizophrenic diatribe, in which he claimed that the public had no right to interfere in his private life, after he had claiming questionable expenses from the public purse, has perhaps been the most astonishing. He went on to criticise the Government for introducing the Freedom of Information Act, which he blamed for catching him out in the first place. I guess accountability and transparency are not the sort of the things that he values in a democratic society. At least not the kind of transparency that leads to him being held accountable.

One benefit which has come of this entire scandal, is that the debate on our constitution and parliamentary system has been revived. We are starting to question things which have remained unchanged for centuries, yet are completely inappropriate within a 21st Century democracy.

The idea that an ombudsman could hold a degree of power over parliament in the administration of expenses claims would have been impossible a few decades ago, because it seems to go against the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Yet the policy has been rushed through parliament, to restore the public trust, without so much as a whimper of dissent.

The expenses scandal is of course just the tip of the iceberg. The idea that we need a codified constitution is not new, but I believe that it is important. One of the reasons why this expenses scandal has occured, apart from the obvious flaws within human nature, is because the rules around parliament are contained in abstract concepts of convention and the Royal prerogative. Is it not time that these rights and responsibilities were enshrined in the law?

Is it not time that the House of Lords, an arm of the legislature which is entirely made up of un-elected hereditary and life peers, were elected by the people? I have heard it said that the House of Lords is an important check on the power of Government, because it is not dominated by any political party. The natural conclusion therefore, is that it should be elected by proportional representation through a list system. This would make it both democratic, accountable and allow for no significant political majority. More importantly, in light of the effect that the expenses scandal may have on the far right vote, it is entirely possible to ensure that no extremists are given a mandate by the setting of a quota. Sweden operates a 4% quota, yet is considered by Transparency International to be one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We may never reach such heady heights, but such a reform is a step in the right direction.

Vote Blue, Get Homaphobic, Climate Change Denying Right Wingers

This Times article suggests that although David Cameron may be wooing voters with his green credentials and centrist platform, but his candidates may have other ideas. A survey by Conservative Home has advised that significant percentages of prospective Tory MPs are not supportive of gay adoption, are not concerned with climate change and would like to see an alteration to the funding formula for the devolved nations. This would cause problems for Cameron if he is follow his stated policy of reducing the tax burdern on families with environmental taxes and raise spending on health.

Furthermore he may find his relationship with Alex Salmond strained if the Barnett formula is abolished or significantly reduced, which can only strengthen the voice for independence, upsetting the unionists in the party. Indeed the only thing Cameron can rely upon in his candidates is his own ill-thought out Euroscepticism. The mood of the moment on the political landscape appears to be that the Tories are assured the next election. That's as well as may be, but what about damage limitation? What bills a Conservative government can pass does of course depend upon their overall majority, and the less seats they hold, the less likely that abhorrent views on gay adoption and damaging policies on the environment, and Europe, are promulgated.

Political Funding

I found this Hansard debate in the Commons from the 4th March 2009 very interesting. According to Patrick McFadden MP, Unite the Union has one of the largest percentages of members who are not contributing to the political fund, and therefore for one reason or another, are not financing the Labour party. For many of their members it may because they feel that Labour are not socialist enough, and indeed this could be the case with a significant proportion of Communication Workers Union members, who have a long history of industrial action, and whose support of the Labour party has evaporated in recent months in protest against plans to privatise the pension fund of Royal Mail.

In contrast Connect are a professional union, representing mostly managerial and "white-collar" staff. People who are statistically more likely to support the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative party. That is not even to consider those members in Scotland or Wales, who support the cause of independence.For whatever reason, I find it interesting to see so many of my fellow trade union members who don't feel obligated to pay into the coffers of the Labour party. How many do not realise that they have the choice?

Literary Wisdom

I have purchased yet more Kerouac for my ever growing collection of beat generation literature. However, I have arranged for it to be mailed directly to Stockholm, thus I do not have to consider how I can get it to Sweden in July. I have enough things to move as it is, and Ryanair is not particularly suited to such a practice, when one considers that you only receive a 15kg weight allowance. I feel more secure to know that I will have a beat library to read over there.

Fishy Business

An article in the Economist regarding European fisheries legislation points out that "88% of the EU's stocks are overfished". Most of the fleets don't turn a profit, although some countries are more competitive than others, yet many receive state aid, some directly, but all in the form of tax-free fuel.

The article then goes on to explain that the solution lies in a common market of tradeable fishing rights. This does not chart the depths of the problem. Certainly a market of fisheries rights would open up the market to competetion and ensure that those ships which are the most efficient and well run succeed, through purchasing the fishing rights of those fleets which are less efficient. This would of course have the effect of ensuring European consumers get the best deal at the market.

Unfortunately the article then goes on to say that, "Trawlermen all over Europe chuck dead fish awat to free up holds for more profitable specimens." This is not actually correct. It is illegal in Norway to dump a catch. Thus a quota of fish, more accurately represents those fish that are actually caught, and then landed. The idea of a fishing quota in the first place, it to conserve fishing stocks, yet if you only count the fish when they are landed, this encourages fishermen to dump those fish which are not up to scratch and fish some more. Thus landing a better catch, and a higher paypacket for themeselves. That is of course human nature, but it does not provide a solution therefore, to the problems of overfishing.

The EU therefore could of course establish an open market of fishing rights, of course, this would make for a better deal for consumers and is something I am always in favour of. To ensure that we still have fishing stocks well into the future however it needs to be illegal to throw dead fish away. If this were the case the industry would be more self regulating, with boats using larger nets to ensure they do not catch small fry. What little enforcement is required could be achieved by a small number of vessels in each individual member states coastguard or navy. After all Norway possesses an enormous coastline and manages to achieve this with a proportionately small fleet. Whether anyone can agree on the common fisheries policy would be a much greater question.

Three Dimensional Politics

The Political Compass is somewhat simplistic but nonetheless still a thought provoking item for political debate. It's main issue is that the left/right political spectrum by being two-dimensional, does not take into account both politics and economics. Thus someone can be right wing economically, yet left wing politically. My result here.

Beat Street

I've purchased a vintage 1940s original wool plaid shirt from the United States. When it arrives in the post, along with my vintage wool coat, it won't just be my library that is beat. I've been listening to Kerouac today on this site Kerouac Speaks, which include excerpts from the excellent documentary, What Happened to Kerouac? All I need now is a vintage typewriter.

The Curtain Falls

It is 20 years to the day since the first cracks began to appear in the Iron Curtain. Hungary dismantled 240km of barbed wire fencing along the border with Austria which for the first time allowed many East Germans to emigrate through Austria to West Germany. The writing was on the wall.