Away from Waziristan

Time to leave Waziristan, at least temporarily (and yes, since you ask, I do know where it is). Here are a few links of interest.

The House of Lords has published a report on Codecision and national parliamentary scrutiny and full of interesting things it is, too. Before I write about it in detail I wish to call attention to a couple of extremely useful if bewildering flow-charts. The first shows the process of Codecision (between the Council and the European Parliament). That is, let us not forget, the process whereby legislation that is legally binding for this country is agreed on.

The second shows the complications of trying to get information to conduct a scrutiny of the process. Scrutiny is not legislation; all it does, if the procedure is properly adhered to, which it very rarely is, is to turn Parliament into another lobbying group. They are both worth close study.

In the meantime, the news is that members of the Toy Parliament will be losing their automatic right to a photographic pass in the Westminster Parliament, the institution they have done so much damage to. That is not why they are losing that right; the reason is that nobody had told Harriet Harman and her chums that you cannot take passes away from one group of MEPs unless you do it to all. Developments on this score should be interesting.

Appalling bad judgement

In Nick Griffin, we have a minor and third-rate politician from a no-hoper party with next to no electoral prospects in the UK, a dysfunctional organisation, minuscule membership and precious few funds – espousing an incoherent political doctrine which would fall apart if seriously challenged.

Through the vagaries of the proportional representation system, he has managed to get himself and a colleague elected to the empty posts of the EU parliament members, which has given him a certain status and notoriety, reinforced by the inability of mainstream parties to mount an effective counter.

Taking note of that position, the BBC has invited him onto the panel of a political talk-show, a programme so dire that one seriously wonders why anyone other than the political nerds ever bother to watch it.

The obvious and most logical response is to yawn wearily, let those who care enough to watch do so, in the expectation that, in the light of public exposure, the vacuity of his position will become obvious and his political creed will wither away.

Yet, the response has been to elevate this minor and uninteresting event into a media orgy, with attendant "riots", recriminations, commentary and, of course, copious media appearances of the man himself. Griffin himself could not have wished for better response, one which he has been quick to acknowledge, with fulsome thanks to the BBC.

The point, of course, is exactly as we made yesterday. A robust, healthy and self-confident political system could swat aside the likes of Griffin, demolish his political arguments and consign him to obscurity.

Thus, in the category "they doth protest too much", the political claque, in its grossly disproportional response to the BBC programme, is demonstrating not its strength but its own weakness and lack of confidence.

In giving the issue such prominence, the media is also reinforcing another malign tendency – the increasing inability to distinguish between that which is important and of lasting consequence, and that which is ephemeral and of very little importance.

Furthermore, the media and the political classes are displaying another their malign characteristics – over-reacting now, when an earlier and more considered response would have had a greater and more far-reaching effect.

Almost alone of the political blogs, we were writing frequently about the BNP, highlighting what we saw as a serious and important political phenomenon. My writing was misinterpreted by some as expressing support, which was never the case.

My sympathies were and remain with those who feel so alienated from the mainstream political system that they feel impelled to support the party. And that, it seems, is precisely what the political classes cannot deal with. Thus, with their own vacuity exposed, they turn upon the unlikely "boy" who dares remark that the emperor is abroad without his expected attire.

With that, one can only wonder – to the point of despair – about the degradation of our political system. Unlike many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, I will not be watching the BBC programme. Apart from the occasional glimpse at the news, I have long since stopped watching the BBC – and television in general. This programme is no good reason for changing that happy arrangement. I have better things to do with my time.

Instead, almost by way of protest, I am putting this up early, as my overnight post. With all the important things going on in this world, I can scarce contain my disgust at the appalling bad judgement, not of the BBC but of the media and the political classes in propelling Griffin to the top of the political agenda, while – as always – ignoring issues of so much more importance.

If this is what political discourse has come to, I am not that sure I want to be part of it any more.

COMMENT THREAD

What are they worried about?

Having enlisted a number of retired generals and Andy McNab, "the renowned SAS hero" in a rather dubious campaign against a registered (and therefore legal) political party, the "Nothing British" campaign against "extremism and racism" is organising a "Breakfast Meeting" tomorrow.

At the breakfast will be "leading experts in the fight against extremism", namely James Bethell, Andy McNab, Andrew Roberts and Tim Montgomerie (of Conservative Home fame). They will announce the next stage of its campaign, to draft a manifesto that addresses the bona fide issues "of those thinking about abandoning mainstream political parties and voting for the BNP."

Says the blurb, "These are often voters who feel so pessimistic about the future and so disillusioned with Westminster that they are prepared to overcome the stigma of the BNP's neo-fascist origins and support BNP candidates, many of whom have a dubious past."

The current crie de coeur, of course, is their objection to the BNP "hijacking" military symbols in support of their own campaign, most notoriously their "Battle for Britain” initiative which featured a photograph of a Spitfire, invoking the World War II patriotic spirit.

It did not take long to identify that Spitfire, marked RF-D, as a MkVb flown by 303 Kościuszko Squadron (pictured), pilot S/Ldr Jan Zumbach, who scored eight kills during the Battle of Britain, with 13 in total.

Picturing an aircraft from a famous Polish squadron was inept enough, but the ignorance of the BNP also allowed it to feature an aircraft mark which was not issued to squadrons until early 1942, well after the Battle of Britain had ended.

A political party which claims to support the military, yet which displays such obvious ignorance of such matters, is not one to be taken seriously. As with much of its outpouring, they are – or should be – the object of derision. The BNP's campaign should have been howled down in a gale of mocking laughter.

The only problem for the established political parties is that they are unable to do so, being so compromised on the numerous issues on which the BNP campaigns, that they are left fulminating at the voters rather than the party they so detest.

What they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge is that the reason many voters actually tick the box for the BNP is precisely because the BNP is as loathsome as they claim. Such votes are a statement that, however abhorrent the BNP may be, the established parties are worse.

The answer to that, of course, is for the established political parties to up their game, for them seriously to address the issues of concern to real people rather than the denizens of the Westminster bubble.

But, lacking political nous, as my co-editor has observed, they have made the classic error of descending into the pit and scrapping with the chimney sweep. This gives the BNP a huge publicity bonus and reinforces the impression that the political classes have lost the plot.

The only thing positive they have done is reveal quite how worried they are about "those thinking about abandoning mainstream political parties and voting for the BNP." These Tory-dominated "experts" would not be acting so stridently unless they perceived a threat to their electoral prospects. Unwittingly, therefore, they have played into the hands of the BNP.

COMMENT THREAD

UKIP "hammered"

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

We thought of it first

Joe Borg, the EU Fisheries Commissioner, has called for an end to "discards". Instead, we are told, he believes that fishermen should be limited by "effort". For example limiting the number of days vessels can spend at sea or where boats can fish. "Replacing quotas by effort can be a very effective way of reducing the environmental impact of fisheries, and in particular of discards," he says.

This has been picked up by the BBC which retails the Scottish Fishermen's Federation welcome for the idea, although SFF chief executive Bertie Armstrong also warns that simplifying issues may not solve them. "The consequences of using days at sea as the only control measure will require a great deal more thought. It is at best unpredictable and may, for some fisheries create more problems than it solves."

"Nevertheless," Armstrong adds, "it is an encouragement that the Commissioner is prepared to be truly radical and look at all options. We will, therefore, be asking him as a matter of urgency for more detail on what he is actually proposing."

Of course, if you want more detail of how a fisheries scheme could work, you need go no further that look at Owen Paterson's draft, dated January 2005, which we heralded on this blog. In pre-eminent position as one of our recommendations was: "Effort control based on 'days at sea' instead of fixed quotas," with much more detail of how that system could work.

Although then adopted by the Conservative Party as policy, it was quietly dropped when Cameron ascended to the throne and has been ignored even since by the Party. Now, nearly four years later, the EU commissioner is coming round to our way of thinking. But it also says a great deal that what was urgent those four years ago is still urgent, and the commission is still just talking about "reform".

At least, though, the commission is talking, which is more than is the Conservative Party, which has long since abandoned the fishing industry to its fate. Our Dave doesn't "do" Europe, which is why some of the campaigners who were once at the forefront of trying to get the Party to move on this issue have given up completely – and voted BNP at the last euro-elections.

But, in another five years time, perhaps, when the commission finally get down to offering formal proposals, to deal with what is left of the fishing industry, Dave can dust off Owen's paper and pretend it was his idea all along. We thought of it first, he can say, and all the little Tory boys can cheer at their good fortune at having such a far-seeing leader.

COMMENT THREAD

And that election ...

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

Unsustainable

In the News of the World yesterday, Fraser Nelson writes a piece under the heading "Condemned by silence".

He notes that, three weeks since BNP's election triumph, no party has started to discuss immigration. Westminster parties have kept their baffled silence and are giving the BNP a monopoly over the most explosive issue in politics.

You'd think, writes Nelson. Gordon Brown and David Cameron would have been shocked into action after seeing Griffin win a seat in Brussels, his party taking almost a million votes.

Immigration was always a "big subject" and it is bigger now because layoffs in the recessions are hitting British-born people hardest. Directly from the Office for National Statistics – but not openly published – Nelson has found that there are fewer UK-born workers in the private sector than 12 years ago.

In the last year there are 119,000 more migrant workers in UK jobs, but 615,000 fewer UK-born workers. In recent months, both are falling. But UK-born workers are being laid off at five times the rate. Workers, he says, can see it with their own eyes, and ask: why? And because no mainstream party has an answer, the BNP prospers.

Other statistics gleaned include the nugget that 1,000 Britons are emigrating every day, although they are not working in Europe. Although Alan Johnson, now Home Secretary, claimed a figure of 1.5 million British working in Europe, that is actually seven times the real number. Of immigrants in the British workforce, the official figure is two percent but the real total is fourteen percent.

But, while Thatcher killed off the National Front in the late 70s by taking the issue immigration head-on, Cameron is silent. The subject scares away voters in the marginal seats he needs to take power. Westminster only cares about swing voters in swing seats - so millions are forgotten. Thus writes Nelson, the silence from Westminster suggests that the BNP's "shocking success story" is far from over.

Taking a broader perspective, it is not just immigration on which the political classes are silent. We have all been impressed with the US treatment of the climate change bill over there. It may have been rammed through the House of Representatives but at least it is as political issue. Here, the silence of the politicos is deafening.

Similarly, defence in the United States is an issue – discussed widely in the media and on the Hill. Here, although a debate has started, it has been led by the military and the media. Over the pond, it was kick-started by defence secretary Gates.

One by one, you can tick off the "big issues" – the European Union also comes to mind – and our politicians are silent. They have their own agendas, but these increasingly are not ours. The gulf between the politicians and the people may have been greater, but in recent times it is hard to imagine when. Thus, to use a word beloved by politicians, whether new or not, the current gap is "unsustainable".

COMMENT THREAD

We're going nowhere

Charles Moore believes we don't need many new laws to reform Parliament - just the will to change.

MPs could, he writes, insist that the timetable of Commons business be handed from the Government to their own, elected business committee. They could get rid of the automatic guillotine on Bills. They could elect the chairmen of select committees instead of allowing the whips to appoint them. They could vote to debate European legislation properly. They could force the House to debate Bills petitioned for by the public. And, of course, it is the duty of MPs, not of the Government, to work out what their pay and allowances should be, in the open, and without passing the buck to somebody else.

The week after next, MPs could choose a Speaker who would compel the Prime Minister to answer questions twice a week, instead of the once-a-week evasion invented by Tony Blair. He could also reprimand ministers whenever they announced new government measures in the media. He could, as it were, Speak up.

But even these modest proposals, he believes are beyond the capabilities of this present crew.

Then, on the other hand, we have Max Hastings tell us that the BNP will only be erased as a force from Britain's political landscape, when those parties which seriously aspire to govern Britain present coherent, realistic immigration policies; when they address an issue about which much of the country cares more than the recession, health, education, Europe - the cultural identity and population stability of the island in which we live.

It ain't going to happen. Simply add Mr Lambert's observations and it's obvious why. We're going nowhere. It was fun while it lasted.

COMMENT THREAD

One does wonder about their political understanding

Among the various anti-EU parties, set up temporarily for the nonce, there was an old-fashioned socialist trade union one, called No2EU. We mentioned it a few times and expressed the view that it would not do terribly well in the election. Nor did it.

Presumably, it was an attempt to rouse left-wing eurosceptics, a somewhat elusive group though I have come across its members on and off. It was also, one must assume, intended to undercut the BNP, the argument being that the latter has largely working class support and these people are so stupid as to accept international socialism as a substitute for the national kind.

Both parts of that are wrong: the BNP has a strong middle class and what used to be called lower middle class support with a strong dash of aspirational working class and none of them are not stupid enough to buy into the old Marxist propaganda.

However, the real stupidity of that group was putting up as front man Bob Crow, the man who periodically snarls up London completely by bringing his union members out on strike; in between those strikes, those union members help to ensure that London has the most expensive and least efficient underground train service in the developed world.

Whom does it affect? Well, there are eight million people in London, there are another eight or nine million who come in to work every day, there are untold millions who come in for various events, meetings and entertainments (or would like to do so if the transport allowed them to do so). A lot of people, all of whom hate Bob Crow more than anybody else in this country. You have to be politically suicidal to put such a man at the head of your organization.

What these people need is an old-fashioned Communist organizer of the kind that clearly does not exist any more. One of those comrades would have known that Mr Crow must be kept in the background and nice emollient people should be made into the pin-ups of No2EU. Too late now.

I was meditating on this as the heavily packed bus I was on crawled slowly towards Westminster because Mr Crow's merry men have once again made life hell on earth for those many millions. There is, I decided, a solution to this.

This evening there will be an international football match at Wembley, which will probably be played without any audience as nobody can get there with the tube lines either closed or barely functioning. The players will not be happy - having a cheering audience does wonders for the sporting morale; the fans must be furious.

Could somebody, perhaps, let the players and, especially, the fans know where Mr Crow and his merry men are to be found? They would then become directly accountable to the people, something that, surely, every good trade unionist yearns to be.

COMMENT THREAD

So farewell then ...

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

The BBC mindset

As he was touring the radio studios on Monday morning, Nick Griffin popped in on BBC Radio 5 Live's Breakfast programme for a chat with Nicky Campbell. After a few minutes of jousting, exclusively in the issue of racism, Griffin interrupted Campbell as he tried to read out another text from a listener. "I would think it would be sensible to move on," he said.

The subsequent exchange, or part of it, caught the attention of The Guardian, which reproduced this fragment:

Nick Griffin: The BBC is obsessed with race and immigration. It would be great to talk about something else for once.

Nicky Campbell: What would you like to talk about? What's the thing you'd like to say given this platform to speak to the nation this morning?

Nick Griffin: OK, how about the fact that I believe, along with the Czech politician [Vaclav Klaus] everyone is berating, that global warming is essentially a hoax. It is being exploited by the liberal elite as a means of taxing and controlling us and the real crisis is peak oil. We're running out of proper, real energy. And it is something with an immediate and catastrophic effect in a few years' time potentially — not worrying about floating polar bears in a 150 years.

But what The Guardian forebore to publish was the reaction of Campbell:

Nicky Campbell: Hmm … The reason I talk about race as well as that …

He ignored completely Griffin's point about global warming. The BBC mindset simply cannot cope with it.

However, in due course, once they have absorbed what Griffin had to say, they will make the link with the rest of the "climate sceptics". We will forever be associated with Nick Griffin and the BNP, the Holocaust denier, reinforcing the BBC's image of those who dare to depart from the orthodoxy.

COMMENT THREAD

It's how you tell 'em

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

Just to recap

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 – 1

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

Who's laughing now?

"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

European elections 2009

This is our running post, on which we'll follow the UK results as they come in. Updates added at the bottom.

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. Under the Nice rules, only 72 seats are being fought.

20.30: It's going to be an interesting night. In the North East, with only three seats up for grabs, Labour seems set to take one. But the shock is that - at this time - the Tories and UKIP are "neck and neck", with the Lib-Dems coming fourth. Last time round, it was the three main parties that took the seats.

20.33: East Midlands … Keith Vaz believes the Labour vote is holding up. This is the region where, in 2005, Kilroy was standing, bringing in two seats. UKIP is on the back foot here.

20.41: First official estimate of the EU-wide turnout - 43.01 percent of eligible voters voted, compared with 45.47 percent last time.

20.49: In Ireland, Brian Cowen's "embattled Government" is under massive strain after its worst ever election meltdown and opposition claims it no longer has any credibility. The Dail will resume on Tuesday with a resurgent Fine Gael, now the largest party in the state for the first time, preparing to table a vote of no confidence.

20.50: A reminder - Northern Ireland takes three seats. The count there does not start until 9am tomorrow. Thus, we only get 69 results tonight. Official results start coming in from 9pm this evening.

20.53: Cornwall: Labour in sixth place?

20.59: Eastern region – UKIP looks as if they could have two, possibly three (outside chance). BNP vote collapsed.

21.00: Denmark - UEN and Greens each gain a seat. Sarkozy gets 11 more seats in France. Not an anti-government vote there, but likely to be an anomaly. Greens also up. Anti-capitalists also up.

21.04: North West - Lib-Dims claiming BNP will not get a seat.

21.10: Labour meltdown in Wales and Scotland predicted.

21.12: Swedish exit polls suggest the new populist Pirate Party has polled 7.4 percent of the vote. The opposition Social Democrats are getting 25 percent, up slightly from 2004. The biggest losers seem to be the the Left Party. Exit polls give it 5.1 per cent.

21.17: Romania's ruling coalition won the most votes. Each are expected to take one third of the 33 MEP seats on offer. The centre-left Social-Democrats have won 30.8 percent of the vote. The centrist Democrat-Liberals were just 0.3 percent behind. Each party is expected to win about 11 seats.

21.23: Eastern region: UKIP looking almost certainly three seats. UKFirst lead the rest of the minority groups, beating BNP.

21.36: In Lebanon, on the other hand, the turn-out was 52 per cent; somewhat higher than across the EU. Just thought I'd mention it.

21:40: Orkney led the pack, beating all the other local authority areas to announce its outcome. Lib-Dims secured 31.9 percent, SNP second on 20.2 percent, the Conservatives on 15.2 percent, Greens on 9.2 percent, UKIP on 8.5 percent, and the Labour Party trailing in sixth place on 7.0 percent. Turnout was 25.9 per cent.

21.43: North East: Labour 147,338, Cons 116,911, Lib-dims 103,444, UKIP 90,700, BNP 52,700, Greens 34,081, English Democrats 13,007, Socialist Labour Party 10,238, No2EU 8,066, Christian Party 7,263, Libertas 3,010, Jury Team 2,904. Labour gets one seat, second goes to Tories and the third to the Lib Dims. No change ... UKIP misses out with 15.4 percent of the vote, up 3.2. Labour down nine percent, Tories up one. At a rough count, the "tiddlers" (apart from BNP, Greens and UKIP) took 43,000 votes. If half had gone to UKIP, it would have got the seat.

21.48: Farage very defensive on BBC.

21.55: Tories might top the poll in Wales. UKIP might just get the fourth (of four) seats.

21.59: German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives suffered around a six-percentage-point fall in their share of the vote but had a clear lead over other parties. The vote is seen a litmus test for Merkel ahead of the general election in September. FDP set to take 12 seats.

22.09: Less than 35 percent turnout in Germany.

22.14: Highest turnout recorded in Belgium at 91 percent.

22.17: The Fragrant One (Margot Wallstrom) calls the low turnout "a bad result." It shows the need to work to "change the perception" that the European Union is detached from its citizens. Not that the EU is "detached" - this is just a "perception". The voters got it wrong again.

22.32: Projections show Germany's Social Democrats heading for their worst showing in a nationwide election since the Second World War. But, with a 35 percent turnout (against 37.5 percent in 2004) it is difficult to judge. The Incidentally, the largest federal Land, North Rhine-Westphalia, only polled 18 percent.

22.33: Bruno Waterfield reports that the EU parliament has passed 404 laws since the last elections in 2004. Another 233 are in the pipeline, meaning that MEPs are currently "churning out" two pieces of EU law a week.

22.36: Yorkshire - Con Home suggests 2 Cons and one each for Lab, Lib-Dims, UKIP and BNP.

22.40: Count almost finished. Looks as if the Yorks result stands ... BNP's first seat, outperforming the North West.

22.44: Turnout in the North West was 31.9 percent. Manchester and Liverpool well down at 24 and 27 percent respectively. Results expected at around 11.30pm.

22.47: East Midlands expected in half-hour. UKIP vote well down.

22.50: Spain: "Right wing" People's party wins its first national victory for nine years. Socialist prime minister Zapatero sees a loss of 3.75 percentage points just 15 months after winning a general election.

22.51: In Cornwall, South West Region, the Cornish Nationalist Party seems to have beaten Labour, pushing it into sixth place.

22.52: Three updates have gone AWOL while everything the boss puts up stays up. I suspect a plot. If this goes on there will be a rebellion in Shepherds Bush.

23.00: One last attempt to report on a few items from other countries. If this does not work, the rebellion will take off. It will be painful for all concerned.

In Denmark Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen's Liberals are expected to keep their three seats while the Social Democrats, though in the lead, may well lose one to the Danish People's Party, usually described as anti-immigrant. It is, also, a centre-right conservative party that opposes further erosion of Danish sovereignty and Denmark's entry into the single currency. The People's Movement against the EU, which campaigns for Danish withdrawal from the bloc, is expected to hold on to its one seat. But the Eurosceptic June movement will not gain any MEPs. The turn-out was actually higher than in 2004 at 51 per cent, up from 47.9 per cent.

In Hungary the opposition FIDESZ party is set to take 16 seats out of the 22 allotted to the country. The Social Democrats are likely to have 4, down from 9 and the right-wing nationalist party, the Jobbik, looks like taking 2.

In Finland the Eurosceptic 'True Finns' party and the Finnish Christian Democrats are each expected to win two seats. The centre-right National Coalition Party, the liberal Centre Party and the Social Democratic Party are all projected to lose a seat each, taking them down to three, three and two MEPs respectively.

The Greens and the Swedish People's Party, who are also in the government, are expected to maintain a seat each.

23.12: Eastern Region result - Conservative 500,331 (31.2 - up 0.4 percent), UKIP, 313,921 (19.6 - no change), Lib Dims 221,235, Labour 167,833, Greens 141,016, BNP 97,013, UKFirst 38,185, English Democrats 32,211, Christian Party, 24,646, No2EU 13,923, SDP 13,599, Animals count 13,201, Libertas 9,940, Independent 9,916, Jury Team 6,354, Rejected 13,164. MEPs ... three Con, two UKIP, one LD, one Labour. Labour loses six percent.

23.28: Yorkshire: First BNP victory - Two Con, one Lab, one UKIP, one Lib-Dem, one BNP. Andy Burnham says "a sad moment". Share: Conservatives on 25 percent (no change) Labour down 8 percent.

Detailed results: Cons 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. Turnout 32.3 percent - 1,226,180 voted out of an electorate of 3,792,415.

24:44: Wales: One Conservative, One Labour, One Plaid and one UKIP.



00.01: A quick break from the UK results. Why, incidentally, is it taking so long to count them? Counting started at 4pm and so far we have had three results. What is keeping the others? Can find nothing about London, incidentally. Surely, those drongos aren't leaving the counting till tomorrow?

Meanwhile, in the Czech Republic the centre-right ODS has done reasonably well. It has gained 28.9 percent of the vote and retained nine seats. The Social Democrats gained 24.6 per cent and will have 7 seats. The Communist Party, unreformed since 1989, saw its vote drop from 20.3 to 15.5 percent and therefore lost two seats. The Christian Democrats gained a second seat, despite seeing their share of the vote drop from 9.6 to 8.2 percent.

00.09: Welsh results: Conservatives 145,193 (21.2 percent, up 1.8), Labour 138,852 (20.3 percent, down 12.2), Plaid 126, 702 (18.5 - up 1.1), UKIP 87,585 (12.8 - up 2.3), Lib-Dims 73,082 (10.7 - up 2.0) Greens 38,160 (5.6 - up 5.6) BNP 37,114 (5.6 - up 2.5) Christian Party 13,037, SLP 12,402, No2EU 8,600, Jury Team 3,793.

00.16: West Midlands - could be two UKIP.

00.18: Nigel Farage says: "So far there are tremors but before the end of the night we could have created a political earthquake."

0021: Vote share (BBC projection): Cons 27 percent, UKIP 17 percent, Labour (third place) 16 percent, Lib Dims 14 percent, Green 9 percent, BNP 6 percent. "The bottom end of Labour's expectations - it would be difficult for a major national party to do any worse."

00.22: London result delayed by "computer failure". (Typical. HS)

00.23: Turn-out in Slovakia was 19.6 percent, up from 2004 when it was 16.7 percent. Centre-left are in the lead. European Voice calls Slovakia the most apathetic country in the EU. Maybe they are just more honest about their politicians.

00.29: Worst Labour result in Wales since 1918.

00.34: Richard Corbett is the casualty in Yorkshire. He is deputy leader of Labour MEPs - and a rabid europhile.


00.36: BBC projects thirteen seats for UKIP.

00.42: London: Conservatives 479,037, Lab 372,590, Lib-Dims 240,156, Greens 190,589, UKIP 188,440, BNP 86,420, Christian Party 51,336, Ind - Jananayagam 50,014, English Democrats 24,477, JT 7,284, N2E 17,758, Pl 8,444, SLP 15,3006, SPGB 4,050, Yes 2 E 3,384, Ind 1,972, Ind, 4,918, Ind, 3,248, Ind 1,603, Rejected 11,374

Three Conservatives, two Labour, one Lib-Dim, one Green, one UKIP. One less seat ... Labour loses one, otherwise no change. UKIP vote down 1.6 percent.

00.51: BBC predicts UKIP and Labour will gain same number of seats.

00.53: East Midlands. Two Con, one Lab, one UKIP, one Lib-Dim. Kilroy effect strikes ... UKIP down 10 percent, loses one seat. Lib-Dims gain one.

1.02: Pirate Party in Sweden will take only one seat with 7.1 percent of the vote. Shame. The four government coalition parties (moderately centre right) have won 42.5 percent of the vote. The Social Democrats and their allies, the Left Party and the Greens won 41.1 percent. Voter turn-out 43.8 percent, which is actually up on 2004.

1.07: According to the BBC UKIP is now in third position with 1,096,380, which is 15.5 per cent and 6 seats. Labour is second with 1,263,567, 17.8 per cent and 7 seats. Conservatives lead with 1,911,549, 12.0 per cent (1.6 per cent up) and 12 seats.

01.21: South West Region: BNP 60,889, Christian Party 21,329, Conservatives 468,742, English Democrats 25,313, Fair Pay, 7,151, Jury Team 5,758, Lib-Dims 266,253, Cormwall 14,922, No2EU 9,741, Pension 37,785, Libertas 7,292, SLP 10,033, Greens 144,178, Labour 118,716, UKIP 341,845, YD 789, Ind 8,971

Three Conservatives, two UKIP, one Lib-Dim. Cons gain one – no Labour MEP, in fifth place.

01.26: South East Region: (partial results) BNP 101,769, Christian Party 35,712, Conservatives 812,288, English Democrats 52,526, Fair Pay, 7,151, Jury Team 14,1725,758, Lib-Dims 330,440, No2EU 21,455, Pension 16,768, Libertas 7,292, Greens 144,178, Labour 192,592, UKIP 440,002.

Four Cons, two UKIP, two Lib-Dim, one Green, one Labour. No change in seats. Hannan gets back in. Labour in fifth place. Marta Andreasen is in. Could be fun. She knows where the bodies are buried.

01.29: "Nothing is solid anymore," says The Guardian. Where do they get them from?

01.32: Eight declared ... two to go tonight. NI and Scotland tomorrow.

01.43: Polly Toynbee calls for Brown to stand down.

Labour down seven percent overall, on results so far declared. Philip Webster, The Times's political editor is reporting that Gordon Brown's allies and at least some of those who want him out appeared to agree yesterday that he should be given a breathing space after the shock of the European election results.

01.55: UKIP is on course to finishing second after the Conservatives and there are rumours that Nick Griffin has won a seat.

01.56: West Midland: Tories two, UKIP two (as predicted), Labour one, Lib-Dims one. BNP and Greens didn't make it. Only one more to go. Hurrah.

02.01: North West - unofficial declaration. Nick Griffin gets in. Three Tory, two Labour, one UKIP, one Lib-Dim and one BNP. Labour loses one. That's it folks. More later today.

02.11: Heh! North West declares officially. Conservatives: 423,174, 25.6 percent (+1.5), 3 seats - no change; Labour: 336,831, 20.4 percent (-6.9), 2 seats - lose 1; UKIP: 261,740, 15.8 percent (+1.7), 1 seat - no change; Lib-Dims: 235,639, 14.3 percent (-1.6), 1 seat - no change; BNP: 132,094, 8.0 percent (+1.6), 1 seat. Nick Griffin is in. More details in the morning. This time truly so.

COMMENT THREAD

The day of the others?

The experience of a Labour activist is recorded in The Observer, one which he would rather forget. On doorsteps he had found the mood among voters shifting over the last fortnight from "unbridled anger" to disdain: "The public now just view us with complete contempt," he says.

The Sunday Times, therefore, is not taking any great gamble when it suggests that today will be the day of the "others". In the local elections, they polled heavily even if they rarely won seats. But their presence was felt in one in six wards, triggering a fall in the share of the vote for all three major parties.

Against Labour, which stood at a historic low of 22 percent, the "others" took 18 percent but, says the paper, this is likely to seem comparatively modest when the euro results come in.

The Sunday Telegraph seems to agree, forecasting that the "anti-European" vote is set to be the chief beneficiary of "the protest vote against MPs". It cites a "Labour insider" suggesting that the Tories will gain 30 percent of the vote (as against 38 percent in the locals). UKIP is put in second place in the low 20s and Labour, the Lib-Dems and the Greens below that.

BNP is not expected to make a big breakthrough although "Labour sources" believe it could win a seat in the north west of England or in the west midlands. The BNP itself is cautiously optimistic, forecasting at least one seat, with a chance of taking another three. Regions to watch are the East Midlands, Yorkshire, the West Midlands and the North West.

The money, however, is on UKIP to make the big gains, a view shared by The Independent. The Greenies perhaps may also pick up a brace of extra seats.

With the English Democrats winning the mayoralty in Doncaster though – much to the surprise of its own candidate, who was expecting to struggle to keep his deposit – it looks as if the electorate has the capacity to surprise.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, no one seems to be keen to make predictions as to the results when they are declared at 10pm tonight. The only thing which seems certain is that that the "others" are set to take centre stage, but then even that could be thrown out by the plethora of candidates. If they rob UKIP, the main three could creep back in, albeit on very low shares of the vote.

Thus, the only certainty about tonight's results is that there is no certainty about tonight's results.

COMMENT THREAD

Vote for Dave?

"A vote for the Conservatives is also a vote for a referendum on the EU constitution. We're the only party that has stuck by the promise to give people their say".

That is in a letter signed personally by William Hague, dated 26 May - as unequivocal as you can get. There are no caveats whatsoever. The message is clear, simple and direct: vote Conservative and you will get a referendum.

And if that is not a direct lie, it is a half-truth. If the German constitutional court rules against it, if the Irish vote – for the second time – against it, and/or if Klaus manages to hold out long enough, so that the treaty is not ratified by the time the Conservative administration takes over, then we will get a referendum. Otherwise, as "call me Dave" tells us in The Daily Telegraph today, we will "not let matters rest".

Had Mr Hague's letter contained all the caveats, as indeed if had Elastoplast's speech, either or both would have come over as flat and equivocal. So they dress it up and keep the small-print for another day.

The title we gave our piece commenting on Dave's speech was Are we being taken for fools?. All the indications suggest that the answer must be in the affirmative. And, all else aside, that is the one thing that is intolerable from the mouths of any politician. We will not have it.

But there is something deeper here. Even if little Dave doesn't know it, his advisors have told him that, to sweep the board at the euro-elections, all he has to do is one thing: give us an absolute, unequivocal, bankable promise that he will give us a referendum.

In fact, Dave does know it, and the very fact that he does not make that promise, but goes out of his way to pretend that he has given it, speaks volumes.

In that sense, the Conservatives are worse than Labour. At least with Labour, what you see is what you get – repulsive, venal, low grade and all the rest. But little Dave would have you believe that somehow he is above it all. "Trust me," he says … or implies. My co-editor had it in one.

Despite this, The Daily Telegraph leader goes to great pains today to tell us "Why a vote for Ukip is a wasted vote" – with a vote for the BNP "something much worse". However, when it comes to UKIP, here in Yorkshire, the lead candidate is Godfrey Bloom. My response to voting for that low-life scum is, "not even if Hell froze over".

Nevertheless, the Telegraph, as do the Tories, want us to use the euros as a surrogate for a general election – to give Gordon Brown a message. That in turn conveys its own message. A vote for any MEP is a wasted vote. As we remarked earlier, all we are allowed is to pick the pigs who feed at the gold-plated euro-trough.

The temptation, therefore, is to walk away from the elections – quite deliberately to stay at home and refuse to vote. Another attractive alternative is to spoil the ballot paper, marking it "None of the Above" or "leave the EU" – or some such other futile gesture.

One other option - which many people are determined to take - is to vote BNP - for precisely the reason Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, tells us we should not. It is because they are so repulsive.

Although Nazir-Ali cautions that "the apparent moral failure of MPs shouldn't tempt us into extremism," many people want to send this message to the incumbents: "However foul the BNP is, or might be in your estimation, you are worse. You, the politicians, have feathered your nests at our expense, you have lied to us, you have cheated us and you have betrayed us. We are sick to the hind teeth of the lot of you."

It it a sad and sorry pass we have come to. There is just time to recover the situation, but the politicians are going to have to work very hard to avoid what would be a travesty of the democratic process if these loathesome people got in.

COMMENT THREAD

Empty promises

A Populus poll for The Times has the Tories on 30 percent for the euros with UKIP in second place on 19, relegating Labour to third place on 16. The Lib-Dems get 12 percent, the Greens poll 10 and the BNP are on 5 percent (eight percent in the North).

What is interesting about this is that Cameron's speech about needing a "massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power ... from the EU to Britain ..." seems to have made no difference to UKIP's fortunes. Nor indeed has his apparently unequivocal pledge to give us a referendum on the constitutional Lisbon treaty.

No doubt this is because the majority of people did not believe that Cameron meant what he said, doubt that was – it appears – entirely justified from comments in The Daily Telegraph today.

In that paper, Andrew Porter interviews Mr Elastoplast, asking him outright whether he will "finally promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even if it has been ratified elsewhere?" And the reply is the stock Tory answer: we will "not let matters rest" says the Boy. "I think everybody understands this, if the treaty is ratified by everyone and the election isn't until 2010 and the Irish vote yes then obviously I won't be content with that."

Thus, as we suspected all along, the apparent promise to hold a referendum come what may was not a promise after all. Mr Cameron was playing word games and nothing at all has changed.

By coincidence though, William Hague is interviewed by The Spectator, where he tells us that: "Trust in politics is now at an unprecedented low point; the shameless and deliberate abrogation of a binding manifesto pledge [on the treaty referendum] is surely one of the reasons why."

Another reason, young William might venture, is the Conservatives playing word games on the referendum. Empty promises, it seems, are the politicians' stock in trade – and people are getting a tad sick of them.

COMMENT THREAD

Filling the vacuum

Where one would like to see the blogosphere leading the charge, dominating the political debate as it is doing in the United States, the heart sinks when we see the desperately trivial contribution to the "great constitutional debate" made by Tory Diary.

Oblivious to the discussions going on around him, Tim Montgomerie suggests only what amount to marginal changes, failing to address the fundamental failures in the system, arguing for such things as a five percent annual reduction in taxpayer funding of political parties until it is completely eliminated. Even his one substantive point, "A renegotiation of our relationship with Europe that will see key powers returned to Westminster" is weak, building on the Conservative myth that renegotiation is in fact a possibility.

Elsewhere, in the much-derided MSM, we get two intelligent contributions. One is from Adrian Hamilton in The Independent on reform of the Select Committee system. The other is from David Green, director of Civitas, in The Daily Telegraph.

Green offers "a radical solution would be to ensure the complete separation of powers by emulating countries such as Germany, France and the US, where government ministers are forbidden to serve in the elected assembly."

As for Hamilton, he argues that most select committees are led by placemen, made up of the mediocre and tasked with the irrelevant. He is worried that calls for reform are directed at the wrong problem. The aim, according to the reformers, he says, is to enable parliament better to hold the executive to account. Yet is setting up Commons Committees as attack dogs on the government really their most useful function, he asks. Hamilton thus continues:

If the problem were an overweening central government out of control, as the reformers suggest, that might be so. But the problem of government in Britain is not really an untrammelled executive, for all the size of recent parliamentary majorities. It is that policy making and legislation is so poor.

The failures of health and education policy, the negligence of financial regulation, the mistakes of military procurement, the lack of North Sea depletion policy or a balanced energy strategy, the perversion of Public-Private Finance Initiatives, the timidity of the transport approach, the tardiness of environmental measures – all these arise not from an over-strong executive, but a political system that has been unwilling or unable to work through and discuss alternative approaches to central issues.

Select committees ought to fulfil this function.

That is a good point, arguing for a more proactive involvement by committees. Riding a populist bandwagon after the event is not fulfilling any special public duty, says Hamilton, echoing our argument on defence procurement, where the committee should be involved before a purchasing decision is made. It should not be left merely to comment on the failures, some time after the event, when money had been wasted and men have died.

Arguably, these two issue of "separation of powers" and reform of the select committee system are amongst the most important we need to address. But they seem to have passed the political blogosphere by, and are sadly absent from Montgomerie's offerings.

Some long time ago, we reviewed a report on the political blogsophere, and not much seems to have changed since. The commentary is still largely lightweight and derivative, and the MSM is still making the running. The blogosphere needs to up its game.

Nor is this an academic issue. Despite the "right" preening itself on dominating the blogosphere, the BNP – as the above graphic shows – is still the lead political website by a long chalk. And yesterday, we saw another by-election success for the BNP, where it took 19 percent of the vote in Middlesborough's North Ormesby & Brambles Farm ward, coming second after Labour and relegating the Conservatives to third place.

Unless we as a collective are able to offer better, real improvements to the system, the BNP will win the argument by default. Either we fill the vacuum or they do.

COMMENT THREAD