Archive

Posts Tagged ‘UKIP’

Stoke Central will define UKIP’s future success or failure

January 21, 2017 Leave a comment

paul-nuttallWith our world being awash with significant events on what feels like an almost daily basis, it would be very easy to overlook the potential impact of the Stoke Central By-Election both in terms for the future of Labour, put perhaps more importantly UKIP.

Speculation over when and where Paul Nuttall, the new leader of UKIP might next attempt to secure a seat in Parliament have been trickling around the media and blog sites since he was elected. But his decision to now contest what some will say is a very winnable seat, will surely define much more in terms of his Party’s future, than it will about him alone.

UKIP’s definitive purpose was effectively achieved on the 23rd of June. This is a fact that it is surely borne out by Nigel Farage’s decision to quit the Leadership of the Party and take up commentating roles first with LBC and now Fox News in the States.

Those remaining within UKIP may overtly tell us that their job is now to ‘hold the government’s feet to the fire’ in terms of what Brexit will ultimately deliver. However, the motives of those who have stuck with that specific cause may now come into serious public question, given that in their own words, much of Theresa May’s Brexit Speech either echoes or copies much of what they have already said.

It would be foolish to write off the influence that UKIP has had upon the Brexit decision and the chances are that the Prime Minister will still come to regret not reaching out to Farage in some meaningful way. However, the question of whether people really see UKIP as the voice which speaks for change, or as a change which gave them a voice has yet to be fully proven. Stoke Central will almost certainly provide that opportunity.

In the weeks ahead, the lamentable performance of Labour under Jeremy Corbyn will go head to head with what we are led to believe is a resurgent Conservative Party and a UKIP which is now attempting to channel itself as the people’s champion and all things to all people.

However, whether those who vote come from a suburban re-mainstay or a potteries haven for leavers, attempting to equate the outcome of any future election with the way that people voted in the European Referendum, would in itself do them the considerable injustice of suggesting that Brexit has only ever been about one thing. It never was and never will be.

The question that the media and political establishments might now be better asking would be about the relationship of UKIP’s election successes to date. Yet none of them seem interested in whether the population as a whole is rather more savvy or intuitive about the political branding to which it will entrust real responsibility, choosing instead to continue talking up the kind of populist mobilisation that out-of-touch politicians are staking the hells-pace evolution of their unedifying careers upon.

If Nuttall wins in Stoke Central, the out-of-touch establishment may be seen to be correct in their assumptions. We will surely then observe even more of a scrap within Labour, UKIP and the Tories as they try and deliver messages that sound every bit more radical than the last.

However, if UKIP fails, the point will surely have been made that the establishment is overdue in accepting that meaningful change must now come from within the mainstream of politics itself and that it is time to stop blaming all of their political woes upon everybody else.

That would of course be the case if we had a political culture which could face up to being wrong.

 

image thanks to http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Televised Debates for the 2015 General Election: Shouldn’t we hear from all those who could have power after 7th May, rather than just those who have won an Election before?

January 12, 2015 Leave a comment

Televised-election-debate-004

 

Just a week ago, the odds on Ofcom giving David Cameron an excuse not to enter the pre-General Election TV debates may well have looked pretty remote. Seven days on; one pull of the Green flush in the rules-room of the communications regulator and to some people, that is exactly what seems to have happened.

But however hard the PM might argue the moral justification of his apparent support for the Greens, few are buying into the apparent magnanimity of this gesture, even if for other reasons, he may unwittingly have a significant point.

The reasoning behind the decision to preclude the Greens and the smaller Parties has been based upon polling and previous electoral performance. It is a decision that would work favourably well if we were all looking to maintain the status quo, and only concentrate on the ‘establishment’, which itself now apparently includes UKIP, a Party that will arguably be assisted in fighting this Parliamentary Election on the basis of their electoral successes in Europe alone.

Polling does indeed seem to have become a science and dismissing this branch of statistics and the benefits of its use would be foolish however you might feel about it. However, polling is based upon people’s responses to questions regarding information that those people have about a situation, circumstances or what they are experiencing at that exact moment in time. It is little more than a snapshot and not one which can accurately predict how those same people would behave or react if they are given what they genuinely consider to be different options, or they find themselves having had an experience following the poll which would change their mind about the choices that they have.

All well and good if you are a ‘national-election-winning’ political party. But we are reaching the end of a 5 year Coalition Government, which came into being simply because none of the Parties running in 2010 with a chance of winning offered a platform which gained a decisive response from the public.

So when polling itself suggests that we are on course for the same, or perhaps an even greater dispersal of Parliamentary Seats amongst Parties, should it only be those same Parties, that by default then become the predominant members of the planned political telethon which could well influence the outcomes for our future?

The elephant in the room that political expedience fails to recognise was that in 2010, people didn’t feel convinced by the choices that they had. Voters didn’t anticipate a ‘hung parliament’ and very few would have been hoping for the final outcome, even if those who follow politics more closely will have seriously considered its probability as an outcome.

Whilst the Liberal Democrats paint this as being a choice, the unintended selection of indecisive Government burdened by compromise, arguably just because it suits the interests of the Political Parties who have most to gain, doesn’t really reflect upon putting the best interests of the Voting Electorate first.

Further compounding the ineptness and arguably self-serving nature of the decision by then introducing minimum 5 year Parliamentary Terms has not exactly given anybody else the feeling of legitimacy that was obviously intended either.

People want change. Voters want choice. The Electorate wants to see and understand the differences between ALL of the choices that are on offer.

With this in mind, it would perhaps be the case that the fairest way to select candidates for a televised debate would be to wait and see how many candidates have been accepted to represent each Party within Constituencies, and then in turn whether the number seeking election could form a majority Government if they were all elected.

In 1992, the Natural Law Party gained national exposure by fielding enough candidates across the Country to trigger access to Election Broadcasts. Yogic Flying may well have added an element of intrigue for some and outright comedy for others. But it certainly gave a televised forum to a Party that at the time could have painted a very different picture of Nineties Britain if they had collectively been elected to a position where they either held, or could influence power.

It’s a bit of a stretch in terms of what we might consider a likely outcome to view small Parties as contenders to form a majority Government on May 8th. But on the other side of this two-edged electoral sword, UKIP were of course never supposed to have won 2 Seats last Autumn, and the numerical requirement to get David Cameron or Labour‘s Ed Milliband in to No. 10 could turn out to be a lot less than the 57 Seats that the Lib Dems added to the Conservatives biggest-party-with minority-status last time around.

The truth of the peculiar political reality which may follow this General Election is more likely to rest in the hands of Nigel Farage (UKIP), Alex Salmond (SNP), Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru), Natalie Bennett (The Greens) or perhaps even them all, than it is with the existing mainstream Parties who are not even trying to sound different in the way that some of their smaller competitors certainly are.

On this basis alone, and knowing the havoc that could be inflicted by the trade-offs that might include a black and white, in-out referendum on Europe; greater steps towards the independence of Scotland, or even the scrapping of the Nuclear Deterrent at a time when World stability is far from secure, should we not really have the opportunity to listen to what the potential kingmakers really have to say?

image: theguardian.com

 

Britain’s Political Crisis: Set up a new political party; stand to be an independent MP; but however frustrated you are with Politics, do bear in mind…

December 2, 2014 Leave a comment

Ballot-box_1861302c

Even the most fervent political party supporters will struggle to avoid acknowledging the general disillusionment and feeling that many people now experience with British Politics.

The fact is that all of the mainstream Political Parties – even UKIP, will continue the same way that they currently do so at their own peril.

For many of us, seeing yourself as being cut off and without even the remotest hope of being able to influence anything in Government is not a pleasant experience. Least of all when we see decisions being made which we can in no way relate to, or changes taking place in our own communities or neighborhoods which simply have no reflection on what we or anybody else that we know seems to think.

A lot of people toy with the idea of putting up or shutting up where today’s political mess is concerned.

It is also a pretty safe bet that whilst they may not openly talk about it, many of the people that you know will have experienced one of those moments where they just ‘know’ that things could somehow be a lot better and that the way things are today, simply aren’t right.

Some already have the platform to speak loudly about the injustices of a political system that serves its own interests before anyone else. Yet many more normal people outside the world of politics and celebrity are frustrated by the seemingly endless status quo where nothing ever changes and politicians happily tell us that everything is improving when quite frankly, just about everyone but them seems to know that it isn’t.

It comes as little surprise then, that in Elections, a growing number of people are voting for Parties and Independent Candidates outside of the ‘traditional’ remits of the Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Parties, and that there is in fact a growing number of political parties being established right across the Country.

Very few politicians are prepared to openly acknowledge the lack of balance and consideration for the consequences of ill-considered policy making throughout Government. But those that do almost certainly share the desire of all people outside of politics to see something different to what everyone else today seems forced to experience.

However, those that do understand both the situation and the way that British Politics works will also probably question just how much benefit the creation of a plethora of new movements will bring to us all, when what the UK needs is change of a very radical and meaningful kind. Change that we all need to experience right now.

The realities of starting a new political ‘Movement’

To get some real perspective on the impact a new political party is likely to make, the history of UKIP provides a very clear guideline.

Born from the embers of the Anti-Federalist League in 1993, it has taken the Party 21 years to get its first MP genuinely elected to Parliament and then, only through the focus of the electoral magnifying lense which is a Parliamentary By-Election.

As a single-issue party, it is arguably only what would be at very best a rare and perhaps unique combination of a cause célèbre – which gives UKIP a nationwide profile – and the current political climate that leaves the electorate looking for change, which now places the Party in a position of being ‘mainstream electable’.

Had Europe not been the UK’s political bogeyman for such a long time, UKIP or indeed the anti-European movement itself would have almost certainly been absorbed by one or perhaps all of the main parties long ago, if indeed the creation of a new political stream beyond that of the others had been necessary in the first place.

This fact probably demonstrates the greatest threat to any new party, as finding traction with any issue that is palatable in mainstream thinking is unlikely to take place much before one or more of the other Parties adopts a position on the same footing.

We only need to observe the way that the Conservatives and Labour are struggling to regain or rather recapture the initiative from UKIP over issues such as Immigration in recent weeks to understand what happens when an issue finds its way from the outside into what political commentators might call the centre ground.

However, in this instance, we are again seeing party political machines maneuvering themselves with the objective of securing future power, rather than engaging in any kind of meaningful change that demonstrates an understanding of the real issues which sit behind the public discontent.

Were it not so, David Cameron would hardly have been off to Europe to ask the permission of 27 other Countries to change laws which the electorate of his own Government so clearly want.

The Party Political Paradox: We want change. We all know this. We also know that the establishment isn’t working for us. But it’s called the establishment for a very good reason.

When you consider the history and conditions which have supported the longevity and then the rise of UKIP, you soon begin to realise that the biggest problem facing any new party will be its ability and likelihood of it becoming big enough to reach and engage enough people to gain the national level of recognition and momentum which could see it effect the kind of change that we all now actually need.

Nobody should be under any illusion that UKIP may well be poised to win anything from a handful to perhaps 30 seats in May 2015, but that in doing so, the very best that it could hope to achieve would be to win the support of the biggest Parliamentary Party for perhaps one or two key policies, as it then sells itself in compromise against everything else, just to have that moment of power.

In reality, this is an opportunity that UKIP may otherwise never have, as the de facto choice or established parties will continue to morph or adapt their policies to be seen to answer the ‘UKIP question’ and in doing so, work to assure themselves a working parliamentary majority again at the earliest available opportunity.

You may think that one moment is all that it will take. But we are all already experiencing the fallout from the political stalemate which ensues from a hung parliament, and this is at a point when most of the Westminster political Parties are culturally the same, even if their philosophical viewpoints don’t quite appear to match.

The hard fact is that we are facing a situation where we need a majority of MP’s to work together to address all the issues and to change all the policies which will impact upon those issues, whilst ensuring that the impacts of those changes do not then themselves cause other problems that people looking for balance and fairness in their lives simply do not need.

The situation creates a dilemma and significant paradox.

We are all either consciously or subconsciously aware that we do as such need political parties in the sense that they exist today – or an acceptance and appreciation of common ground between a majority of politicians, in order to effect the change for the better that we need within a genuine democracy.

However, we are all just as equally aware that it is being of the establishment that provides the platform or powerbase to enact change; ground which is currently infested with a self-serving political culture and party political system which quickly excludes voices for change and sings the song of populist thought whilst giving it nothing more than a hollow meaning.

So how can we really win?

The circumstances surrounding traditional politics in the UK dictates that it functions through a culture of compromise.

Furthermore, the contemporary Political Party machine puts submissive compromise at the core of its recruitment and management processes.

However, if compromise is necessary in any way at all, the policies which result will not have genuinely been created with consideration of the best interests or of the consequences for all truly in mind.

In order for us all to win, it necessarily requires that there is a genuine change in mindset, whether that be for the incumbent Political Parties – which would arguably be a much more productive situation for everyone; or that change itself manifests within the many new and existing groups and independently minded people out here in our communities who so desperately want to see that change, that they are ready to stand for political office.

Moving forward

You may have heard the saying ‘you can’t beat the system’, and if you have come up against the way that Government and all things Legal work, you will probably be able to see the truth in this statement – even when you know that the system is itself flawed and fundamentally wrong.

For those who have been burned by the frustrations and the ‘banging your head against a brick wall’ that comes with it, there is no pleasure in seeing new and enthusiastic people entering politics who either quickly become disillusioned with the realities of the system, or simply buy in to a culture where all those that follow people who lead only for themselves then come to live and believe the idea that ‘this is just the way that things are’.

It may seem that way to those who are prepared to accept the status quo as it is and not take any risks.

But that simply isn’t the truth, and all it would take is for enough of the people already within the system to say ‘no more’ for a real difference to begin unfolding.

Change the system from within (But don’t buy in to the propaganda…)

The easiest way that we could create change, would be for that change to come from within the system itself and that would mean influencing politicians at all levels by becoming the voices that they have no choice but to listen to, i.e. part of the Parties themselves.

The problem with this approach is that it has been tried all too many times, and some very good people have failed or ultimately have become part of the very problem that all of us ‘out here’ are currently experiencing. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely…

Today we are experiencing the outcome of decades of the development of a party political system which favours the ascendency of a whole generation of politicians who treat political office as little more than a job and career, rather than being the responsibility to the electorate that most of us outside of the ‘bubble’ know that it should actually be.

Most Westminster party politicians get selected and promoted thereafter by saying and doing the right things for the right people, and most sitting MP’s today will have made it to Parliament by going along a career pathway which equips them to progress within the system extremely well, but gives them little working knowledge of what the real world is like outside.

How can they make genuinely good decisions effecting the lives of others when they have no real life experience themselves?

The very sad and highly regrettable reality is that getting enough of our sitting MP’s to change and give the British people the real voice that they should have through a majority is very unlikely.

The political culture of today says ‘don’t rock the boat or you will get thrown out’ and very few politicians are brave enough to take on a system which takes control freakery into a whole new realm.

Change the system from without (But don’t look at your fight as being one that you can win alone…)

This is where the creation of a new movement or party becomes the attractive option. But with the realities of establishing just one party that could make a difference covered above, there has to be an acceptance that creating a whole plethora of organisations will in time prove to be no more effective than getting a similar number of independent MP’s elected to Parliament.

On their own, small, localised and local community-based-issue parties will very occasionally gain enough momentum to get an MP Elected. But as just one of over 600, you can soon see how little chance there would be of making any measurable kind of difference for us all.

Working together is however a very different situation and if it were to be the case that the genuine commonality could be found between all of the disparate groups that are currently ‘out here’ already, or which may be launched at some point in the future, the potential would then exist for something very special to happen.

Knowledge of the Net and Social Media makes the task sound very easy. But without a formula which lights that spark between a whole range of people who have had the independence of mind and motivation to get something ‘of their own’ started, the prospects for success are pretty slim.

After all, some may simply be falling into the trap of thinking that politics is all about one idea ‘winning’ against the ideas of someone else and it is likely to be the case that for many, that very idea is based upon an issue which is personal to them and perhaps just a few people that they know.

The truth of the matter is that if every politician made every decision and promoted every cause on the basis of what will serve the best interests of all, whilst also considering and making allowances for the impact of those decisions on everyone else as they do so, we would no longer require left-wing or socialist politics, parties of the centre ground, or indeed the politics of the right.

Tribal politics makes debate a competition, rather than a process of exploring the methods and plans which will genuinely solve the problems that we all face.

The cold hard reality is that however fair, just or right the ideas might be which underpin the motives of a new party; without losing the idealism, the philosophy and the ‘my idea is better than yours’ mentality, any new movement is unlikely to prove itself to be any better than the Conservatives, Green, Liberal Democrats, Labour or UKIP Parties given time.

Thinking a different way:

As a culture, we have been conditioned to look at everything we experience in terms of how it either relates to or affects us personally.

This has taken place at a subconscious or even subliminal level and anyone who really wants to effect change by creating a new political movement, must themselves become mindful of the processes which sit behind this for themselves, and then begin encouraging others to also be mindful of the impact that everyone and everything has on us, the people in our lives and the world we live in.

This is no mean feat and has to be achieved without getting sucked into any of the idealist elephant traps which litter this road, such as green energy, which while being very laudable, has significant practical implications for a society of 60 Million+ people and a situation which simply doesn’t advocate the immediate binning of all other forms of energy or raising taxes on other things to subsidise it.

More and more people are waking up to the lack of balance and fairness in their own lives and those of others. But just as in the case of the Hundredth Monkey or what we colloquially call ‘memes’ that virally attract attention in what seems like the blink of an eye, the kind of awakening and preparedness that we are discussing here will have to reach a point of critical mass or the seminal moment when a positive direction of travel which cannot be influenced by any of the powers that are aligned against it is achieved.

Regrettably we have to accept that this may not be a realistic prospect on an organic basis alone.

Wait for the wheels to fall off from the inevitable meltdown (that has probably already started…)

Bleak as it may sound and as unfavorable as it may be, change itself may well have to be precipitated by a meltdown or history-changing event which opens the general population to thinking in a very different way. One that also leaves politicians who are not prepared to put the genuine need of the electorate first, with no power to prevent the ascent of those who are.

Today, there are a considerable number of issues which at one degree or another could easily prove to be the catalyst or forerunner of an event, or series of events which create the seedbed for this situation.

These could be:

  • The economy: The UK is effectively bankrupt and accumulating debt at an unprecedented rate. Politicians are continuing to write cheques on the basis of winning elections, rather than doing what they really need to do. The Chancellor’s spending spree this week does not reflect the perilous state of both the Deficit and the National Debt and the irresponsibility of thinking that borrowing can continue to grow at the current rate, just to keep a small number of people in power takes stupidity to a whole new level. Interest rates rising alone after the next General Election could be enough to blow the Deficit wide open and to a level which cannot be sustained by putting the problem off for someone else to deal with. What happens when the Government can borrow no more?
  • The Cost of Living Crisis: Beyond the Labour Party’s attempt to hijack a real issue and hollow it out for political gain, the disparity between rich and poor, the housing crisis, price rises on essential goods, cuts in public services, energy prices, low pay, the broken welfare system, non-reform of Banking and the City, and the cultural inclination to look at every transaction and relationship in terms of the profit it will make, could all lead to civil rest of a kind which would eclipse the Summer Riots of 2011 and potentially make Revolution seem like a very real prospect.
  • ISIS & Terrorism: We really do not know what lies ahead and what the impact will be of the growth of this rogue state, and indeed what its real impact will be upon our own society if terrorism should return to the UK at any great and continuing level.
  • Other: Issues such as the overextension of ‘rights’ and what this is doing to our society could also have an impact of a kind which right now may seem fanciful to those with their heads buried firmly in the sand.

The West’s deteriorating relationship with Russia and Ebola also come to mind, and whilst it may sound alarmist to even suggest thinking about the realities which could all lay behind, the fact remains that any of these issues could blow up into something which could become very meaningful to us all at any time.

***

We do need new people to come forward; to bring change and to introduce a new dimension in politics; to create a new paradigm which genuinely serves the best interests of us all. But those who want change also have to see the situation for what it is, and ‘play the game’ that it has all become.

As a population, we most certainly do deserve something better and it is possible to have it too. We just have to be realistic about the route which we will have to travel to get there and what the true cost and implications of that journey might be.

But if you are thinking about starting a party or standing in an election and you think that your own ideas are the best, or that your own interpretation of someone else’s political philosophy is the only way we will win; the fact is that we are already one person nearer to everyone losing a whole lot more.

4847

Image: Top – telegraph.co.uk, Bottom – absolutesocrates.com

UKIP: Will they change, pick up and run with the gauntlet that the Public has thrown them, or will they continue to become intoxicated by media interest and end up as a wasted opportunity, just like the other 3?

September 22, 2013 Leave a comment
Thanks to Channel 4 News/www.radiotimes.com

Thanks to Channel 4 News/www.radiotimes.com

‘You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity’ is a classic line from the Guy Ritchie Film ‘Snatch’. Immortalised by tough guy Vinnie Jones as he effortlessly pursues and catches a couple of would-be crooks as they pause for breath, it is quickly apparent that the prospect of a big pay day can almost instantaneously lead people to find themselves dangerously out of their depth when they don’t think things through or have the benefit of experience to guide them.

Whilst some would easily equate a few more metaphors to this scene when we think about our politicians and their behaviour today, it is the concept that some clearly believe that if the prize in any competition is big enough for them, no matter what their experience and ability, not only can they compete, but they can win and walk away unscathed – just as simply as that.

It stuck in my mind as I watched the 10 O’Clock News on Friday night and probably shared with many more that feeling of utter disbelief as we heard of the latest exploits of UKIP’s Godfrey Bloom, unabashedly calling a roomful of the Party’s female Members ‘sluts’ because they don’t clean behind their cookers.

Nigel Farage looked understandably incandescent when he returned to UKIP’s Conference Platform to declare that MEP Bloom had wrecked the Event, and with the Party having to all appearances been riding the crest of a growing wave as it headed for the paradise beach of political power for most of this year, it was perhaps easy – if not sadly predictable that the rip curl was at some point going to take a giant grab and put the whole Party back at clear risk of being driven back out to sea.

Whilst Mr Bloom had already gained significant success at generating unhelpful headlines with his ‘bongo bongo land’ comments, the danger to UKIP and the potential loss of this window of opportunity that they now possess to do something good for us all has been at risk for a lot longer.

UKIP’s problems are perhaps best marked out by the departure of CEO Will Gilpin in August, when comments suggesting that attempting to bring some structure to the back room of UKIP was not only impossible but akin to herding cats were bounced around by the media, and even a Party apparatchik went on record saying that the Party is full of individuals and will remain so.

The contradictions evidently at work within UKIP are not helped by the lack of clarity which often accompanies messages which the Party puts out. When Farage himself refers to UKIP’s ability to offer radical free speech, you can easily see why new and aspiring UKIP politicians believe that their quickly expanding media platform offers them the opportunity to say exactly what they like. It doesn’t.

Voters can of course be far more forgiving when it comes to obvious contradictions than the media usually are. Otherwise, the point that they are being asked to vote for anti-European mandated politicians not only to represent them in a European Parliament where we wouldn’t have seats if they were successful in their aims, but also in local Elections where the diktats from Europe affect us all the same whatever UKIP Councillors can do, would be much more of a consideration.

The reason that Europe is not the key consideration for the Public so far is the same reason that UKIP politicians and Members will ignore at their peril; that UKIP and just the presence of its rhetoric currently represents something different in a world of detached, out-of-touch and self-serving British politics.

With the need for something different never having been so great, people so far haven’t worried too much about what the detail of that something different might actually be. But they soon will.

Whilst UKIP’s apparent state of internal chaos has to date been less of an issue for the voting public than the idea that they could deliver change just on the basis of how they sound, rather than what they are actually saying; it is conversely the rules and regulation of Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives that are contributing to the steady demise of these three political monoliths, whilst none of us – whatever our political beliefs – ever get the feeling that we are really ever being well served by the people we have to date elected.

The ‘traditional’ Parties have become obsessed with rules and internal directives which stifle debate; restrict honesty and certainly do massive harm to the voting public, simply because they are fixed on preserving the future of the Parties themselves and in many cases furthering the very specific self interest of those who lead them.

The electorate desperately awaits the arrival of representation which is truly reflective of its needs and not of any particular ideology, philosophy or what are mere acts of political expedience which are designed to assure electoral victory for one self-serving set of politicians at the cost of the others. Doing what’s best for everyone is after all about being practical; not just getting lost in personal fantasy and quixotic theory simply because you have the position and opportunity to do it.

The upper hand that UKIP possesses right now is that it lacks the rules and machinations which Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives all have at play within their structures – both written and clearly assumed. UKIP is therefore placed at the advantage not only because the public are increasingly prepared to give them a go, but because they don’t have the organisational baggage which has paralysed and is preventing the three main parties from delivering meaningful change.

Its not rules which voters want from the parties they vote for. It’s not party rules that give good Government the ability to change as running a democratic Country effectively does dictate. It’s not the rules which come with a Party philosophy that will deliver what’s best for the people of Britain.

But it’s also not rules that will stop every bigoted outburst or the extreme behaviour of Councillors, MEP’s or aspiring politicians who have misinterpreted the voting public’s request for change as open season for personal viewpoints to be aired. Make no mistake that those speaking such restricted, fear-based and unworldly views are no better or morally right in their actions than the politically correct censors who they then inadvertently help in their work in aiming to prevent honest and considered debate from taking place.

What UKIP, their Members and all of the Parties need in order to serve all of us best are genuine political principles. Principles which guide – not govern all that the parties, their politicians and their members do; and principles that do allow individuals to have a voice in politics. Principles that mean every voter gets what is genuinely in their best interests and not what some political philosophy says will put them first when ultimately somewhere, somebody always loses.

It is the lack of principles, morality and willingness to put doing what is right first which has created many of the problems that the Government faces – whether those problems are acknowledged or not – which are having such a negative and far reaching impact upon the lives of normal everyday people across the UK. We all deserve better and the options for delivery seem somewhat limited.

So the question now is whether UKIP can move forward from this latest faux pas and look the opportunity that voters want to give them in the eye, rather than continue to indulge those who have suddenly found themselves with a UKIP platform, in treating the opportunity to speak out as if they were kids in a sweet shop with a free ticket – not unlike the Blair and Brown Governments who treated our public money in pretty much the same way.

Like all in British Politics today, UKIP has the ability to think different; do different and be different by making everything about what is right and what is good for all British people without bowing to prejudice or any requirement to indulge discrimination that in any guise will surely result in people losing out somewhere.

The battle that UKIP now needs to fight is for the rights, individuality and therefore genuine independence from a Nanny State for British Citizens as well as that of the Nation in which they live from its European neighbours.

Will UKIP rise to that challenge or simply become another Party which seeks to put the future of its own voice before that of all others?

Councillors’ Pay: Throwing money at more of the same just increases the odds of things going from bad to even worse

January 10, 2013 Leave a comment

If you feel at all cynical about politicians and their motives for seeking power, you are unlikely to have been left feeling refreshed by the latest row over councillors’ pay which has surfaced this morning. After all, one set of politicians laying out the stall to put more money into the pockets of another is hardly the story that anyone outside of politics wants to hear. But is the promise of higher pay for councillors really the only answer to better local government?

The motives for becoming a politician at any level are not what many would hope or perhaps expect. Whilst the pathway to becoming a member of a local authority may be based upon an entirely different set of aspirations from those who become MP’s, the biggest difference between the two is the full-time and fully remunerated nature of all the roles in Westminster which have propagated and supported the rise of the ‘career politician’.

As a Local Councillor myself, I can look back on my own political history to date and know that it was not money which motivated me to contest my first Borough Election in 2003 and come 5th for a 2-seat Ward. It was not looking good and being seen by others as having responsibility in a public role which drove me to take part in the County Elections of 2005 and experience a recount to finish in 3rd place for a 2-seat Division. But it was a belief in something better for all and the sense of providing a voice for those who choose not or are unable to do so for themselves that did push me to go out each time and then win my first Borough Seat in 2007. Sadly it is not the same for all too many others.

The reality of local government, whether you are Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or Independent, is that it is a place of frustration for the well-intended. A place where the power to influence decision making in its greatest sense simply doesn’t exist – much in the same way that the handful of our better-intentioned MP’s will have discovered to their absolute horror when they first arrived in Parliament.

It is a cold hard fact that within any system of government where so many of the would-be decision makers have arrived on the basis of personal gain and advancement, it is that very same emotional buy-in which propelled them there that prevents them and others from doing anything truly selfless when it has even the slightest risk of making those selfishly-based positions any less secure.

Such fear has propagated the growth of an insidious culture within local government where officers are often left leading the leaders with their own protectionist based views which put jobs, conditions and the limitation of all risks above any decision which actually may be the right one for the Taxpayers who fund them. It is a pathway which over many years has led to the unsustainable cost of direct services that should never have even been put at risk; coupled to a future which above all else is inextricably linked to such wonders as the bottomless pit which is the Local Government Pension Scheme.

Increasing councillors ‘pay’ to ‘realistic levels’, will only encourage more of those with the same self-interest to step forward and to then fight even harder to protect their own interests once elected. Part-time career politicians would quickly become as prevalent throughout the lower tiers of government as their full time counterparts are at Westminster, and it is the very term ‘career’ which in this sense says so very much about what is wrong with politics and where the true motives of many politicians lie today.

Reform at all levels of government should be an absolute priority, but should not be restricted to executive, administrative or technical functions.

The political party system is also failing people as much locally as it is nationally and throwing money at more of the same just increases the odds of things going from bad to even worse.

%d bloggers like this: