Who will govern after 7 May 2015? Readers' opinions

This year’s General Election promises to be the most unpredictable in living memory. For months, as assiduously documented by UK Polling Report, opinion polls have shown a narrow gap between the two leading parties – Labour and Conservative – with the former generally maintaining a narrow lead over the latter. However, this promises to be no typical General Election, for politics in the UK is no longer the traditional two-horse race that dominated the twentieth century after the demise of Lloyd George’s Liberal Party. Old party loyalties have frayed, with many voters displaying an increasing willingness to lend their votes to newer smaller parties, despite the limitations placed on their likely success imposed by the first-past-the-post system (with the exception of the SNP in this respect).

Labour, having sowed the seed of devolution, are shortly, it would seem, about to reap the whirlwind. Following the SNP’s defeat in the independence referendum but subsequent victory in Scottish opinion polls, we could be about to witness the death of the Labour Party as a national force as its MPs in Scotland are swept away by a rising nationalist tide. The Conservative Party has already undergone this process, having effectively become a party restricted to England and Wales. Given the projections relating to the SNP’s likely share of the vote in Scotland, with its rise in popularity being largely at the expense of Labour, Miliband’s party could be heading for near electoral wipeout north of the border in May. Nonetheless, it is clear that the SNP would make for natural bedfellows with Labour rather than the Conservatives. A minority Labour administration propped up by the SNP is a highly plausible scenario, as well as the least desirable, for Labour has indicated that it is in ‘principle’ against the concept of English votes for English laws, which whilst anti-democratic, plays into the narrow self-interest of the Labour Party. We could well therefore witness a situation in which Scotland effectively holds the rest of the Union to ransom, with the SNP exacting as many financial concessions as possible from Westminster, whilst facilitating the implementation of policies not supported by the majority of the electorate in England or Wales. The SNP leadership probably realises that such a tactic would also cause such an adverse reaction in England that it would prompt mass English support for Scottish independence, so as to be rid of an interfering deadweight. However, quite what the recent OPEC-engineered slump in oil prices will do to the long-term fortunes of the SNP and their budgetary credibility, remains to be seen.

A couple of weeks’ ago, a poll was opened to blog readers to gauge their opinions as to the likely shape of our next Government. Unsurprisingly, few believed that a majority Government will emerge on 8 May: some 7% stated that they believed we would have a Labour majority, whereas 14% thought that a majority Conservative administration would be returned. Readers were presented with a wide range of coalition options to choose from, as well as ‘some other configuration’. A total of 14% of respondents opted for this latter category, so perhaps they are placing their faith in the rather distant prospects of majority Liberal Democrat, UKIP or Green administrations.

Readers clearly did not share the view of the pollsters which currently indicate a Labour-SNP coalition as the most likely outcome, as only 7% selected this as the likely result. Even more surprisingly, perhaps, is that nobody thought that there would be the likelihood of a continuation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition. The second most likely outcome of the General Election was adjudged by 21% of respondents to be a Labour Coalition with the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens. Topping the list of likely outcomes, securing 28% of this poll’s vote, was a Conservative Coalition with UKIP.

The only clear conclusion that can be drawn either from this readers’ poll, or from national opinion polls, is that there is massive uncertainty around the outcome of the next General Election. A new poll opens today, gauging readers’ opinions as to how many MPs they believe UKIP will have on 8 May.

SNP: ‘The more seats we have here, the more powers we’ll have in Scotland.’

Thus runs the slogan on the first welcome image (reproduced below) displayed on the SNP’s website landing page. However, for the English this statement, given projections regarding the possible composition of the next House of Commons, would be better displayed next to the SNP’s peculiar logo, which looks for all the world like a noose.   

Opinion polls indicate that we are heading towards a second Parliament with no party possessing an overall majority. For a number of months, the national polls – at the headline level – have remained relatively static, but what has changed, as widely noted by commentators, is the situation in Scotland. As matters stand, the SNP is on track to oust Labour as the leading parliamentary party in the country, routing the latter in a number of its historic strongholds. Rather than laying to rest the question of Scotland’s constitutional status within the United Kingdom, last September’s Independence Referendum has bequeathed a situation in which the Scots have come to perceive themselves as very much separate to the rest of the UK, albeit whilst remaining part of it.

Much of this change in national self-perception can, perhaps, be attributed to the Westminster panic over the possibility of a ‘Yes’ vote, and the associated granting of additional concessions to the Scottish Parliament which amounted to the ‘Devo Max’ that had previously been denied as an option to Scots. Having woken up to the efficacy of voting SNP in leveraging additional powers and privileges from Westminster, Scottish voters seem intent to play the nationalist card in pursuit of further concessions from the rest of the UK, to pay for policies that are deemed unaffordable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Doubtless, Ed Miliband’s lacklustre leadership of the Labour Party and absence of a coherent political vision also plays poorly with Scottish voters when contrasted with an SNP, which is making a direct play for the traditional Labour vote north of the border. 

Amongst the SNP’s pledges is to continue to ensure that ‘There will be no tuition fees for Scottish students’. This situation understandably makes many English students envious and resentful, particularly so when considering that whereas English and Welsh students studying in Scottish universities have to pay fees equivalent to the maximum chargeable to domestic students in England and Wales - £9,000 per annum – if you happen to come from anywhere between Lisbon and Tallinn that happens to be part of the EU, you pay nothing. Not only that, but even ‘if you’re the child of a Turkish worker in the UK’ you can apply to have your tuition fees paid in full. You could not devise a more unjust anti-English system if you tried. Alongside this remarkable pledge, is a statement that the party wishes to see ‘a minimum income of at least £7,000 for the lowest income students’ (although presumably not for sub-Turkish English students).

This SNP approach to policy, with its pronounced anti-English tenor, spells trouble ahead. According to today’s UK Polling Report rolling average of polls, Labour stand on 33%, Conservatives on 31%, UKIP on 15%, the Liberal Democrats on 8% and the Greens on 6%. The others, amongst whom are included the SNP, account for the remaining 7%. However, whereas UKIP are highly likely to end up with far fewer seats than the Liberal Democrats, possibly winning a handful in total, the SNP, because of their natural concentration in Scotland, look set to play the role of power brokers, just as the Liberal Democrats have done since 2010. Such an electoral outcome will doubtless fuel pressure for both constitutional and electoral reform, given the far higher number of votes that will accrue to UKIP, but failing to yield electoral MPs. 

On 3 February, UK Polling Report reported that the four opinion polls carried out thus far this year in Scotland revealed the following stated voting intentions: Labour 27%, Liberal Democrats 5% and the SNP 47%. This represented swings of 21% from Labour and 20.5% from the Liberal Democrats to the SNP. However, swings are never uniform, so although the polls suggest a near if not complete wipe-out for Labour in Scotland this May, most pollsters believe that Labour will retain some seats. Nonetheless, it is generally anticipated that the SNP will take upwards of 40 Westminster seats if current voting intentions hold firm. This raises the spectre of a Miliband minority administration propped up by the SNP, possibly, depending upon the precise distribution of seats, also being reliant upon a cobbled together coalition including one or two Greens and the Liberal Democrats. This would probably be the worst possible outcome for the UK, running the risk of fracturing it irrevocably, whilst ceding further sovereignty to the EU and sinking ever further beneath the weight of near-untrammelled mass immigration. Who would pay for Scotland's spending spree, particularly during a time of likely declining North Sea oil income? 

A Labour minority Government with SNP support could sound the death knell for the United Kingdom. Wouldn’t Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon et al be delighted with the anti-democratic havoc that they could play with the Sassenachs! 

Readers’ General Election Poll Results

In the best tradition of John Snow’s “just a bit of fun”, I am about to introduce readers to the results of the past week’s readers’ poll as to their voting intentions in the forthcoming General Election. It may not come as a huge surprise that the results here diverge somewhat from the national opinion polls, but one characteristic is shared by both: the unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats. If this blog’s readers were to determine the future composition of Westminster the Liberal Democrats would be wiped out, for in total, 0% of this blog’s readers voted for them. Likewise, nobody declared in favour of either Respect or Plaid Cymru.

Turning to the ‘don’t knows’, readers are rather more likely to know whom they wish to vote for than the electorate as a whole, with only 9% stating that they do not yet know which party they will vote for on 7 May. Next come four parties with 4% apiece: Conservatives, the English Democrats, Labour and the SNP. Securing the support of 9% of readers are the Green Party, which would become the official opposition in the House of Commons elected by Durotrigan’s readers. However, storming home with a landslide majority are UKIP, who secured the support of 61% of poll participants.

Thus, if we omit the ‘don’t knows’ for the time being, blog readers would return a Parliament looking as follows: on the government benches, led by Nigel Farage, would be 445 UKIP MPs, whilst leading the opposition would be Natalie Bennett with 69 Green MPs. The Conservatives, English Democrats, Labour and the SNP would each ‘boast’ 34 MPs. Somewhere, in a far distant galaxy, perhaps this will be the outcome. As for here, well, we’ll have to wait and see. Watch this space for election commentary.

In the meantime, please feel free to take part in the new readers’ poll ‘What will our Government look like after the 2015 General Election?’ which has now opened and will run until next Sunday evening. 

Liberal Democrat defects to UKIP

Curiouser and curiouser! A Liberal Democrat councillor named Diane Horn has defected to UKIP ahead of standing for election to the Snepshed borough and town council elections later this year. She explained her decision to switch to UKIP as arising from her disillusionment with the Liberal Democrats, occasioned by, according to the Loughborough Echo, the fact that “I am no longer sure what the Lib Dems represent.” 

Councillor Horn is not impressed by Nick Clegg and his volte-face over the tuition fees issue. She told the paper that she thought that the Lib Dems are considering some “frightening” measures in connection with the NHS, whereas “UKIP is trying to protect jobs and repair the UK economy and reduce debts.” For her, UKIP’s stance is also closer to her own insofar as she wants “to make sure the people of England are put first.” Leaving the EU therefore holds no fears for her. Councillor Horn has served her local community as an elected representative for nine and a half years, and before her defection, was considering standing down altogether, owing to her disillusionment with her former party. 

Sadly, and predictably, Councillor Horn has been called a ‘racist’ owing to her change of party allegiance. She is not.  

How many more defections might occur? It would, of course, be entering the realms of science fiction to imagine a Lib Dem MP defecting to UKIP, but it will be interesting to see how robust their grassroots membership proves to be in the coming years. Although Councillor Horn’s choice of new party is unlikely to appeal to most Lib Dems, the Greens must surely present a more agreeable home for many of them. It will be interesting to see what impact the seven-way debates have on the relative fortunes of the Greens, the Lib Dems and Labour.

Conservatives haemorrhage support to UKIP

The Daily Telegraph has today highlighted the results of the latest Ipsos Mori poll which show the continued drift of Tory support to UKIP, thus underscoring the observation made here earlier this week that the increasingly Eurosceptic tone of the Conservative Party – including of David Cameron in advance of his speech on the UK's relationship with the EU this Friday – is being dictated by fear of UKIP’s advance. The Conservatives now languish 13 percentage points behind Labour, which given Miliband’s lacklustre leadership and absence of any general enthusiasm for the Labour Party, is indicative more of general disenchantment with contemporary party politics than any desire to see Labour in office. However, if this is seen as bad news for the Conservatives, it is worse for the Liberal Democrats who lie in fourth place behind UKIP who now stand at 9%.

Prepare for a great deal of painfully hedged verbiage from the Prime Minister on Friday who will attempt to present himself as the champion of British interests against Brussels. He is not. Cameron is a globalist, as are Clegg and Miliband. Moreover, in his own way, Farage is too, with the difference being that he doesn’t like being in the EU and would prefer closer transatlantic ties. Cameron may be making plans for Nigel, but will Nigel be happy in his world? Probably not.

UKIP's latest share of popular support

John Humphrys recognises the desire for a ‘new party’

John Humphrys this morning presided over a mini-debate on the Today Programme about UKIP’s success on Thursday, observing that the party’s good showing in the three by-elections could be read as indicative of the disenchanted mood of a section of the electorate which is looking for a ‘new party’. In the case of UKIP however, the panel (whom it must be said were not sympathetic towards UKIP), suggested that voters had chosen them because they represented the ‘none of the above’ option, fulfilling a role akin to that once played by the now highly unpopular Liberal Democrats. The suggestion therefore, was that the vote for UKIP was largely negative, rather than positive.

One panellist stated that UKIP supporters tend to be much more concerned about the state of the economy than average, whilst another claimed that despite its anti-EU focus, 49% of UKIP supporters named immigration as their primary concern. However, what they did not go on to note is the implicit fragility of UKIP’s support, for its globalist Thatcherite economic approach would not assist our economic recovery, and with respect to immigration, the party is only concerned about European immigration. It never talks about restricting immigration from Asia and Africa. It would therefore seem safe to draw the conclusion that the bulk of UKIP’s supporters would prefer to vote for a new party committed to leaving the EU which also followed a non-globalist and non-Thatcherite economic policy, and was committed to slashing immigration from everywhere around the globe.

John Humphrys has acknowledged that a significant section of the electorate desires a new party. Some, at least for now, have decided to invest their support in UKIP. It is of course the wrong choice, but the positive alternative option has yet to be created. We must provide a positive and credible alternative. Upon this score, it is at least encouraging that UKIP is now being described as a ‘mainstream party’ by prominent political and media figures, rather than being misrepresented as ‘racist’ simply for raising the suggestion that mass immigration ought to be curtailed. There have certainly been some figures in a number of the smaller parties who would merit this appellation, but it is time that those who routinely abuse the words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ in order to delegitimise any position on immigration other than that in favour of open borders, were ignored. They have cried wolf for too long, and as anyone in possession of their senses knows, there are no wolves in Britain today, other than those kept in zoos and safari parks. 

Rotherham By-election Result: good for UKIP, better for Labour

The Labour candidate Sarah champion romped home in first place in Rotherham, increasing the Labour share of the vote by 1.62% since the 2010 General Election, despite the disgrace of the former MP Denis MacShane, the Muslim grooming scandal and most recently the furore surrounding the local social services’ decision to remove three foster children from a couple simply because they were members of UKIP. UKIP nonetheless did manage to provide their best ever performance in an election for a Westminster seat, coming second and securing 21.79% of the vote, up 15.87% since 2010. It thus seems that Nigel Farage’s assertion during the count that UKIP were running “a close second” was the product of a liberal dose of wishful thinking. Still, the fostering scandal does appear to have imparted a significant boost to UKIP in the seat, but this marks their likely high watermark in Rotherham, given that the party represents the Atlanticist Thatcherite wing of the Conservative Party in exile, and Rotherham is most certainly not natural Tory territory.

The Conservatives polled a miserable fifth place, taking only 5.42% of the vote, down from 16.7% in 2010 when they were the second party in the seat. This switch of allegiance appears to underscore the recent fears voiced by a number of Conservative MPs with respect to the potential for a stronger UKIP to dent their vote in many marginal seats and thereby let Labour win, prompting calls for an ‘electoral pact’ involving the promise of an EU referendum that Nigel Farage has declined to entertain.

However, if last night’s result in Rotherham was adjudged to be a bad one for the senior partner in the Coalition Government, it was a catastrophic one for the Liberal Democrats, who were pushed into eighth place in Rotherham, taking only 2.11% of the vote, down from 16% in 2010 when they came third. This meltdown in the party’s support was paralleled in yesterday’s two other by-elections, most notably in Croydon North where they came fourth with 3.5% of the vote compared to the 14% and third place that they secured in 2010, and in Middlesbrough, where although they came third, their share slumped from 19.9% to 9.9%. Just how ‘sorry’ must Nick Clegg be feeling now? Following on from the three dire results in the crop of parliamentary by-elections earlier this month the Liberal Democrats are currently set firmly on course for electoral annihilation at the next General Election. What, if anything, could the Liberal Democrats do to reverse this precipitous decline in their fortunes?

Having noted the electoral failure of the two parties of government in Rotherham, who benefited other than UKIP? Although the BNP took third place with 8.46% of the vote, this was down from 10.4% in 2010, with this respectable placing in the table being to a considerable extent attributable to the visibility and relative popularity of local candidate Marlene Guest. She certainly fared better than fellow BNP political hopeful Peter Foreman who stood in Middlesbrough, who took only 1.9% of the vote, compared to the party’s 5.8% in 2010. The fall in the BNP’s share displayed in Middlesbrough is more typical of the results achieved by the BNP over the past couple of years, which has seen the party in headlong decline. It is not an exaggeration to state that the BNP is on a terminal trajectory, having lost most of its membership as well as the majority of its more competent organisers.

Coming in fourth place behind the BNP was Muslim convert and apparent Stockholm Syndrome sufferer Yvonne Ridley who stood for Respect and took an 8.34% share. This was the first time that the party had stood in Rotherham, and the share of the vote obtained suggests that Respect bagged the Muslim bloc vote in the borough and little else, for it is said that the original Labour candidate mooted for the by-election had been a Muslim, but following the recent Muslim paedophile grooming scandal in the borough, Labour had decided that it would be impolitic to field a Muslim. According to the UK Polling Report blog, Rotherham’s Muslim population stood at 5.4% in 2001, and it has certainly increased since then and would thus easily have been able to furnish Respect with the share of the vote that it obtained. Respect also fielded a reasonably high-profile candidate in Croydon North – Lee Jasper – a former confederate of Ken Livingstone and Director for Policing and Equalities for the GLA in 2004-2008. However, this professional race hustler managed to secure only sixth place with a 2.9% share of the vote, this poor showing most likely being a reflection of the fact that Croydon North is not natural Respect territory (i.e. it does not possess a large Muslim population that can be electorally mobilised) and allegations of cronyism have also previously been levelled against Jasper.

The turnout in Rotherham was low, a mere 33.89% compared to 59% in 2010. Likewise, the turnouts in Middlesbrough and Croydon North were poor: 26% and 26.53% respectively. So, although these by-elections each provided Labour with a secure victory, the imaginations of voters were certainly not set aflame; they do not seem to have kindled any real enthusiasm. Ed Miliband must be hoping that his party can continue to ride the wave not so much of popularity, but of disillusion with the Condem Government, until May 2015. However, it is striking that he and leading Labour light Ed Balls were cabinet members in the last Labour Government, the administration that helped to plunge us so deeply into the economic, social and constitutional mess that we currently find ourselves. Automatic tribal party loyalty evidently played the greatest role in ensuring that Labour won by a large margin in all three seats, and it is this sort of loyalty that has thus far militated against the emergence of any new electorally successful parliamentary parties in England in recent decades. If real political change is to be brought about, this species of party tribalism - particularly of the Labour variety - needs to be challenged and broken down.

UKIP will soar no higher in Rotherham, for its globalist Thatcherite economic policies preclude a wide appeal to the electorate, and this observation applies to the country at large. UKIP did also manage to take second place in Middlesbrough with 11.8% of the vote, up from 3.7% in 2010, and third place in Croydon North with its share increasing from 1.7% in 2010 to 5.7%, but what these results suggest is in line with national opinion polls that have recently seen UKIP vying for the position of third party with the Liberal Democrats. What was witnessed yesterday therefore, may lead Nigel Farage to issue a call akin to David Steel’s infamous “Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government!” but in reality, this will most likely amount to “Go back to your constituencies and prepare to take third or fourth place in a few Westminster seats in the West Country in 2015!” Yes, we do need to leave the EU, but UKIP is a single-issue exiled rump of the Conservative Party, and exiting the EU is not at the top of the average voter’s list of policy priorities. What we require is a new non-globalist party capable of breaking through in seats such as Rotherham, which whilst including departure from the EU as a policy pledge, concentrates instead on the matters of greatest concern to the electorate: the economy, health, education, transport, law and order and immigration.

UKIP's Rotherham Candidate: Jane Collins

Middlesbrough by-election result: a foregone conclusion?

Middlesbrough is but one of three seats in which parliamentary by-elections are being contested today, the other two being Rotherham and Croydon North, each of them possessing what would seem to be an unassailable Labour majority. Only in Rotherham is anything other than a straightforward Labour triumph anticipated, but even though UKIP are expected to poll very well there, quite possibly displaying their best Westminster result to date, it would be astonishing if they were to seize the seat from Labour. However, Bradford West earlier this year demonstrated that the unexpected could happen.

The Middlesbrough by-election was precipitated by the death of the Labour incumbent Sir Stuart Bell, and one former Labour Party member who would have liked to have stood on the party ticket but was unable to do so was Bradford-based Imdad Hussain who was suspended from the Labour Party in September for his failure to disclose having been banned as a company director. Nonetheless, the latter has decided to run in the by-election under a different flag – that of ‘The Peace Party’! Given his lack of local roots and the fact that he was dismissed from the Labour Party, his prospects do not look healthy.

The Labour candidate this time around is Andy McDonald, who can look forward to the unthinking support of Labour tribalists who’d vote for a mollusc if a Labour rosette could be successfully attached to its body, although it is likely that his primary foe will be voter apathy, as was displayed in the remarkably low turnouts at the most recent crop of by-elections earlier this month. This could, to a certain extent, give a fillip to some of the candidates from the smaller parties, but whereas UKIP is enjoying some of its best ratings in national opinion polls since the height of the parliamentary expenses scandal, it is not likely to do nearly as well as in Rotherham.

In 2010 Labour managed to grab 45.9% of the vote with the Liberal Democrats trailing in second place on a distant 19.9% and the Tories third with 18.8%. If recent trends are repeated here, we should expect to see a significant slump in the Liberal Democrat share of the vote, possibly in the region of 5-10%. As this is not natural Conservative territory and the Government is not currently overly popular, it is likely that the Tory share will also shrink, but probably hold up better than that of their coalition partners.

UKIP managed to take only 3.7% at the last General Election, coming last in sixth place behind the BNP who took 5.8%. However, since than UKIP’s fortunes have waxed to a certain extent, and the BNP has entered a death spiral, haemorrhaging the bulk of its national membership and most of its experienced senior personnel. Taking into account the remaining candidates – an Independent named Mark Heslehurst and John Malcolm running under the banner of Trade Unionist and Socialist – UKIP ought to expect to secure a better performance and position this time around, with it being a near certainty that the party will leapfrog the BNP. However, other than the electors of Middlesborough will many people other than political pundits be paying much attention when the result is announced? All eyes it seems will be turned to Rotherham.

UPDATE: More by-election news can be accessed here. 

Middlesbrough by-election hustings

Whither the Liberal Democrats?

With the results in from the three parliamentary by-elections held in Corby, Manchester Central and Cardiff South and Penarth, and the outcome of the first elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) filtering in from across England and Wales, a number of clear messages are becoming apparent. The first of these relates to widespread voter apathy, with turnout – particularly for the PCC elections – being remarkably low. So unmotivated to visit the polls were electors, that the Corby by-election turnout of 44.79%, which in itself would normally be seen as low, looked very high compared to what was achieved elsewhere. In Cardiff South and Penarth, turnout was a meagre 25.35%, whilst in Manchester Central, the corresponding figure stood at 18.2%. The last of these figures was noteworthy for being the lowest turnout in a parliamentary contest since the Second World War, but even so, it seemed high when compared to the percentage turnout in the PCC elections, which in many areas was below 15%.

Whereas these figures in themselves constitute an indictment of the current state of our democracy and of the wasted £100 million allegedly spent in introducing elected PCCs, they also contain some interesting messages for our existing political parties. Although Ed Miliband’s Labour Party may be trumpeting its relative success today, the clearest message for any party has been delivered to the Liberal Democrats, and its content cannot be seen as anything other than highly disagreeable for its membership; overall, the party has been resoundingly crushed. In Corby, its share of the vote plunged from 14.5% in 2010 to just 4.96%, with its candidate Jill Hope losing her deposit. The party was squarely beaten into fourth place by a robust performance from the UKIP candidate Margot Parker who took 14.3% of the vote. As UKIP did not stand a candidate in Corby in 2010 and the Conservative share of the vote went down by 15.6% on this occasion, it seems clear that many traditional Tories disaffected with the Cameroonian coalition switched their support to UKIP. Other candidates fared so poorly as not to be worth a mention.

Although the Liberal Democrats managed to hang on to second place in the Manchester Central constituency, their share of the vote collapsed from 26.6% to 9.4%, whilst in Cardiff South and Penarth they narrowly held onto third, place despite their corresponding share falling from 22.3% to 10.8%. Whereas UKIP may have been ebullient about Corby, their shares in these two by-elections were rather more modest, although they were both up from the last General Election: 4.5% and 6.1% respectively. UKIP are therefore enjoying something of a fillip in their fortunes, but the percentages that they are polling fall way short of offering them the prospect of winning any Westminster seats. However, from the perspective of the Conservative Party, a resurgent UKIP that could potentially ‘rob’ them of anywhere between 10 and 15% of the vote in any given constituency, might cause them to lose many more marginal seats to Labour. Farage’s party could therefore be strong enough to damage the Conservatives, but not robust enough to take any power for itself. This in itself is indicative of two of UKIP’s primary weaknesses: its embrace of Thatcherite globalism, which is justifiably unpopular with all but a minority of the electorate, and the manner in which the party is run.

The experience of coalition government has clearly done the Liberal Democrats massive damage. Their unpopularity should not be seen as the straightforward consequence of Nick Clegg reneging over his promise regarding university tuition fees, but as indicative of a wider discontent with Liberal Democrat policies. Whilst I am no fan of our mainstream political parties, when the Coalition Government formed I had a glimmer of hope – admittedly illusory – that the fusion of the separate policy agendas of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could result in something more positive than either alone would impose. Like many people, from the Conservatives I hoped for a robust approach to the EU which would have presented us with the option of withdrawal, as well as an end to mass immigration and to the legislation that muzzles free speech in the name of political correctness, whereas I wished for the Liberal Democrats' approach to economics to temper the asset-stripping globalist monetarism of the Conservatives.

This best of both worlds outcome however, was not to be, for we ended up with an inversion of this scenario: the rigorous promotion of Liberal Democrat policies in favour of the EU, mass immigration and political correctness, combined with the ongoing ruinous globalist economics promoted by Osborne. Who therefore, other than the stereotypical sandal-wearing bearded liberals of yore, would have any positive regard for the Liberal Democrats today? Personally, I know people who have supported the Liberal Democrats and their predecessor parties for decades (none of whom wear sandals or sport beards of any description), and yet they are disgusted with the party’s attitude towards the EU, mass immigration and political correctness, as well as of course, tuition fees. They would willingly support a party that put an end to this ongoing undermining of our national sovereignty and social fabric, providing of course that it was reasonable, in favour of genuine freedom of speech, assembly and expression, and not some monstrous authoritarian entity harbouring tacit agendas imbued with sinister motives. In this respect, they are like many people today, who feel that they possess no real political choice and no viable political party to vote for. A new mainstream anti-globalist party with a libertarian streak is required, and the various alternatives currently being hawked in the political market place do not fit the bill.

Returning to the question of the future electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats, what lies in store? One development that could have a major bearing upon their prospects relates not to their current unpopularity in England and Wales, but to the future status of Scotland, for it could, after all, theoretically have left the Union by 2015. Scotland is home to 11 Liberal Democrat MPs. Another major bailiwick for the party is the West Country, where it has for many years provided the effective opposition to the Conservative Party and has won an impressive number of seats. Quite how many of these it might lose in 2015 however is moot, for the West Country is also one of the strongest areas for UKIP, which given its current stronger showing could take considerable numbers of votes from Conservative candidates in many seats where they are challenging the Lib Dems, potentially allowing the latter to retain their seats. It is a complicated picture, and we have another two and a half years before the next General Election, so much could change in that time. Nonetheless, whatever should happen, the future does not look bright for the Liberal Democrats who could be replaced by UKIP as the nation’s third party. Then again, what impact might a new political entity with the correct policy formulation make? Time will tell. 

Liberal Democrats: not flying high

The Green Party (“Green” as in Naïve)

Widespread disaffection with mainstream political parties appears to have caused many people to despair of party politics altogether, but for some, they have posed themselves the question: “Where can I find a new political home?” Many have yet to move beyond this stage, for they have not seen anything that appeals to them; but, at a guess, a natural political home for some grassroots Liberal Democrats, disgruntled at their party’s partnership with the Conservatives, could lie with the seemingly cuddly Green Party. Not only are members of the two parties said to share a penchant for sandals, but also a passion for open borders, multiculturalism and reducing our standard of living through radically increasing the cost of the one thing upon which modern life and conveniences are dependent: energy.

This weekend sees the Green Party hold its annual conference in Bristol, its yearly opportunity to enjoy a fleeting moment in the media spotlight (or preferably, candlelight derived from non-tallow based sources), following its canny move of changing Leader one week in advance of the gathering and thereby providing an extended period of media coverage. Gone is Caroline Lucas, replaced by former Guardian Weekly editor and ex-Aussie Natalie Bennett. It is therefore unsurprising to find that her former employer is offering the Greens - a 'new force on the radical left' - considerable coverage and support, in which it becomes evident that most of Bennett’s political flak seems to be directed towards the LabourParty, whose voters she seeks to court.

Although the Green Party is still relatively small, possessing in 2010 a membership of 12,768 (I hesitate to refer to “national membership”, for as you will see below, Greens really don’t like the word “national”, considering it to be a ‘nasty’, ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’ term), it did manage to win two seats in the EU elections in 2009, and Caroline Lucas succeeded in taking the party’s first Westminster seat the following year in Brighton Pavilion. In 2009, its size and degree of electoral success were roughly on a par with that of the BNP (which subsequently went into terminal meltdown), but unlike the BNP, the party has always enjoyed a degree of sympathetic media coverage, which, owing to the radically destabilising nature of its policies were they ever to be implemented, it really does not merit.

The Greens, somehow, have come to be thought of as the ‘nice’ party, and their general philosophical stance – anti-Western, anti-national and anti-science – has for some inexplicable reason been deemed to be acceptable; an acceptance indicative of a strong current of generalised cultural masochism and misplaced ethnic and national ‘guilt’ that has polluted mainstream thought and discourse in Britain today. If one song could be said to encapsulate Green Party sentiment, it would be John Lennon’s tuneful but rather sickly Imagine; a song justly parodied, owing to Lennon's and Ono’s lifestyle, by a certain Reg Dwight, who was moved to write:

Imagine six apartments

It isn’t hard to do

One is full of fur coats

The other’s full of shoes

Anyway, I digress. Returning to the Green Party, it would be a great pity if voters were to remain ignorant of its actual policies rather than its cuddly-sounding name and image, and were thus to mistakenly lend its candidates their votes. People need to be made aware of what it actually stands for, which really is not very pleasant at all; moreover, in reality it is not very “Green”, for the policies that it advocates would lead to a significant deterioration in our environment at home, as well as our general standard of living.   

There are many things deeply wrong with the Green Party’s approach and policy platform, but two key aspects of its policy work strongly against preserving the environment: its advocacy of an open borders policy and ongoing mass immigration coupled with an unwillingness to recognise that only the economically undeveloped peoples of Africa, Asia and elsewhere can solve their own problems of overpopulation and resource depletion through the widespread use of contraception. The Green’s immigration policy for Britain would be a disaster. Taking into consideration the massive strains already placed upon national infrastructure, housing, social services, water and food supplies and our countryside by our ineffective immigration regime, consider the implications of the following statements taken from the Green Party website:

Statement on the Coalition’s Immigration Cap, Party Conference, Sheffield 2011

The Green Party reaffirms it's commitment to a liberal immigration policy. Everyone is equal no matter what the colour of their passport. The Coalition's policy of introducing an immigration cap restricts people's rights based purely on their nationality, harms the economy and is not conducive to a free and happy society. The Green Party is in favour of a real review of border controls that takes in the full benefits of immigration and stops treating those who are not native to the UK as a problem.

Green Party Policy Statements
MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG405 Migrants illegally in the UK for over five years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety.

MG420 We will resist all attempts to introduce a 'barrier round Europe' shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European Nationals.

MG102 We are aware that, in the 21st century, there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.

MG430 We will produce and implement contingency plans for the future financial and other support of environmental migrants. We will encourage such planning by international agencies, non-governmental organisations, other countries, the European Community and local government.

MG103 The Green Party recognises the contributions made by many migrants to their recipient area or community. We value the cultural diversity and intercultural awareness resulting from both temporary residence and migration.

MG205 Migration policies should not discriminate directly on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation. Preference should not be given to those with resources or desirable skills.

When it comes to nationality policy, its objectives are chilling:

NY100 Over the last decades, British nationality law has been used to restrict the number of Black people having the right to live in the UK while maximising the opportunities for white non-residents with British ancestors to retain this right. The Green Party believes that such nationality laws must be reformed.

Objectives

NY300 We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a 'British national' is irrelevant and outdated.

The Green Party wishes to eradicate not only the nation-state, but also any natural common affective bonds of culture and kinship. Although it also portrays itself as being in favour of women’s rights, it, like the rest of the hard Left of which it is in reality a part, shows itself to be in league with a certain misogynist and anti-rational creed named Islam. Speaking at the Muslim News Awards in April 2007, Green Party Principal Speak Dr Derek Wall stated:

Islamic teachings work in a holistic system which recognises the interactions between the diverse areas of life and society such as economics and health, peace and conflict, within which environmental care is also integrated.

The emphasis on spiritual development, on our relationship with the world around us, means Islam has many things to teach the environmentalist movement.

There is a strong concern with environmental protection and sustainable stewardship in the Koran, which has something to teach all of us Muslim and non Muslim alike.

If you have ever considered voting Green, I hope that after reading this small selection of Green Party policies you will desist from doing so. If you are genuinely interested in conserving our environment, protecting our countryside and following a sustainable economic and demographic policy that does not entail destroying your standard of living, a new political party will be launching very soon that will have such concerns at the heart of its mission. For more information, return here in the weeks ahead. 

The Greens are waiting with arms wide open, just as in The Camp of the Saints.

The Green Party: recycling bad ideas

Who will stand in the Corby by-election?

Today's announcement that Louise Mensch is to stand down as an MP to move to New York to spend more time with her family comes as quite a surprise. Unlike many previous occasions when we have seen frontline political figures bow out of the limelight "to spend more time with their families", on this occasion the phrase does not appear to be a euphemism for having been persuaded to go for the good of the party. Although she may have divulged on a recent episode of Question Time that she had taken Class-A drugs when younger, this elicited little more than a few disgusted gurns from a number of the more sanctimonious members of the audience, rather than any scandal.

David Cameron stated:

It is with enormous regret that I accept your resignation as the MP for Corby and East Northamptonshire, a seat that had beenLabour for thirteen years before you.

Quite clearly, the Prime Minister could do without this by-election, particularly at a time when his minority coalition Government appears to be undergoing something of a rocky patch owing to the recent abandonment of a pledge to reform the House of Lords, a move which has alienated the Liberal Democrat junior coalition partners. Ed Miliband, currently riding high in the polls simply because his party is one of the big three not in office rather than because of any intrinsic public trust in Labour, must be feeling delighted today, for Mensch took the seat after being parachuted in as part of Cameron's "A List" with a majority of only 1,951. It must be assumed therefore, that Labour will make considerable efforts to win the by-election which is expected to take place on 15th November.

Who then, is likely to stand at the election? It is understood that the local Conservatives are keen for one of their own to contest Corby this time around, rather than having another candidate imposed by the centre, but no suggested names have yet been forthcoming. On the other hand, Labour's candidate will be Andy Sawford, who today announced his candidature whilst deploying a number of predictably dull Labour verbal formulae, presumably lapped up with his mother's milk, for his father, Phil Sawford, was Labour MP for nearby Kettering from 1997 to 2005. ITN quote Sawford the Younger as follows:

Labour is now looking forward to the campaign ahead, fighting for action on jobs and the economy, supporting our local services which are facing massive cuts and working with local community organisations.

During the by-election we will focus on the two wasted years of Tory policies that have taken the country back into recession and left Corby suffering job losses in both the public and private sector.

This will be a tough election for Labour but we are determined to hold this Tory-led Government to account by showing the disastrous impact of their policies on the people of Corby.

Not exactly very inspiring stuff, but at least John Prescott does not seem to have been permitted to pen his announcement. As Sawford will be contesting a seat that was Labour between 1997 and 2010, that was taken by Mensch at the last General Election with only a small Conservative majority, his claim that "This will be a tough election for Labour" seems absurd, particularly when considering the unpopularity of the current Government and the propensity of the electorate to give the governing party a drubbing during midterm elections. Nonetheless, on 9th August Ed Miliband reiterated this message describing the by-election as presenting Labour with "a very tough fight". It should be a walkover for him and his party, and if it is not, then Labour may as well call it a day and disband itself.

It will be interesting to see to what extent the Liberal Democrat candidate is annihilated, but which other parties will stand has not so far been declared. Being a by-election however, it is sure to attract a large slate of candidates. As UKIP has contested Corby in the past and is currently riding relatively high in the national polls, it is a near dead certainty that they will field a candidate and stand a good chance, if the polls are to be believed, of beating the Liberal Democrats into fourth place. UKIP last stood in 2005 but only took 2.6% of the vote. However, yesterday's Yougov poll in the Sunday Times placed the Liberal Democrats on 10% and UKIP on 8% at a nationwide level. The Corby by-election therefore, looks set to afford some interesting entertainment, although I predict that the resultant MP will be a disappointment, for whoever they happen to be they will advocate the following: globalisation, continued EU membership and ongoing mass immigration. Sorry voters of Corby, but that is what you are going to get. Maybe you will be afforded a real choice in 2015?

Corby's departing MP: Louise Mensch