The Catch 22 of Coverage

I read today in the Daily Mail that the BBC are planning to rethink their coverage of the EU after complaints that they are regularly one sided and too pro-EU.

At last a BBC I can get behind!

I have said on my blog before that I often feel that reportage of the EU is handled in a very one sided manner. Let me not even start on how I feel the BBC covers UKIP as a political party. When UKIP are polling just below, and sometimes just above the Liberal Democrats it's hard to understand why one party has every media resource thrown at coverage of the conference, from Live updates, multimedia reports, continuous streaming of interviews, speeches and so forth, while the other barely scrapes a mention. There is the argument that the Lib Dems are currently in power as part of the coalition. Of course this is undeniable and quite rightly the public would wish to know the policies and proposals being outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister. But even before the results of the 2010 general election, there has been a disproportionate amount of air time for the Lib Dems compared to UKIP in relation to where the parties regularly feature in opinion polls.

Of course, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Get bums on seats inside Westminster and surely our coverage would have to increase exponentially. But how does a party raise its profile when even supposedly unbiased public owned news organisations fail to treat the party with the same level of respect as is gifted to the "established" three? The BBC is an organisation that has for years strived, some may argue too hard, to be representative of the public. Whereas in countries such as France it is still shamefully rare to see black or asian television personalities, Harry Roselmack being, I believe, the first black news anchor on TF1, having debuted in 2006 (astonishingly late), in Britain the BBC, ITV and Channel Four have always fought to make sure the faces we see on the news are the faces we see on the street. Some might complain that perhaps the levels of "positive discrimination" have gone too far, but that is another matter.

Yet when it comes to Eurosceptics, as we are dubbed, and according to the majority of public opinion polls, accounting for around two thirds of the population, we are handled as if we are extremists and lunatics.
The BBC has at times come across as the mouthpiece for the EU. If not championing Brussels, then at the bare minimum the BBC seems to be resigned to the opinion that because the EU exists, what is the point of arguing against it.

There is seemingly a connection between the handling of anti-EU sentiment and the coverage of UKIP.
We are the second biggest party in Brussels, striving to become the largest after the next European elections and standing a good chance. Why then, when issues about the European Union are addressed, are we rarely given a platform other than on Question Time, which is essentially the televisual equivalent of sticking politicians in the stocks?

I also have direct experience of the attitudes of certain BBC staff I have encountered and others whom I have heard about. I was once informed how one member of the production team kept referring to UKIP as "BNP-lite", a vile and utterly disparaging comparison that bares no reflection to UKIP's libertarian views.

It is also increasingly common to label UKIP as "Right Wing" or even "Far right".

I myself am from a Labour background and do not associate myself with Conservative politics at all. UKIP serves largely as an umbrella organisation for people disenchanted with the fickle and unreliable policy making of the two main parties who are able to dominate politics and thus change direction and betray the voting public whenever they see fit as they are protected by the first past the post system.

I do not believe the terms right and left wing have any place in today's politics. A highly interesting article on the Libertarian Press website discusses how this linear description of politics is outdated and unhelpful to voters who deserve to be better informed. The article proposed replacing the left and right wing system with a more astute political compass with the four points differentiating between Socialist, Socially Liberal, Free Market and Authoritarian. On this political compass, Stalin and Hitler are found at exactly the same point, when history has them down at opposite ends of the spectrum.

While we cannot expect the newspapers (being partisan by nature and vessels for the privilege of opinion of a few wealthy magnates) to give us an unbiased report on politics, it is to the BBC as a publicly funded organisation we should be able to turn for a broad spectrum of opinion.

Yet from programming to news reportage the BBC increasingly occupies the same territory as the Guardian newspaper. (It has even been said by people within the BBC that all the young guns are observed in the cafeteria or walking into the newsroom with the Guardian tucked firmly under an arm).

The Guardian, which has carefully molded itself to occupy green and inoffensive territory of being seemingly inoccuous and friendly, is in fact possibly one of the most preaching and harshly critical, one-sided of broadsheets in the UK. Dressed up in hemp clothing, vegetarian recipes, folk festivals and a penchant for everything humanitarian, it is the one newspaper that will not only scathingly attack anything they deem as 'right wing' but also let it be known what you should be eating, watching, wearing and listeneing to.Whilst it is hard to protest against tips on allotment gardening as being culturally subversive, there is an increasingly accepted sense that there is a right and a wrong way to conduct your life, which is endorsed not just by the pitchfork waving Guardian, but also by the majority of BBC programming. The right way is eating only organic food, listening to PJ Harvey, growing a beard and wearing ethically sourced designer latex wide rimmed glasses. The wrong way is, amongst other things, disliking the EU and therefore voting UKIP.

Interestingly the biggest threat to purported freedoms and values, farming standards, animal welfare and ethically sourced latex wide rimmed glasses is probably Brussels. And the biggest champions of libertarianism, a reduction in bureaucracy,  real democracy and the welfare of fish, fishermen and farmers is UKIP. So while the Guardian waxes lyrical about buying local and eating in restaurants were the provenance of their ingredients and credentials of their suppliers is highlighted on their recycled environmentally friendly menus, the only way to really ensure local trade prospers and British farmers are able to turn out high quality, environmentally sound and economically viable produce, is by leaving the EU.

UKIP as a party struggles with image. This is without doubt a sorry truth. It is normal for a small, upcoming party, as a threat to the established powers, to be at the receiving end of mudslinging and dirty politics. But you don't expect the BBC to join in, albeit unwittingly.

Meanwhile the Green Party, with two MEPs and a coveted seat in the Commons, gets not only equal coverage to UKIP, with 13 seats and 3% of the vote in the General elections, but somehow manages to get the red carpet (or should I say biodegradable astro-turf) rolled out for free speech, despite only garnering less than one percent of the vote in 2010.

As I write this, yougov's daily poll reflecting voting intention shows the projected vote share as:

CON 34%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 10%

Yes, that's right. We are a full 2 per cent clear of the Lib Dems.

That is without the fair share of coverage and in spite of the propogation of negative reportage by main media outlets.

Just imagine what that poll would look like if we were given the fair and balanced and accurate coverage we rightly deserve.

I welcome with open arms this review commissioned by the BBC to be published sadly not until 2013.
But while it may be a small step forward in our favour, it is a giant leap that is needed if UKIP are really going to get parity of coverage.

UKIP Breakthrough in Wales

UKIP could make dramatic gains in forthcoming Welsh elections according to a YouGov poll commissioned by ITV Wales. The prediction that UKIP could gain 5 seats, putting the party on equal footing with the Conservatives, is based upon a dramatic shift in Regional List voting where UKIP ranks as the third party, on 12% of the vote.

The results of this poll are encouraging, but they tell us what we already know. As a party we are going from strength to strength. Voters are waking up to the fact that we are a credible alternative to the establishment parties who time and again let down the people.

For too long, too few parties have dominated politics. This enables them to drastically shift policy as they wish as they believe they are untouchable. This also means that worryingly, it is a select few people at the very top of these parties with power and influence, while voters and backbenchers are simply ignored.

This has become clear with the number of u-turns made by the Coalition Government in Westminster. Dismal policy making and broken promises are losing the establishment parties support.

UKIP’s recent success isn’t just about growing consternation with the EU. It’s about voters waking up to the fact that we offer a whole range of policies that represent what the people of Wales want.

UKIP is not just an alternative to a Tory vote. It’s an alternative vote to all the other parties that have failed, and will continue to fail, Welsh voters. These results show that people want UKIP as part of Wales’ political fabric to fight their corner on a range of issues.

Teach Your Children Well

I once read an opinion piece in a newspaper which said that if the Tories wanted to turn back the clock twenty years, then UKIP wanted it turned back fifty. The comment was likely designed as a slur, a reference to some sort of idealistic nostalgic retrospect of the way things were. However, isn't this more and more society's inclination, and if it is, what is so bad about that?

From buying organic to local provenance and the sudden return to popularity of "old fashioned" cuts of meat and traditional British dishes, to the ever evolving cycles of fashion and music, remodelled classic cars and remakes of films, the presence of our past is pervasive throughout popular culture, and so it should be. It is our identity

But what about in politics?

We often hear the phrase "old fashioned values". You rarely hear the past being spoken about as something dire or squallid. Not in the UK anyway.

History has shown us that everything from the maxims that bind a society, to geo-political landscapes, to the earth's climate changes, are bound by varying concentric circles of change. Empires come and go. Benchmarks for prudency, decency and hedonism undulate. Some summers are good. Others are a washout.

When it comes to judging things from a latterday era, it is fair to say that nothing was perfect. Looking at the world through rose tinted glasses will not help push forward an ever changing global population. But learning from history will.

Forgive me if I have come across rather Keatsian in my introduction. I remember learning his works at school. Something which sadly, few peoples could lay claim to today. Which brings me on to the topic of this blog post. Education.

As an individual and as a party, UKIP and I resolutely support the announcement by Michael Gove of the restoration of the O Level. In our manifesto we champion the need to return to previous methods of teaching and examination.  

From effectively teaching the "three R's" and using phonics to teach reading, to reintroducing the traditional methods of arithmetic and basing targets around those expected in the 1950s, I strongly believe the school system needs a big shake up. 

We are falling behind, and nowhere more so than in Wales.

In recent PISA rankings Wales scored below average in reading, maths and science, putting it below a number of developing countries and former soviet satellite states in educational acheivement.

Yet the younger generation are our investment in the future. With an ever increasing global economy and access to education improving around the world, without inspired minds, our future is bleak.

When the GCSE was introduced in 1988, it was quickly extended to accommodate the full range of academic abilities. The result was inevitably one of "dumbing down". The system then extended upwards to A Levels, and with Government targets on getting more and more school leavers into University, the value of the degree began to plumment and students who otherwise may have excelled in vocational courses that would contribute invaluably to manufacturing and design in the UK found themselves with Mickey Mouse qualifications, little life experience, reduced job prospects and in debt up to their eyeballs.

There are two reasons why society however continues to champion this vain pursuit of pseudo-academia. First of all, it's the centrally imposed social status of those with a degree. We have been told repeatedly that you 'need' university to get on in life. That it would be ill perceived of to not have spent 3 years in full time education after leaving school. It is also a trick played by Governments to bring down youth unemployment statistics, yet what it creates is a bottle neck of jobless graduates who cannot contribute to the economy.

It also comes down to the very tetchy subject of ability. 

The differences in our capabilities must be papered over. Whilst we cannot deny that some people are naturally better at maths, others are proficient linguists and others are just generally good all rounders, we tend not to like to separate children on ability  too divisively for fear that it will harm those who, for want of a better expression, don't make the grade.

When it comes to sports, music and arts, these are often regarded as more inherent, and as such, less teachable skills, so promoting ability in these areas tends not to come under the same level of scrunity.

I am a firm believer that every child deserves the best possible education. 

Is selective education about separating the wheat from the chaff or about tailoring the classroom environment to the needs of the pupil to the closest possible degree?

One thing is for certain. Any selective education should be based purely upon how the child will perform in a set environment via empirical testing, not upon socio-economic background.

It's an emotive subject. However, in terms of segregating different groups of pupils, what is the difference between establishing grammar schools, and organising year groups into sets based upon ability within one school? 

I tend not to look at the debate from the angle of pushing on the brightest, although I do applaud the access a great grammar school can give to a pupil from a low income background with great potential. 

I look at it more from the perspective of what is most likely to demoralise the young, and through which structure we can best achieve creating an education system suitable for all.

The reintroduction of the O level will see better performing students siphoned off to sit a separate test. Is it therefore logical, if there is to be a two speed of teaching, to conduct this via separate educational establishments where each can focus upon its own needs and requirements and as a result, offer the best fit product for the greatest number of people?

Have we become far too sensitive about matters which, when I was growing up, were taken more as "facts of life"?

I believe social mobility and broad spectrum inclusion have certainly improved over the decades. There was a lot wrong with the incredibly schismatic wrenching apart of teenagers under the former system 

Some pupils were destined to only ever learn tertiary or blue collar skillsets while others were pushed towards white collar professions. Opportunities were denied and potentials abandoned in favour of a drachonian and cruel intellectual class system. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

But taking on board the positives that grammar schools have and still offer, is it not time we open our minds to their re-establishment?

It is a thorny debate often dependent upon your own life experiences and political persuasions and one perhaps with no right answer. However one thing is for sure.  

Our schools are simply not performing. I welcome a radical change with open arms.

Welcome to my club

How easy it is to jump onto the bandwagon of popular opinion.

For years, UKIP have been labelled everything from fanatically anti-European to xenophobic for holding the view that the European Union was bad for Britain. As recently as a couple of years ago, throughout the early months of my tenure as an MEP, I received accusations of scaremongering if ever I suggested the Eurozone was doomed. Those critics have fallen strangely silent of late.

Now politicians from across the political spectrum are championing a British exit from the EU, warning of the dire economic consequences of prolonging the single currency without fiscal unanimity and bandying about suggestions of an in-out referendum. All of a sudden our party line is trendy.

One thing is for certain. For the single currency to survive member states must forge closer economic bonds, to the extent of becoming a single federal entity (the argument is that the EU has borders, a flag, an anthem, a Parliament, an army, foreign policy, a currency and laws, so the only thing separating it from a federal state is the lack of tax raising powers). If this does not happen, the Eurozone will, eventually, implode, and in doing so, force the UK into a decade of depression.

Of course, the UK would resolutely not wish to be part of a federalised super-state. It raises the question of what sort of relationship we could have with a new Europe. UKIP has always championed a relationship akin to the current Swiss model, where free trade and continental cooperation remain priorities, despite not being a member. This is now being mooted by politicians who but a few months ago championed a more integrated European Union, only to find their subject today ridiculed by fate.

Either way the tapestry that has been woven by Brussels over the last five decades is unravelling at an alarming rate. Spain requires a £100 billion bank bail out to save her finances. The incomprehensible nexus that has formed between the Spanish state and the banking sector means the Government can no longer sensibly bail out the very banks that have been bailing out the Government. The Spanish Finance Minister has resolutely denied needing a bail out, but we’ve heard this before. Greece, Portugal and Ireland all said the same thing. In the UK, the Government recapitalised British banks to the tune of £1 trillion, a measure that was widely criticised on the continent as too closely bound to Anglo-Saxon capitalism. But it saved us from the economic disaster we are now seeing affect banks in the Eurozone’s largest economies – even in Germany. It’s estimated at least £200 billion must be injected into Eurozone banks to stimulate borrowing capacity, but in order for this to happen Germany must essentially underwrite all single currency loans.

It’s understandable that Germany doesn’t like the idea of so-called “Eurobonds”. Why would they? Holding them culpable of the debts of their neighbouring countries is hardly going to seem fair to the majority of Germans. Meanwhile Spain wants a bail out with no strings attached. Of course they would. They can see what has happened in Greece, where desperately ill people are queuing outside pharmacies for life saving medicines as stocks run dangerously low. Germany does not want Spain to get a free handout without agreeing to fairly stringent conditions. And thus we are left trapped in an ever revolving circle of national self-interest that is leading critics to cry out for the greatest seismic shift in political power ever seen by Europe – the move to federalise the Eurozone before the clock ticks down, despite such a schismatic resolution flying in the face of democracy.

What about the UK? What do we want? We need Eurozone banks to be protected. Barclays is exposed to Spanish banks to the tune of £26.5 billion. RBS is liable to £14.6 billion if they do collapse, while Santander, one of the high street’s biggest financial retailers, is actually Spanish owned. Then there’s our economy. In many respects inextricably intertwined with European markets, not just through EU membership but as the result of simple geographic positioning.

The most sensible answer would be the UKIP option. Leave the EU, enhance trade with traditional partners in the Commonwealth and demonstrate neighbourly cooperation and free trade with Europe as is the modus operandi of Switzerland and Norway.

As part of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, a lunch with Commonwealth leaders was hosted at Buckingham Palace. We were reminded that our Queen is not just the head of state in the UK. She is Queen of Antigua, Barbados, Bahamas and Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica and New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts, St Lucia, The Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Australia, as well as being head of the 54 countries that make up the Commonwealth of Nations, including India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa and Kenya. These are long established natural allies of Britain, countries with a diverse diaspora, different geographical landscapes and as a result, present true international trade opportunities.

This year Commonwealth GDP will soar past the Eurozone’s. While the Eurozone will grow by only 2.7% if it manages to avert fiscal disaster, the Commonwealth will be boosted by 7.3% growth.

I’m not bitter that my views are now being championed when for so long they have been slated. I would be a poor politician were my pride more important than my conviction. I just hope the newest recruits to Eurosceptic ideology have strength enough to hold as steadfast to their beliefs. For what Britain and Europe needs more than anything right now is a steady hand on the tiller.

Last Post

For years now people have been campaigning about the closures of local post offices. But rarely in the protests have you heard criticism of the EU.

Yes, successive Governments have stripped support away from the psot office. They've failed to help Royal Mail modernise as more and more licensing applications are done online, benefits paid directly into the bank account and so forth. The post office needed revolutionising and it just didn't happen.

But the real threat to the Royal Mail was the EU Postal Services Directive, which ordered under competition law for the delivery of mail to be privatised. Without this, the Post Office was left with no choice but to rely on taxpayer's money to stay open, money which over the years has been withdrawn.



I presented this argument to the European Commission yesterday stating:

"When the EU ordered the postal sector open up to competition it destroyed a vital British service. As a sovereign nation our post offices were run by Royal Mail and linked with national savings, licensing, welfare and pension collection to name a few.

In 1975 we had 25,000 post offices, now there are less than 12,000, despite a population boom. After being forced to sell off its profit making arm, post offices couldn’t stay open without government support. Thousands shut, stripping communities of access to vital services.

The EU postal reform says good-quality postal services should be available throughout the Union. That is exactly what we had.

“It’s a disgrace to strip Britain of an efficient public service merely to satisfy Competition law. Do you wish to privatise the NHS too? The UK must be allowed to fully opt out.”

In 2008, our Government commissioned an independent review of the Postal Service. The Hooper report warned that a forced restructuring under European law would be highly likely. That same author today is advising Westminster that the only option left for Royal Mail now is to sell it off completely.

Government support for post offices was withdrawn, causing widespread closure of vital sub post offices isolating whole communities from access to necessary services.

It’s another example of erroneous EU law interfering with a perfectly suitable British model.

Successive Governments in Westminster have let down the postal service by failing to move with the times and account for technological developments. But what this has done is leave the door wide open for Brussels to march in and destroy Royal Mail and the postal service sector entirely.”

Today, Richard Hooper, who authored the report in December 2008, will recommend the Westminster Government that a sell-off is now the only way to raise the money to modernise the service, threatening huge job loss and massive service disruption.

Embracing modern technology through necessity

Apologies for a long period since posts. It's so unbelievably busy in UK politics, and trying to mix that with the Brussels agenda would mean needing 34 hours in a day!
It's been chaos and confusion with the ash cloud grounding flights and Parliament ballsing up this month's voting.



I've grilled Baroness Ashton over her views on the Falklands ahead of an EU summit with Latin America.



I've attacked the Commission over Common Asylum Policy.



And have opposed the transfer of millions of peoples personal and banking details from the EU to America.



And that's as well as radio, tv, election launch, magazines, papers and general political heave-ho.

So please excuse my absence, and rather than allow me to write an epic blog post of everything I have said or done, let the power of multi-platform media give you verbatim all of the week's action! Feel free to comment on what you see and hear

Cardiff Yacht Club sees it's best launch yet

Yesterday we launched the UKIP Manifesto in Wales at Cardiff Yacht Club. Lord Pearson came across to speak, and I also had a little podium time.

Below is pretty much what I said:

How can they afford it all?

That’s the question being asked to all the parties.

They can’t.

They won’t.

Their promises are all empty.

Totally and utterly meaningless.

To pretend that the UK Government is the master of our country’s destiny is a deception.

Schools, post offices, hospitals, the law, the economy, business, trade, agriculture.

Everything in some way is connected to Brussels.

Westminster have so few powers left to enforce policy, it’s all just talk.

That’s why the central issue in this election must be membership of Europe.

UKIP are the only party to represent the majority view on this.

Repeatedly the British public show in polls and debates they do not want to be controlled by Brussels. Bearing in mind that the level of control the European Union exercise over us is heavily concealed, I am certain that figure would be far, far higher if the British Government had been honest with it’s people.

The Tories pledge to cut £6bn pounds of Government spending next year.

They will take this from your pay packet, close your local hospital, strip down the police, and lean on then taxpayer to not only pay off the debt, but happily accept this imposed frugality just after they’ve all been caught in Westminster unscrupulously filling their pockets with your money!

None of the parties are suggesting we would save £10 billion a year alone in EU membership currently affording schools, post offices, hospitals, new businesses, better roads, trade and agriculture in the other 26 member states.

You pay for all that.

Why are they giving your money to them, when we so desperately need it here?

Why should you, the British taxpayer, have to level off wealth across Europe, when you’re struggling to make ends meet?

That’s why the UK has never seen a referendum on Europe. We would all want out. But it’s not going to happen unless you vote UKIP.

Immigration.

Without doubt a key issue in this year’s election.

Under the labour Government, millions of people came to live in the UK, to enjoy a standard of living paid for by you. Every person living here, sending money back to their home country, is plundering the real economy, money earned and spent in Britain, like a constantly dripping tap.

The immigration policies of the other parties are like saying “we’ll monitor who comes in through the back door, but leave the front door wide open for anyone in Europe who wishes to come.”

They mean nothing at all while free movement of people in the European Union continues to see thousands file into the UK everyday looking to enjoy our higher wages, child support, free medical care, free education and all the other things our country has to offer.

Yes, we believe the UK is great and yes, lots of people want to come and live here, but it’s your country, but we won’t be able to support ourselves if the population gets much bigger.

That’s why we want a five year freeze on anyone wanting to settle here.

There’s not enough space.

There are not enough jobs.

There are not enough hospital beds, school places, social housing and money to go around.

We spend millions on translation costs, welfare support to children who don’t even live in the UK and have seen our national identity crumble at the mercy of political correctness.

Who are we?

What will we become?

We are told if we leave the European Union we’ll be nothing.

Who says?

We have the 6^th largest economy in the world.

London is the global financial capital.

We are a member of the G8 and one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

It is Europe who needs us, not us who need them.

This is clear even by glancing at the Brussels budget: we put far more in than anybody and get far less back.

Westminster are giving your money to Brussels, who give it to people who live thousands of miles away.

I’m going to be totally straight with you.

It simply has to stop.

Some 120,000 directives from Brussels shape your daily life.

You won’t see any of these appearing in the manifestos of the other parties because there is absolutely nothing at all a UK Government can do if we don’t leave Europe.

The hours you work

The price you pay to heat your house.

The food you buy and eat.

Even the very laws that govern how you are expected to live are now made outside the UK.

It takes one judge in Luxembourg to overturn a British legal ruling and hundreds of years of British justice are reduced to nothing.

In truth, Westminster has about as much power as a corridor prefect in school.

The Headmaster lives in Brussels.

The true cost of the EU, per year, is around one hundred and twenty billion pounds a year.

That’s twenty times more than the Tories say they want to cut by dipping into your pockets.

If we left Europe, not only would we be able to control our future once more, every man, woman and child would directly benefit from all the money we could put back into the lives of each and every individual who contributes to life in the UK.

But we’re not a party that simply wants to leave Europe.

It is necessary to do this first and foremostly, but there are plenty more areas in which we represent the unrepresented.

We speak everyone who feels that nobody speaks for them.

We believe in selective education, nuclear power, an end to so-called devolution and unnecessary over governance.

We are committed to policies that would directly affect Wales.

Policies that will strengthen communities, enrich lives, protect individual interests and inspire the young.

Policies that actually mean something.

Take nuclear power. We have always been proponents of this highly efficient, advanced, renewable energy as opposed to inefficient, costly, unreliable and ugly wind turbines that blight the horizon.

It may have been fashionable to stick turbines everywhere but it was premature and silly.

Look at the announcement of a new power station at Wylfa? This will bring hundreds of much needed jobs to the area and provide renewable electricity for thousands and thousands of homes.

Now let’s look at devolution.

We are the only party in Wales that says no to the Welsh Assembly.

No to more jobs for the boys.

No to costly over governance and make believe democracy.

No to serving the political elite.

If almost half of people in Wales agree with us, why are there no Assembly members whatsoever supporting the views of half the country’s population, whom they are supposed to represent?

Because it means more money for them, even if it comes straight out of your pockets.

We would retain the National Assemblies but replace the representatives with local MPs from the same nation.

Most people in Wales are currently represented by around 8 elected politicians each with 20 more Assembly seats likely to be created under devolution plans.

This is wasteful and unnecessary governance, watering down politics and creating apathy when the general public don’t understand who represents them and how.

Our manifesto is straight talking, honest, clear and simple and we believe it speaks on behalf of the majority of people who say the policies of the three main parties bear little resemblance to the issues that matter to them.

We want to protect the lowest earners from jobs tax and encourage more people to leave the welfare state and find employment.

We want to get rid of the unnecessary quangos and the related non-jobs that define our economy and are under threat from Westminster cuts.

One in four people are paid directly out of taxpayers money.

It is a false economy.

We want instead to get these people into jobs in skilled manufacturing and business, created by scrapping EU red tape and attracting industries back to the UK.

We no longer make anything here, and that is a dangerous, post recession in a global economy.

We also believe we should shift focus away from Europe and towards the Commonwealth.

We would establish free trade with the 53 other commonwealth countries.

The Commonwealth has been shamefully betrayed and neglected by previous Governments, yet we share a common language, legal and democratic systems, account for a third of the world’s population and a quarter of all it’s trade, including countries like India, soon to be the world’s second largest economy.

We will be tough on crime.

Under the existing Human Rights Act the privileges of the criminal are often put above the needs of the victim.

This has got to stop.

By leaving the EU we can once again enforce strict and realistic measures for tackling crime and supporting communities.

We want to rebalance the law to protect people defending their homes, ensure life means life, double prison places, introduce boot camps for young offenders and allow national referenda on controversdial public law.

We are proud of the NHS and believe high quality healthcare should be available to all.

We wouldn’t cut frontline services but substantially reduce NHS waste and bureaucracy and the stranglehold of targets that jeopardise patient care.

We want to restore free dental checks and eye tests for every citizen in the UK.

We believe in a strong and varied education system, giving choice back to parents and students.

We would retain existing Grammar schools and build new ones, insist on higher qualifications for teachers, scrap the nonsensical target of getting half of all young people into universities when apprenticeships and professional training is better suited to a greater majority.

We would return to the grants system as opposed to loans that leave so many unemployed graduates in debt.

Our benefits system is out of control.

We want to simplify it and get people off long term welfare and back into work.

We also want to make sure welfare support goes to people who need it and people who can prove they are living in Britian.

By leaving Europe we could have a thriving agricultural sector, a protected fishing industry without waste and overfishing.

We could have open trade, exploring innovative ways to attract industries to the country that would become the backbones of proud and prosperous communities.

People in Britian have lost faith, not just in politics, but in their own country.

While so mnay people are clamouring to get in, more and more of us are becoming disenfranchised by remote governance from Brussels and self-intersted polticians in Westminster.

We pledge to put country before party.

We pledge to put the UK before Europe.

We pledge to put you first.

Think you. Think UK. Think UKIP.

A Face Off over The Burqa

The reason I am dragging this subject back into the blog is because I was asked about the matter for a radio show just recently. Click here to listen to Eye on Wales in which I contributed.

Should we, could we and would we ban the burqa?
The French have of course brought up the issue, and I stumbled across this fascinating article on the Time Online which really spells out where Britain has gone with it's overdose of political correctness.

Written by French journalist Agnès Poirier, it reveals why on this occasion, we should be following their lead.

"The burka is not a religious problem, it's a question of liberty and women's dignity. It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That is not our idea of freedom.”


So spoke Nicolas Sarkozy in Versailles during his first state of the nation address to France's two chambers, the National Assembly and the Senate. He won rapturous applause and there is little doubt that an overwhelming majority of the French agreed with his every word. I say an overwhelming majority because this issue crosses all party lines in France. Republican principles of equality and secularism are so deeply grounded in the French mind that they belong as much to the Left as to the Right.

For someone like me, firmly on the Left, the defence of secularism is the only way to guarantee cultural diversity and national cohesion. One cannot go without the other. However, when I get on Eurostar to London, I feel totally alien. To my horror, my liberal-left British friends find such a position closer to that of the hard Right."

This point of view struck me as such an interesting truism I felt I had to cite it here. But interestingly the situation in France and the UK is not comparable. Across the Channel, the Burqa has been banned in state-run schools since 2004 and cannot be worn in hospitals or municipal offices or for that matter "anywhere where people interact as equal citizens"

Poirier goes on to say (and I am starting to like this woman more and more) that such a ban could never happen in the UK.

"When Jack Straw dared to state the obvious in 2006 by saying that the burka and the niqab were “visible statements of separation and of difference” before asking politely that women visiting his constituency surgery consider removing them, it provoked angry protests from Islamic associations and the British liberal- Left, always inclined, it seems, to defend the rights of liberty's enemies.

Seen from France, Britain's tolerance of extremist views looks at best naive, at worse dangerous: a recipe for trouble, division and painful soul-searching....If Britain's tolerance of political and religious extremism is often bewildering to the French, it also fascinates them. This tolerance does appeal to some French because of its sheer exoticism. French tourists visiting Britain for the first time, London in particular, are struck by what they perceive as a kaleidoscope of different ethnic minorities going about their day in their religious and cultural attire, cohabitating seemingly peacefully with punks and the half-naked: being free to differ.

What those visitors may discover later is that the price of this peaceful cohabitation lies in a constant bargaining of specific rights for specific communities in the name of cultural difference - the opposite of equality as understood in France. In France, public swimming pools would never allow women-only sessions to satisfy the demands of a minority. A public space is constructed for citizens to interact freely, and legislation written to remove the barriers of difference that separate them.

Seen from Britain, French principles of equality and secularism are often misinterpreted, and dismissed as authoritarian or prejudiced. But critics of the French approach don't seem to understand that secularism is neutral - the State doesn't recognise any religion in particular but protects them all, guaranteeing cultural and religious diversity by ensuring that one faith does not get the upper hand.

Can our two countries learn from each other? France could certainly try that very British tolerance and Britain could be more rigorous in arbitrating between the common good and the demands of communities. But our two systems are anchored in such different traditions and histories that we can only keep marvelling and staring in bewilderment at each other's approaches to social harmony; both of which are struggling to keep pace with the growing confidence of minorities who, once ignored, are now at the centre stage."

The fact that Poirier draws a conclusion that the British seem to pander somewhat to those minorities that impact upon the very concept of Britishness is interesting, and leads me to make this final point...

You never see women in the dictatorial, tyrannical, misogynistic cultures that promote the veil asking for the right to not wear it, for fear that stoning or flogging or domestic violence would ensue. The fact that Muslims in support of the ban hold it up as the right of that particular woman is as incongruous and hypocritical as people who suggest in some way that lapdancing, pole dancing, porn and the resultant objectification of women is in fact female empowerment. I think not.

Making Plans for Nigel

It's becoming a familiar sight in our newspapers now, and is even creeping through into television and radio. I'm talking about the circus of opinion that comes in the aftermath of controversial comment where people from all walks of life impart their wisdom on who should be sacked, who should quit, who should retire, apologise, resign etc. Well, there just isn't enough Max Clifford to go around.

We had a mini media flurry in the wake of Nigel Farage's remarks to the New President of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy. Unsurprisingly in a meeting today with the head of the European Parliament Jerzy Buzek, he was asked to make a series of apologies. Of course in the meantime, commentators and columnists have all had their piece to say. Perhaps the most entertaining was Elfyn Llwyd on Question Time who stated that name-calling and personal attacks had no place in politics, then told Nigel he was a caricature of himself and a Little Englander.

The point is, Nigel has been making these speeches for years. Controversial and pithy they may be, but they rarely get filtered down to the Press. There have certainly been stronger comments than those aired against Van the Man. But comments like this are needed for exactly that reason - to shake the media out of their apathy and get real debate going over the EU. I expect the average man on hearing Nigel's outburst would have said "Well, who IS this Van Rompuy?" Not because he's not a high profile European figure, but because a lot of people wouldn't even have had a clue a President of the EU even existed!

In the aftermath, everyone was clamoring to suggest it was a bid to raise publicity before the General Election. But why should we complain either way? It got the European Parliament on television and now a few more people might go away and find out what this Van Rompuy says he wants and what their future under his leadership will be like. Because he wants some pretty dramatic changes, and even more worryingly, has the power to enforce them.

Nigel was given a chance to explain further on The Daily Politics today. A good programme but nonetheless with a limited audience. The most important part of the whole story is not the "damp rag" comment, but why this man's appointment has caused such outrage. And that is the part of the story which is being kept away from the public. The fact that there is a new unelected President of the EU, so that means MY President and YOUR President and the President of about 500 million people, on a salary bigger than Obama's, who has had bestowed upon him a wealth of power by the Lisbon Treaty - which our Prime Minister signed without asking his people if they even wanted it - who has dreams of a Federal Europe. This should all be sounding a bit Nineteen Eighty Four, because it is!

And I suspect Nigel's opinion is, if it means just two more people come to realise what this man has in store for their future as Europeans, then it was worth it.