OPINION: Low turn outs at elections

Yet again the British public has shown apathy at a set of elections with a turnout of only about 31% at yesterday's local and mayoral elections.

Across the world people risk their lives for the right to have a say in how their countries are run, and here, in the UK, there's been two world wars and the suffragette moving fighting for, and protecting, our democratic freedoms, and yet a majority of people just don't care.

Sure, the MPs' expenses scandal dented public confidence in politicians, but turnouts were low before that.

So why don't people vote?

They seem to think all politicians are the same, and that many are there to line their own pockets, they don't believe their vote will make a difference and they simply don't care about politics, preferring, instead, to vote on the X Factor or Britain's Got Talent.

There is certainly a problem with the major parties slowly morphing into one. All three now offer a variation of a centre right politics and the continual bickering between the parties seems to be arguing for the sake of it, rather than on principle. As I blogged the other day, party politics is bad for democracy.

There are those who argue that the first past the post election system is at fault. Too many seats are foregone conclusions and so most votes are irrelevant unless you live in one of about 50 marginal seats. They want to replace it with AV (rejected by the electorate in a referendum last year) or PR (which has lead to massive unstable governments in Italy since the Second World War.

There are, of course, some who want to introduce more postal votes or voting by text or online. All of these ideas need to be looked at, and if they can be introduced without making electoral fraud easier, I see no reason why more variety of voting methods can't be used - but I doubt this is the big solution.

I think another issue is that there are too many career politicians who have no experience of the real world outside of Westminster. Maybe there should be a minimum age for MPs?

I like first past the post; the winner is the winner. The elected MP has a clear local link maintained and there is no nonsense of the person coming third or fourth on the first round of balloting ending up winning. First past the post is simple, understandable and democratic.

So what should be done?

There probably aren't any quick fixes. We need more openness and honesty in politics. We need the electorate to believe that MPs are in parliament to work for a better society and not merely there like pigs at the trough. We need a true rainbow of politics with genuine alternatives to centre right capitalism. And, I think, we need to make voting compulsory.

Yes, it should be a legal requirement to vote. This would mean that there has to be an option for "No Suitable Candidate" or "Re-open Nominations" so that people aren't forced to vote for parties that they disagree with but, if we want a genuinely vibrant and democratic politics that is the change that is necessary.

COMMENT: Independent daze

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. The laws of the land are made by political parties and so they will be made to help political parties.

That's all well and good - until you have an independent candidate standing.

Siobhan Benita is an independent candidate in the election for London mayor. She is a fresh new face, unlike the 3 candidates from the major parties, all who were around four years ago. And Siobhan is doing very well, considering she doesn't have the weight of one of the monolithic parties behind her. Currently, according to opinion polls she is standing fourth - behind Labour, Tory and Lib Dem candidates, but ahead of the Green, BNP and UKIP candidates.

Election law stipulates how much media coverage the candidates receive and makes sure things are fair.

But it isn't fair.

Election broadcasts, and specifically the quantity of them, are based on performance at previous elections by each party. In the election for London mayor the big 3 parties have all had multiple broadcasts, and the smaller parties have all be allowed a broadcast too.

But Siobhan isn't allowed one.

As a newbie, without electoral history personally, and without the weight of history provided by an established party, she's not allowed an election broadcast - and her position in the opinion polls counts for nothing.

So the racists of the BNP and UKIP get to flaunt their distasteful policies on television and radio, Labour's Jen Livingstone, with his various unpleasant views and dubious tax arrangements, gets some, the standing mayor is allowed to defend his record, even Brian Paddick is allowed airtime to try to pretend his party hasn't been subsumed into the Tory Party...

... but Siobhan Benita, a woman whose message many are turning to, isn't allowed an election broadcast because the parties have stitched up the law about election broadcasts.

It is undemocratic. It is blatantly wrong and unjust. It's a situation that must be changed.

COMMENT: Debating with the BNP

It's been announced that both Labour's candidate for London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and the Green Party's candidate, Jenny Jones, have pulled out of a BBC London mayoral debate because the BNP candidate is taking part and they refuse to share a platform with them.

Aren't they being undemocratic?

Yes, there is much to object to in the BNP's policies, and, yes, I find those views unacceptable in the modern world. Quite how the BNP's blatantly racist policies could work in London, arguably the world's most multi-cultural city, is beyond me, but the BNP is a legal political party and are standing for election.

Why not debate with the BNP and show how ridiculous, divisive and objectionable they are?

Surely, as part of an election process, the best thing to do is engage all the parties so that the electorate can decide between them on the power if their argument and the strength of their policies?

Are Labour and the Green Party worried that their own policies aren't strong enough?

I can see many reasons why Ken Livingstone might want to avoid any public debate. He mustbe desperate to swerve further investigation of his income tax payments and he has many questions to answer about various racist, sexist and anti-semite comments he himself has made. Maybe Ken fears he would find himself agreeing with the BNP candidate too much?

I think there are many who find sharing a platform with Ken Livingstone highly objectionable.

I'm particularly disappointed that Jenny Jones has opted to pull out if the debate. In doing so I feel she has brought the Green Party, one of the most liberal and democratic parties in the country, into disrepute. I hope she changes her mind and debates like a grown up.

After all, the GLA will have representatives from a wide range of parties, and whoever is elected Mayor will have to work with them all. Would Ken and Jenny not work with an elected official if they were from a party which they objected to?

Another issue is that many of the BNP policies aren't that different from those of UKIP and the Tories. Some of the right-wing of the Tory party may as well be in the BNP.

So what should happen?

Ken Livingstone and Jenny Jones need to grow up and act like adults. They need to respect the democracy of the UK, and if they don't they should lose their right to take part in all remaining debates. They shouldn't be picking and choosing.

COMMENT: Cam dine with me

This weekend's revelations that Cruddas, the Tory party vice-treasurer, had been caught trying to sell influence/appointments with David Cameron shouldn't come as any surprise.

Sure, the opposition will make the most out of the latest dubious cash for dinner revelations but if they're honest none of the major parties are without those who wish to buy themselves a greater influence with the party leaders.

How Labour can complain about large donations made from businessmen to the Tories while they themselves receive huge amounts from the unions is beyond me. Unions buying influence with Labour, a practise that's bedevilled the left wing of politics for decades, is a thoroughly disingenuous and dishonest system.

Some say that state funding of parties is the solution. I'm not convinced. State funding favours existing parties and, indeed, favours parties over independents which has to be a bad thing.

There are laws that require openness and honesty. All donations over £7,500 have to be declared. Clearly, some feel that they have a right to bypass the law and buy influence with policy makers.

Let's be honest, party politics is intrinsically corrupt. Parties are, themselves, coalitions of opinions and have to find ways of attracting attention and support.

Personally I'd favour an end to party politics, with all MPs being independents able to vote freely on every subject, no whips and no dodgy donations to have an influence on party policy.

REVIEW: The Iron Lady (12A)

Everyone over the age of about 30 has an opinion about Margaret Thatcher. One of the most influential, and one of the most controversial, politicians ever to rise through the party ranks to become Prime Minister.



I was never a supporter of hers (the first General Election I could vote in was 1983 when she got re-elected, wiping away the more intelligent, but scruffier, Michael Foot). That was the only election I ever voted Labour, back when that party had principles but wasn't good at presentation. She became PM when I was 14 and stopped when I was 25. She was also the Education Secretary while I was in primary school - "Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher!" - so I guess I can be described as a "Child of Thatcher"!

"The Iron Lady" is an odd biopic as it takes one of the world's most powerful women and portrays her as old and frail and suffering from dementia. Her career is shown via flashbacks but, perhaps because of the constraints of being a commercially viable movie, the story of her political career is highly selective and omits many major and significant moments.

Meryl Streep is phenomenal as Margaret Thatcher as firmer grocer's daughter who wants to lead the Tories, as the strident leader who orders the sinking of the Belgrano, as the out of control, maniacal demon she became, and as the old and frail woman who imagines conversation with Dennis, who has been dead for 8 years. Streep has perfected every intonation and every mannerism. Finally, there is a better Thatcher impersonator than Steve Nallon!

Phyllida Lloyd, who directed Streep in "Mama Mia!" seems to want to skim over most of Thatcher's most divisive decisions. Sure, there's scenes if riots and strikes, and police armed with batons, but so much is left out it feels incomplete. For instance, Richard E. Grant looks good as Michael Heseltine, Thatcher's arch nemesis within the Tory party, but in this movie he's hardly seen - in one scene he's there being supportive, and then he's suddenly announcing he'll stand against her in the 1990 coup that saw Thatcher's fall from powe, and John Major becoming Prime Minister.

Maybe the selectiveness of the episodes from her life are meant to be symbolic of the Alzheimer's that she is suffering... Or maybe it's just a script that's not quite got the balance right.

The young Margaret Roberts is played, rather well, by Alexandra Roach. She gets in to Oxford, gets involved in politics, loses her first by-election, gets married and gets into parliament but, as a rather staid, middle-class woman who wears hats and pearls and, "does screech too much" - there are few hints of what is to come but, at the point Streep takes over, she suddenly becomes more focused and develops the beliefs that will dominate a nation for over a decade and still have an effect today. However, there is no signs of where these beliefs came from, beyond inspiration from her father.

It's also a shame that the soundtrack limits itself to Thatcher's personal likes (Rodgers & Hammerstein and Bellini operas apparently) and rather insipid original music and doesn't make use of, or explore, the music of the various eras through which the movie travels.

The movie has massively divided opinion. Some, including current Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, believe the movie has been made too soon and should have waited until Thatcher had passed to the great Grocer's shop in the sky. Others, from the other end of the political spectrum, find it objectionable that it shows Thatcher in a sympathetic light. I also know some staunch left wingers who have been impressed by Thatcher's drive and vision, even if they disagree with her politics, and some, who supported her at the time, who now have a different view with hindsight. What is great is that the movie has got people talking about movies and about politics.

It's fair to say that I did enjoy watching "The Iron Lady", as, it seemed, did the rest of the audience when I it. It is cinematically structured and presented, with some pleasing moments, and, well, Streep is fantastic and VERY likely to win the Best Actress OSCAR on February 26th.

COMMENT: Whatever happened to Neil Hamilton?

Who can forget Neil and Christine Hamilton being handed their "appearance fee" on the BBC's Have I Got News For You?

Hamilton has always denied the accusation that he accepted cash, handed over in brown paper envelopes, to ask questions in the House of Commons when he was an MP as was claimed by The Guardian newspaper. When the scandal erupted, further shaking John Major's government, Hamilton stood down as a minister but continued to take sit in parliament and take his salary for 3 years until he lost his seat at the 1997 election.



There followed a series of highly embarrassing, and, at times, tasteless, publicity stunts and endless appearances of Neil and Christine on quiz shows, chat shows, cooking shows... they were even the subject of a Louis Theroux documentary. Christine, increasingly, came over as loud and dominant and Neil, to an extent, gained some sympathy.



So where's he been?

He was always been at the right wing of Tory thought so, perhaps, it was no surprise when he turned up earlier this year as a new member of UKIP, the friendly face of extremists and racists.

He's hinted, rather unsubtly, that he might consider standing in the 2014 elections for the European Parliament.

Now, he's been elected to UKIP's NEC, in fact he topped the poll - there main policy making body. I'm an atheist but Heaven help us.

A discredited extremist wants to devise policies for a racist party and represent the UK in Europe. Given that scenario maybe there'll be no need for a Euro referendum... the EU would be justified throwing us out!

He says he's "back in politics" and wants to "fight for the UK to leave the European Union" - he'll be there standing beside that loon, Farage, making the UK look idiotic.

Apparently he wants to bring back "self-respect to Britain" - this from a man who, for over a decade, has shown little in the way of personal self-respect.

Nigel Farage, UKIP's leader, says he's "very pleased" with Neil Hamilton's growing role within the party. I think Farage should watch his back. Hamilton could well have his sights on the party leadership and, if a recent opinion poll is to be believed and UKIP have 7% of the vote, he could become an influential figure in British politics.

I always thought that having to resign because of corruption allegations would result in the end of your political aspirations. It seems Neil Hamilton is the floater who just won't flush and he's found a new audience for his extremist opinions.