UKIP and BNP sitting in a tree...

It's not been picked up in the news but yesterday in the European Parliament we had the rather distasteful sight of UKIP and the BNP representatives united together to attack the idea of tackling climate change.

Nick Griffin (BNP) described the whole thing as 'an elite scam' and then Godfrey Bloom (UKIP) backed him up saying 'the whole thing is a sham... a bogus hypothesis'. You can watch the edited highlights here.

As Will Straw says;

"The BNP claim on their website to be, “this nation’s only true Green party which has policies that will actually save the environment.”And while consistency was never their strong point (see, for example, this picture of Griffin standing in front a No. 303 Polish Squadron spitfire), their own environment policy appears to contradict Griffin’s views on renewables: "A BNP government will… develop renewable energy sources such as off-shore wind farms, wave, tidal and solar energy.”

Congratulations to Tory MEP Sajjad Karim for responding with;

"These two parties crave acceptance into the political mainstream, but their cloud cuckoo land views are repeatedly being exposed. I would like to think that after such ridiculous views have been aired in such a public environment that the public will see through their carefully crafted public image and consign them to the looney fringes where they belong."

I hope that's not my bit of the looney fringe, I've only just made it comfortable.

(h/t Ellee and Will Straw)

Can bad things lead to good?

Bonkers ex-Tory Bob Spink MP (pictured, far right) has joined UKIP, giving them their very first Member of Parliament. This is great news, cough. Good man, choke.

In London, right now, there is a battle on for the Assembly List which will decide not just whether Labour lose another AM and where the Lib Dems are going to come but also which of the minor parties will make up the remaining places, a factor that could have a decisive impact over the running of London over the next four years.

In 2004, when the Assembly vote was taking place simultaneously with the Euro elections, UKIP shocked many by gaining two Assembly Members. As is the way of these things the new UKIP representatives soon split off to form an even more fascicle groupiscule, One London, and these two AMs have spent the intervening years being ineffectual and meaningless at the tax payers' expense, an irony that will not be lost on at least some of those who voted for them in the first place to combat wastefulness and the electoral gravy train.

Due to the particular maths of this election it's extremely important that at least one of those two effectively vacant places is taken by a progressive candidate, but it is unfortunately very likely that at least one place will go to a far less savoury character.

This time UKIP and One London are both running candidates, but have no profile, no agenda to speak of, nor any content to their campaigns bar the vague pompous rhetoric that sustains their hard core eccentricity. Add into the mix the Christian People's Alliance, who will undoubtedly draw some support from the strong Islamophobic undertow, and the English Democrats and we have a deliciously split racist vote.

But it is the BNP who are the real threat here. With 5% of the vote the BNP could gain the highest profile political position that they've ever had but, worse, with a touch more they could win two seats on the assembly which would notonly be disastrous in the fight against fascism but could also have a significant impact on the direction the Assembly takes over the next four years. In this sense it is very good news that the BNP have four main rivals for their detestable affections, not including the single issue anti-congestion charge grouping who may also steal some of the BNP's potential vote.

It puts progressives in an odd position when UKIP come out with statements designed to appeal to the less welcoming of this nation's inhabitants in that every racist vote sucked into the minor tributaries of the right wing hodgepodge of groupings is a vote the BNP does not get. That means Bob Spink, by lending some sort of credibility to UKIP, directly cuts into the BNP's chances of taking a second seat on the assembly - or maybe even deny them any place entirely.

Thanks. I think.

I mean I don't want to encourage these people to be racist and clearly the priority is to maximise the progressive vote but whilst the left often looks in horror at its own split and divided nature it's as well to remember that the far right is in a similar position, forced to compete with like minded entities for a very similar demographic. For a change the number of racists on the agenda may work in our favour.

I kip for U-KIP

Can't sleep so I thought I'd take a look at the current fortunes of UKIP. It's the sort of thing I do, sad I know.

2004 was a stunning year for UKIP. They won two London Assembly members and an astonishing twelves seats at the European Parliament on just under 17% of the vote. For a party that performed so well, claiming more seats than the Lib Dems, you rarely hear from them do you? I mean they proclaimed themselves to be radicals that were going to really shake things up. Come on, I'm ready! I'm not shaking yet.

I was going to start with their two London Assembly Members but the thing is... they both left UKIP and are now in their own party "One London" which appears to be essentially identical to UKIP, apart from they get to be in charge of it. This probably means that neither UKIP nor One London are likely to retain a presence on the London assembly come the next election.

So let's look at the most prominent figure in the 2004 campaign, Robert Kilroy Silk, who led the party to its Euro successes - oh - it appears he also left to form his own, now defunct, party Veritas within less than a year of joining UKIP. Perhaps we'll have more luck with some of the other MEPs.

Tom Wise (who happens to be one of my MEPs) is currently suspended from the party because he is currently under investigation by the fraud squad. This must be quite embarrassing for an ex-policeman although he can take some comfort in the fact that whilst UKIP have announced to the world that they have suspended him they don't seem to have actually done anything about it, so none of his gravy train privileges in the European Parliament are, as yet, threatened.

Let's try UKIP MEP Ashley Mote. Oh dear, he's had the misforttune of having to serve a spell at Her Majesty's pleasure serving a sentence for eight charges of false accounting, eight of obtaining a money transfer by deception, four of evading liability and one of failing to notify a change of circumstances. He is currently tagged. His constituents can rest assured though Mote has claimed that being in jail did not impair his effectiveness as an MEP, presumably because he wasn't doing anything for them anyway.

What is it with UKIP and finances? They seem to be a little jinxed in that department. In August this year they were fined £18,000 for infractions of the laws on political donations. Then the UKIP treasurer, Bruce Lawson, resigned which may be connected to the financial difficulties that the Telegraph reported earlier in the year.

In fact there seems to be the rumblings of internal discontent over the attitude the party takes to its financial affairs all round. All unfounded I'm sure. NEC member David Abbott seems concerned about "a cavalier attitude to the accounts". In a statement now sadly only available in cached form he remarked that "When running for the leadership, Farage said that he was good at raising money. This claim is open to dispute. What is not in dispute is that he is very good at spending it."

Things have got so bad that some members have set up an alternative party name, just in case there is a wish to split. The Grassroots Democracy Party (registered newly with the electoral commission) is not yet a fact but there has been a dissenter's "conference" attended by three UKIP NEC members (David Abbott, Delroy Young and Gill Seymore) and dozens of activists whose key concerns appear to be the need for financial probity, and MEP's serving only one term at the Euro parliament (so they don't become feather bedded Euro-politicos). Hardly controversial you would have thought considering UKIP's founding principles.

So if we look at some of the motions passed at the Grasroot Democracy conference we have a motion carried unanimously that says that "All UKIP accounts and returns must be fully audited by a reputable and independent firm of Chartered Accountants and a proper accounting system put in place." and another that says "All UKIP candidates for the European Parliamentary elections of 2009 will be asked to sign a Code of Conduct which will include provision that all monies received from European sources by the MEP or in connection with his activities shall be publicly and transparently accounted for. No UKIP MEP will participate in any EU-organised or sponsored visit unless such visit is approved in advance by the National Executive Committee."

Could it be that the party set up to attack Euro-corruption is in fact less than 100% on its own pecuniary rectitude? I certainly hope not - I'm sure in this case there is smoke without fire.

However it seems that along with concerns that UKIP leaders and elected officials have not been quite satisfactory when it comes to the accounts it seems they are also concerned that there is a lack of democracy in this party founded to bring democracy back to the British people.

These concerns include "The minutes of bodies such as the National Executive Committee and Regional Committees and R/O meetings should, in general, be made available to members." and "Candidates on the National List all must have equal opportunity to be selected. Employees of existing MEP's must have no role whatsoever in candidate selection." Which raises more questions than it answers frankly.

But we get to the crux of how internal party debates are carried out with this motion (again passed unanimously) "Party members should have the freedom to speak out about the lack of freedom and on democracy in the party without being labelled as trouble -makers and put under pressure to resign."

Petrina Holdsworth, a long serving UKIP member, puts her position like this "Whether we like it or not it is now abundantly clear from the recent results at Local and Parliamentary level that we are not receiving the support of the British voters, inspite of all the valiant efforts of our membership."

It's always difficult to be involved in a project that does not fulfill your expectations - they have my sympathies, if not my support.