Screw FIFA, our footballers should wear the poppy on November 11th whatever the consequences

FIFA has refused to allow English and Scottish football players wear poppy armbands at their world cup qualifier on 11th November.

The disgraced football world governing body claims that the poppy is banned under rules forbidding political, religious and commercial messages on shirts.

The poppy is not a political, religious or commercial message, it's a symbol of remembrance of the millions who died fighting for our freedom. The FAs of all the home nations should wear a poppy armband and screw the consequences, even if it means boycotting the tournament.

Portsmouth shipyard closure may well prove to be the fatal blow for the union

Yesterday's political motivated closure of HM shipyard at Portsmouth was a desperate attempt by the British government to scupper pro-independence sentiment in Scotland but may well prove to be the fatal blow for the union.

The comments from the sacked workers, from the local MP and from the local council have all been pretty consistent: this is English jobs for Scottish people. The British government has sacrificed Portsmouth to protect jobs in Scotland because closing the  Clyde shipyards in Glasgow would hand Alex Salmond a big propaganda coup in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum.

The Scottish independence people don't have a problem with the union per se, they have a problem with England. Most of them would stay in the UK if England was no longer part of it and it's because of this that the English will forever be the British sacrificial lamb. The price of Scottish unionism is denigration and discrimination against the English and it's a price the British are happy to pay.

UKIP's had a record Scottish by-election result in Aberdeen Donside in June - Otto Inglis came fifth with 4.83% of the vote, losing his deposit. The party put a lot of money into the campaign and the membership in Scotland worked like troopers but we will never see a breakthrough in Scotland because UKIP doesn't represent the views of the majority in Scotland who are left wing, pro-independence europhiles. It doesn't matter that declaring independence from the UK and then joining the EU is like a woman leaving one abusive partner to move in with another, that's what they want and that's what wins votes.

UKIP has nothing to gain from Scotland and everything to lose by not standing up strongly enough for the interests of the English people who do share UKIP's vision of the future - the UK (or rather, England and whoever tags along) out of the EU and back in control of our own destiny. The party needs to be campaigning strongly for a radically reformed British union that provides enough benefit to each member state of the UK or for Scotland to declare independence and leave England, Wales and Northern Ireland to get on with things. There will be no justice or fairness for the English whilst the union remains in its current form.

The only viable long term future for the British union is to reorganise it as a confederation with all four member states becoming sovereign nations and joining a British union by consent rather than compulsion. There's a great definition on the CIA factbook of a confederation:

Confederacy (Confederation) - a union by compact or treaty between states, provinces, or territories, that creates a central government with limited powers; the constituent entities retain supreme authority over all matters except those delegated to the central government.

In effect, the member states of the confederation are independent, sovereign nations voluntarily pooling sovereignty on limited matters whilst retaining the right to act in their own interests in all matters. It turns devolution and federation on its head - instead of the central (ie. federal of quasi-federal in the case of the UK) government having sovereignty and the right to legislate on all matters, the member states of the union have this status and the central government is limited in its powers. It's not dissimilar to how the EU, UN, NATO and other intergovernmental organisations are constituted. I wrote the case for a British confederation back in 2011 and it's still absolutely valid today - more so after what happened in Portsmouth yesterday.

The alternative is that the UK breaks up and as more discrimination is meted out at the English it is increasingly likely that it is the English who will bring down the union, not the Scots. Opinion polls already show that more people in England want Scotland to declare independence than people in Scotland do and the last major survey into devolution and independence in the UK showed that as many people in England want English independence as people in Scotland want Scottish independence. This is a direct result of the discriminatory policy of allowing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to run their own domestic affairs whilst refusing to allow England the same right and the British government's willingness to discriminate against England to benefit the Scots (and to a lesser extent the Welsh and Northern Irish).

UKIP's equivocation on reform of the British union is costing the party votes. The last policy agreed by the NEC - still to be made public a year after being agreed - would have the unintended consequence of resulting in a confederation of the type described above to provide democratically accountable government. This is a good thing but the policy is gathering dust on the "to be announced" shelf which means it will probably be revised yet again - another policy agreed in principal that never sees the light of day.

As a party we support an English Parliament - the only serious party to do so - and Nigel Farage publicly confirms UKIP's commitment to equality for England on a regular basis but there's no meat on the bone. We need a full, coherent policy on how we're going to reform the British union put into the public domain and a commitment for a high level campaign to accompany it.

The union in its current form seriously disadvantages England and any mainstream party that promises comprehensive reform of the union so that everyone benefits and not just the relative few will undoubtedly be rewarded at the ballot box.

Building tangible foundations for Young Independence

I joined Ukip deciphering that it’s more than just a political movement, it’s a social movement. The evidence is clear when you walk into a pub and notice the pub landlord has tossed a cascade of Ukip’s ‘Save the Pub’ beer mats around the pub; do you see the same for Labour, Tory – or Lib-Dem – supporters? No, now those activists only exist in a realm isolated from of the average man or woman, although they may pop by at election period. Ukip is different. And I believe this movement has to reach the youth if we really want to establish ourselves in the social fabric, and I think it is vitally important, as we've seen in currently in Young Independence, young supporters make their own interpretations of Ukip policy or values; enhancing the sense of the yellow, purple and striped tied Youth Kipper which I believe is a crucial beneficiary to the concept of the ‘broad church’ of Ukip, which is a good thing.

Many young people feel naturally attached to what the Party stands for, however I worry that they are rummaging for a local Ukip presence, and Young Independence (if they've ever heard of it), when frankly it should be vice versa. I want to build tangible foundations for YI branches to seep new members - and activists, and of course establish more branches, particularly in constituencies where we do possess YI members willing to do their bit for the party. I am a strong believer in YI branch chairmen getting down and dirty for youth support; where do the youth go in your areas; youth clubs; social events; sixth form, college and university debates etc? My personal interaction with these branches would be key, moreover establishing a network between branches is essential; learning from the tactics of one another is what we really need to get YI together – and to be helping one another in terms of campaigning, transport and events. A relationship should also be established with your local Ukip branch in boosting these factors. I shall email, use social networking or meet branch representatives at party events, so we can share information and ideas.

I am a strong believer in transparency; and I will update YI and the rest of Ukip, with what I do as Grassroots Officer in my blogs or emails, as well as taking into light your personal queries or interests. I will contact EVERYONE on the incoming database; no one will be left out.

                

I have begun drafting plans with former YI Interim Chairman Rob Comley, embracing social networking in the process, to gather a bunch of Ukip supporting sixth formers, college students and university students to discuss why they want to leave the European Union, and why they believe in Ukip – before a camera; fruitful content which can be widely distributed. These - and many more - approaches should be taken to reach the social media capacity of other political youth organisations, such as Young Labour and Conservative Future, which are blatantly losing the argument but currently only have meek opposition.

 We must look beyond university as the majority are elsewhere, and that role of 'beyond' should be naturally carried out by the Grassroots Officer. Ukip’s Libertarian image - with a spice of Lady Britannia's common sense - can’t be amplified by merely the Party Leadership, but youth themselves. Similarly, we need more YI members out on the doorstep rather than older activists who struggle to walk up myriads of stairs; I have witnessed this struggle firsthand leafleting around London. Young Independence needs to be a tangible fighting force, not bluntly just on the internet. That includes activists from all over Great Britain gathering for the greater good.

We must imprint ourselves in the social fabric; YI must defeat concrete jungles and tribal voting through youth networks, and therefore Ukip will surely have a beaming, long term future.

Votes much appreciated!

My manifesto - Alexander Balkan – Candidate for Grassroots Officer of Young Independence.

Proposer: Rob Comley. Seconder: Henry Reilly. Assentors: Jack Duffin, Kelly Gravett, Richard Harrington, Laura Howard, James Lynch, Gareth Shanks, Peter Thurston and Ben Walker.
 

Ed Miliband says the “E” word

Ed Miliband has broken with decades of tradition and spoken positively about English identity and even mentioning an English Parliament.  Ok, he dismissed it out of hand because he says there isn't support for one but he's the first LibLabCon leader to follow UKIP's lead and take the subject seriously.

Labour has been struggling in England in recent years, despite a revival thanks to the ineptitude of the ConDems and has been navel gazing for some time trying to figure why the country they milked for over a decade to buy votes in Scotland and Wales might not be so keen on voting for them.  It has recently occurred to them that describing English people as "a race not worth saving" and suggesting that people describing themselves as English is worrying and is about race, not culture unlike Britishness might be a contributing factor to their unpopularity.

While Ed Miliband is now apparently comfortable with us describing ourselves as English (as long as we say we're British as well) he isn't happy with the idea of an English Parliament.  He says that an English Parliament means more politicians and that there isn't support for an English Parliament so instead we should make do with more powers for local authorities.

Where to start?  The "more politicians" myth is as good a place as any.  There are 650 British MPs, 117 of which are elected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland where they have less than half the workload of an MP elected in England because their devolved representatives have more responsibility in their constituencies than they do.  If an English Parliament takes away most of the British Parliament's work, why on earth would we keep all 650 British MPs?  The number of British MPs could easily be halved and it's a pretty damning indictment of the British political class that the thought of reducing their number doesn't even cross their minds.

As for there being no support for an English Parliament - what he means is there is no support for an English Parliament in his own party.  An Ipsos Mori/British Futures poll in January found that 52% want an English Parliament.  An ICM/Power 2010 poll last year found that 68% want an English Parliament.  A YouGov/Jury Team poll in 2009 found that 58% want an English Parliament.  A Populus/The Times poll in 2009 found that 41% want an English Parliament.  An ICM/Telegraph poll in 2007 found that 45% want an English Parliament or to ban MPs not elected in England from voting on English matters.  An ICM/CEP poll in 2007 found that 67% want an English Parliament.  A YouGov/Sunday Times poll in 2007 found that 72% want an English Parliament.  There are more but that's enough to make the point - all of them show a majority in favour of an English Parliament.

His suggestion that giving local authorities in England more power would be equivalent to the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly is frankly insulting.  A town council could never compete with a national government and it certainly couldn't represent the local population and businesses on the internationals stage.  It's a ridiculous suggestion and a half baked idea motivated by political greed, not a desire to do what's right by the English.

Cross-posted from: Wonko's World

IPPR confirms support for English Parliament

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) have released a report on the English Question with some very interesting results which show UKIP, once again, ahead of the curve on public opinion.

The report concludes that there is unhappiness with the status quo viz the way the UK is governed and the way government has changed in light of devolution has resulted in an increasingly political representation of Englishness.

Now, before I delve into the contents of this report I will recap on where UKIP stands on the subject of Englishness, Britishness, the union, devolution, the West Lothian Question and the English Question.

UKIP has traditionally been a British nationalist party.  There's a clue in the name: "United Kingdom Independence Party".  However, there is a UKIP Scotland, UKIP Wales and UKIP NI so like the other parties, there is an acknowledgement that the UK isn't a nation in the traditional sense and that a federal structure of sorts is required to properly represent the electorate or at least to fit into the way that politics works practically.

For a long time, UKIP policy has been to oppose devolution and promote the idea of Grand Committees of British MPs legislating for the nations they were elected in.  In itself this demonstrates the somewhat incoherent and inconsistent British nationalism that has driven policy thus far - the belief that devolved national governments undermine the concept of Britishness and so should be replaced with British Grand Committees representing exactly the same geographic area.

There is the EU element of course (well, it wouldn't be UKIP if there wasn't an EU conspiracy theory!) - there is still a prevalent belief that devolution is the work of the EU who want to break up the UK to more easily assimilate us.  There is no doubt that the EU wants the UK to be broken up and they have worked hard to ensure regional administration puts down deep roots.  However, the fact that Scotland, Wales and NI are both nations and euroregions has muddied the water understandably giving credibility to the theory that the EU was behind their devolution settlements.  If the EU were involved in the devolution settlement for Scotland, Wales and NI it was to give consent, not as architects.

So UKIP has, for many years oppose devolution based on the belief that it will undermine Britishness to the extent that the union will fall apart.  Until, that is, Paul Nuttall's recent policy paper that outlined a new policy of supporting devolved government for all four member states of the UK.  Which brings us more or less up to where we are now.

The IPPR report is the first major investigation into English (as English, not a subset of British) politics, national identity and English opinions on devolution and governance.  So what did they find?

Firstly, the English have changed their minds on the impact of Scottish and Welsh devolution on how the UK is governed from ambivalence to believing it has made it worse.  IPPR attribute this change of attitude to the perception of disadvantage for England in a post-devolution UK.  The opinion of around half of all English people polled was that Scotland benefits most from the union financially with the other half being unsure, thinking that both England and Scotland benefit equally and a very small minority thinking that England benefit most.

Secondly, the proportion of people in England who think that Scotland should be independent from the UK has risen to 22%, equal to those who think it should be governed by a devolved parliament with more tax-raising powers and who think it should be governed directly by the British government.  19% think that it should stay as it is and 15% don't know.  The number of people in England who think Scotland should have its own government with tax-raising powers - what is planned for Scotland - has nosedived from a high in 2001 of 53% with independence and don't know accounting for most of the difference.

The number of people in England supporting a ban on Scottish MPs voting on English laws now that Scotland has its own government has increased remarkably since 2007.  The number disagreeing remains very low.  The report is reporting these figures as support for English Votes on English Laws which it isn't - the question specifically asks "Now that Scotland has its own parliament, Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote in the House of Commons on laws that only affect England".  Supporters of an English Parliament and elected regional assemblies would also express the opinion that MPs elected in Scotland should be banned from voting on English laws.

English people are quite unequivocal in their opinion of whether the British government looks after the interests of all parts of England equally - between roughly two thirds and three quarters of English people think that they don't.  Even in London, which most English people think gets too much attention from the British government, 58% of people thought that the British government didn't treat all parts of England equally.

An interesting statistic is the number of people who trust the British government to work in the long term interests of England.  42% have "not very much" trust in the British government to work in England's interests, 17% "not at all".

On the preferred form of government for England, just over a third think that "English MPs" in the British government should govern England.  24% support the status quo, 20% support an English Parliament, 9% support regional government and 14% don't know.  While this does appear to show support for an English Parliament quite low, the option for "English MPs" is misleading for most people.  They aren't "English MPs", they're British MPs elected in England - an important distinction because "English MPs" implies an English mandate.  More on this in a moment.

When excluding an English Parliament, an overwhelming number of English people believe the British government has and should have the most influence over the way England is run.  27% of English people believe the EU has the most influence over how England is run yet only 1% think that is right.

The report compares the number of people in England who think the EU has the most influence against other "regions" of the EU as a measure of euroscepticism which shows that England is by far the most eurosceptic - far more eurosceptic than Scotland where only 8% think the EU has most influence over their country.  However, this isn't really a measure of euroscepticism, it's a measure of how many people think the EU has most influence over their "region".  It is natural that such a large number of people in England would think that the EU has most influence for two reasons: English people are generally more eurosceptic than most and because every other "region" in the list has its own devolved government which makes most of the decisions that affect their day to day lives (notwithstanding the fact that most of those decisions are covered by EU regulations, a fact that is sadly lost on most people).

Going back to the preferred method of government, there is an inconsistency in public opinion depending on the question asked.  Asking for an outright choice of a form of government produces a markedly different outcome to asking who should have most influence over the way England is run when the answer is an English Parliament.  This shows how important the question asked is - people are turned off by politics and not many people really understand the often subtle differences between different forms of government.

When forced to choose a national identity between England and British, English is now the majority choice and the trend over the last couple of years is for a very rapid increase in the English identity.  Last year's royal wedding saw the country draped in British flags and the British Olympics are almost permanently in the news.  The British government and the BBC in particular have used both these events to try and promote their Britishness agenda yet English national identity has gone through the roof.

More people in England identify with England rather than Britain than the other way round, 17% of people consider themselves English but not British but only 7% consider themselves British and not English.  The number of people who consider themselves English to some extent is overwhelming.

English national identity is the third strongest "regional" identity in the EU.  Scotland tops the table, unsurprisingly, followed by Catalonia (no surprise there) and fourth place goes to Wales.

Despite the persistent campaign of denigrating the English identity by the British government, the BBC, the left wing press and others, there is an overwhelming sense of pride in being English.  A similar proportion of English people feel proud of being British as being English but that pride is less equivocal with more people being "very proud" to be English compared to "fairly proud" to be British.  48% are very proud to be English and 31% are fairly proud.  38% are very proud to be British whilst 39% are fairly proud.  More people are proud to be English than British.

Similar to the national identity question above, the degree of attachment to England is higher than to the UK.  English people are less equivocal about attachment to England than they were in the national identity question with a very similar proportion of people "very attached" and "fairly attached" but combined they show that 85% of English people feel an attachment to England against 76% for the UK.

An overwhelming number of people think St George's Day should be a public holiday.  74% of people agree strongly or tend to disagree, only 12% disagree - 1% less than "don't know".  A 2009 Freedom of Information request found that the British government has spent just £230 in five years on promoting St George's Day, including the £114 cost of a flag to fly once a year over the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's offices - a British government department with an English-only remit.  More money is spent by the British government promoting St Patrick's Day than St George's Day.

The report helpfully lists the responses of non-white English people to their national identity.  The number of non-white people describing themselves as "English not British" has gone from 1% in 2007 to 9%.  The number describing themselves as more English than British has gone from 3% in 2007 to 13%.  The number describing themselves as equally English and British has gone up from 18% in 2007 to 23%.  The number identifying themselves as more British than English or only British has declined, as has the number identifying themselves as something other than English or British.  More on this shortly.

When asked which party best stands up for English interests, the majority said none.  Bizarrely, the Labour Party which introduced devolution for Scotland, Wales and NI but refused to do so for England and installed a Scottish MP as Prime Minister who presided over a number of controversial English-only laws that no English person could judge him on at the ballot box, came top with 21%.  The Conservatives, whose leader proudly boasts of the Scottish blood coursing through his veins, who has gone to Scotland a number of times to slag off the English and who has said more than once that he doesn't want to be Prime Minister of England, came second with 20%.  UKIP came third with 9% of people thinking that we would best represent England interests.  More people thought that British National Party would represent England's interests better than the English Democrats - a damning indictment of that party's failed leadership that they come bottom of a poll of political parties that would best serve English interests when that was the sole reason for the party being set up in the first place.

It is interesting to note the year the decline started.  2007 is the year the Scottish MP, Gordon Brown, was installed as the heir of Blair and the agressive promotion of Britishness started in earnest.  The increase in sense of Englishness might be a reaction to the enforced Britishness agenda, it might be a reaction to a Prime Minister elected in Scotland who is unaccountable to the voters whose lives he most influenced, it might be a reaction to the increasing rights and privileges of the Scots and Welsh or it might just be a natural phenomenen.  My money is on all of them combined and any number of other factors but it's not important, the shift in the national psyche has already happened and what needs to happen now is for the political establishment to catch up with the views of those they are supposed to represent.

It is interesting that there is a large increase in the proprtion of non-white people identifying themselves as English.  Minorities in England are encouraged to be British, their interaction with the state from day one is with all things British.  In Scotland a newly-arrived immigrant's interaction will be mostly in a Scottish context.  The British government encourages immigrants to be British (in a half-hearted manner) whereas in Scotland they are encouraged to be Scottish not just by the Scottish government but by their Scottish peers.  By encouraging immigrants to identify with the British identity, the British government are creating a barrier to integration and simply replacing one minority identity with another one.

The message coming out of the IPPR report is that the English identity has finally replaced British as the dominant identity in England, that Englishness is rapidly gaining and as yet unrealised political aspect and that the English are dissatisfied with the way their country is governed.  The IPPR report would seem to suggest, based on one set of figures, that most English people want the constitutional fudge most commonly known as English Votes on English Laws to replace the current situation where British MPs from all four member states of the UK vote on laws only affecting England.  This is more or less what UKIP's current/outgoing policy is.

However, as I pointed out above, the question - Now that Scotland has its own parliament, Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote in the House of Commons on laws that only affect England - doesn't actually ask for opinions on English Votes for English Laws, it asks whether Scottish MPs should be banned from voting on English laws which also encompasses an English Parliament, independence and regionalisation.  The number of people who came out in favour of banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws is almost exactly the same as the combined support for an English Parliament, English Votes on English Laws and regionalisation.  You have to look further down the report to find a more relevant measure of support for a particular form of government in the question of who should have most influence over decision making in England where the majority were in favour of a devolved English Parliament.

The British government will surely have to take notice of this report, the likes of which they have been diligently avoiding commissioning themselves.  The results are unequivocal and the conclusions are pretty damning.  It shows that UKIP has been on the wrong track opposing devolution but also shows that we are once again ahead of the curve as the first mainstream party to come out in favour of an English Parliament to balance the assymetrical devolution already in place.

Early results from yesterday's elections

It is looking likely that UKIP will have gained its first Welsh Assembly Member after securing 4.6% of the regional list vote (a 0.5% increase on the last election).  The 4.6% regional vote should be just enough to secure one AM.

The results in Scotland are looking pretty dire though, despite the huge amount of effort put into the campaign north of the border.  The SNP landslide shows that UKIP's regressive devolution policy is holding the party back.  The Scottish regional list votes are still being counted but as I type UKIP is still in 10th place, marginally behind the BNP and 700 votes short of the Scottish Christian Party.  A disappointing result in Scotland but entirely expected.

UKIP is yet to gain (or lose) a seat in England although many English councils are counting later today.  Northern Ireland is also yet to be counted but early indications are that UKIP's first foray into Northern Irish politics has been successful.

Election 2011: put our resources into areas where we have known support

This year UKIP will be contesting local elections in England and elections to the devolved executives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

UKIP will be putting a fair bit of money into this year's elections but is it going to be spent where it's most likely to be turned into electoral success?

Cards on the table, I'm an English nationalist.  It's no great secret and anyone who reads this blog regularly, reads the Bloggers4UKIP Twitter feed, reads my own blog or the UKIP members' forum will know that I am an active campaigner for an English Parliament and have spent the last year or two debating (sometimes rowing) with fellow UKIPpers about devolution.  I even set up the 1997 Group for like-minded UKIPpers.

UKIP's policy on devolution is wrong and a lot of members agree with this and support a change in the current policy of abolishing the devolved executives and establishing Grand Committees of British MPs to replace them - an extension of the Tories' now-abandoned English Votes on English Laws policy to establish Scottish Votes on Scottish Laws, Welsh Votes on Welsh Laws and Northern Irish Votes on Northern Irish Laws instead of democratically accountable devolved executives.

But it's not just UKIP members that our policy makers should be listening to - they should be listening to the general public.  Only a fool would think that the Scots could ever be convinced to give up their parliament and the Welsh will cement the tenuous 51% yes vote for devolution in 1997 with a reasonable majority in favour of the Welsh government being given primary law making powers in this year's referendum.  And of course the Northern Irish Assembly was part of the Good Friday and couldn't be abolished without seriously damaging relations with the Republic of Ireland and risking a return to violence in the province.  That just leaves England unrepresented - the last colony of the British Empire.  Seven out of ten people want an English Parliament or at the very least a ban on MPs not elected in England voting on English laws according to four independent opinion polls in four years commissioned by three different organisations.

So with devolution quite obviously here to stay and supported by most voters, UKIP is going to contest elections in Scotland and Wales this year on a platform of abolishing the devolved executives.  This is lunacy.  We will be lucky to finish above the Monster Raving Loony Party in Scotland (just ask the English Democrats how embarrassing that is) and there is the very slightest chance we might get an AM elected in Wales thanks to the elections there being held under PR (an EU directive, naturally) and a very marginal shift to the right in Wales after decades of mismanagement by the rancid left.

In England, however, we stand a real chance of gaining from the distrust of the LibLabCon parties, the implosion of the Lib Dems, the displeasure at the ConDem "cuts" (in reality, just reductions in the increase in spending) which are primarily targeting England and the inherent conservatism (small "c") of England.  But how much of the election money will be left for English election campaigns once the Scottish and Welsh campaigns have been paid for?

UKIP is clearly going to be pushing hard for votes in Wales, judging by the addition of welsh party descriptions for UKIP to the register at the Electoral Commission.  Names such as "Abolish Assembly UKIP"  and "UKIP Scrap Assembly" will be appearing on ballot papers for elections to the Sennedd, presumably signalling an intention to mount a large and expensive campaign in Wales.  UKIP Scotland and UKIP Wales have been registered but no UKIP England or UKIP NI (more on Northern Ireland at the end).

Now clearly I'm biased on the subject of devolution - I could hardly claim to be impartial on the subject when I'm on the National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament - but let me put it to you another way.  Is it a reasonable way of ensuring our money is well spent in the election to establish the principle that central party funds are only put into areas where we retained a deposit in the last general election, that money should be put into areas where branches put in the effort and where there was support for the candidate and that money shouldn't be frittered away on areas where we have no active branch and where there is demonstrably very little support for UKIP?  Does that sounds reasonable?  To me it does and the fact that we didn't retain a single deposit - didn't even come close to retaining a deposit - in Scotland or Wales is just a happy co-incidence.

I will be standing in the local election this year in my own ward but I don't expect and won't ask for any money from the central party.  Our branch has enough money in the kitty to fund all our candidates so I have no vested interest in how much money the party puts in to English elections - I just want to see UKIP do well in this year's elections and we are only going to do that by putting our resources into winnable elections.

I said I'd mention Northern Ireland at the end and I deliberately left it out of this argument because for UKIP it's a special case.  The NI branch is new and covers the whole of the province.  It has only one councillor who predates the branch's formation.  UKIP has never contested Northern Irish elections and Northern Ireland doesn't really feature in any of the discussions about the EU because politics there is so different to the mainland.  We have nothing to lose by dipping our toe into Northern Irish politics (particularly as UKIP NI is ignoring UKIP's daft devolution policy and supporting Stormont) as long as it's not a half-arsed affair with no money or effort put into it.

So, in a nutshell what I am saying is this: put our resources into areas where we have known support evidenced by retained deposits at the last election and not into unwinnable elections for devolved executives that we are committed to abolishing against the wishes of the electorate.

Farage will be "insufferable" if England beat Germany

Nigel Farage, the Europe-hating xenophobe, has told the Telegraph that he will be "insufferable" if England beat Germany today.

Farage is pretty unique amongst Europe-hating xenohpobes in that he's married to a German. Who is a European. And foreign.

His wife Kirsten will be supporting Germany, he will be supporting England and his two daughters?  Their mother has apparently got them shouting "Come on Germany" to wind him up.

I can sympathise with Nigel's predicament - my two step sons are a quarter Scottish and they sometimes pretend to support Scotland to wind me up and have even managed to get their younger brother and sister to do it as well.  They don't mean it of course but they have a wicked sense of humour and love winding people up (wonder where they got that from).  One of them even put on a Celtic t-shirt the other day and refused to take it off until I told him he wasn't allowed to leave the house unless he did!