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: St. George's Day - a national disgrace

Today, 23rd April, is St. George's Day - the feast day of the patron saint of England and the day when the English celebrate their nationalism.

It should just be a silly nonsense - an heroic myth, taken up by a religion and attached to a country he never visited, but, instead, it has become an absolute disgrace that is now more a celebration of nasty right-wing jingoism and an opportunity fir Neanderthals to flaunt their xenophobia and racism.

Today, the cross of St. George is rightly regarded as a symbol of extremism and, specifically, of racists, belonging to the likes of the BNP, UKIP and EDL. In a recent survey a quarter of English people think it is a symbol of extremism, and yet some supposedly well meaning campaigners argue that it is harmless and want an English anthem, an English parliament... they seem to think that England (a country that hasn't existed in any meaningful form for over 200 years) needs to divide itself off from others at a time when political union, co-operation and integration are clearly the way forward.

George, if he was a real person at all, never visited England and, of course, never fought a dragon. He was fom Turkey or Lebanon (nobody's too sure) and used violence to support and impose his religious faith on others, but, despite this , the Catholic church don't recognise his feast day any more.

So why do we bother with such nonsense? St. George's Day is, at best, a pointless frippery but, at worst, and more often, is an outright affront to civilised society. It is about belief in a supernatural big buddy. It is about dividing the UK. It is about nasty jingoism and evil. St. George's Day is, today, a celebration for stupid people to display their lack of education.

St. George's Day has no place in the modern world, and its message is bad for society. We don't need a patron saint and we don't need a day that enables racists and xenophobes to highlight and celebrate their beliefs.

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.

OPINION: Cameron and Hague's "Them and Us" politics is bad for everyone

The emergency talks about new treaties and potential re-organisation of Europe has really highlighted the "Them and Us" politics of David Cameron, William Hague and the rest of their Little Englander Tories.

At the time of the 2010 General Election and all the "I agree with Nick" nonsense, there was talk of, and hope for, a new politics. A politics of consensus, co-operation, of mutual benefit and of a brighter and better future for all.

Yes, I accept that was all election claptrap and, along with various other "promises" that all the parties made which they had no intention of fulfilling. I very much doubt that Cameron had any idea that having "agreed with Nick" he'd end up sharing a cabinet table with Clegg and a bunch of his Lib Dem mates (certainly not while Clegg was still a Lib Dem anyhow!).

But Cameron and Hague, and just about every British Member of Parliament in the history of Westminster, are all masters of "Them and Us" politics - it's what they do best: Divide and rule. Whether it's rich against poor, town against country, pro-nuclear against anti-nuclear, left against right, our politicians have always exaggerated difference of opinion to divide society instead of using a difference of opinion, sharing common ground and developing a consensus that is to everyone's mutual benefit.

Such "gang politics" are why our current system doesn't work properly. We elect our MPs, more often than not, by the colour of their rosette and not by their intellect, abilities or experience. In the UK we have, to all intents and purposes, a kakistocracy; agivernment of the least well qualified, because they are passionate about their gang and will always work to benefit that gang, and, therefore, disadvantage those not in the gang.

Over the past few days, it has become apparent that Cameron and Hague are now exporting their "Them and Us" politics to Europe on a stronger, more petulant way than ever before.

Yes, of course the Tories have always had a "Them and Us" approach to Europe, and it's served them well, dragging along with it large numbers of vile racists and xenophobes. Thatcher, whilst signing the Maastricht Treaty that welcomed greater European integration, continued to play the rabid bulldog for the domestic market because she knew that, not far below the surface of so many of our poorly educated masses, lies a rampant racist - someone who sees the term "Churchillian" as a positive rather than a description of a tragic and dangerous buffoon.

The issue of Europe could well tear the Tories apart again, much in the way it destroyed John Major's premiership in the early 1990s, but, today, the main beneficiaries wouldn't be Labour, or even theLib Dems. The danger is that likes of the far right would gain strongholds at Westminster and as the nation's representatives at the European Parliament. Can any person with a fully-functioning brain really want the racists and xenophobes of the BNP, UKIP and the EDL representing the UK in Europe? Do they really want the UK internationally isolated in the way heir diatribe suggests? They seem to forget that the world has changed, Britain no longer has an empire and people are no longer judged by the colour of their skin.

So, what do Cameron and Hague hope to achieve by ripping apart Europe? A few extra votes at home, maybe? Stop a few of their supporters drifting to UKIP and the BNP? Maybe even prevent some of their backbench MPs switching to other parties? Or simply some back-slapping congratulations from right-wing extremists?

The UK needs to look carefully at how well served they are by the "Them and Us" society. Do we really want to be divided so clumsily? Is it because we hope that we'll be in the lucky "Us" group? Is it simply down to greed, selfishness and racism?

Sadly, I think it is; too many Britons vote for themselves personally and don't look at the bigger picture that might, and probably would, benefit not only everyone more but, consequently, them too.

"Them and Us" politics is no different from West Side Story's Jets and Sharks. In the end, no one benefits and there are tragic casualties on the journey.

In reality, there is no "Them and Us" - there's only "Us". We need to work for the common good. We are the human race and we need to cooperate to achieve goals of mutual benefit.

It's time for a change.

COMMENT: Nigel Farage.... why?

It is embarasing to think that Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP (a deeply xenophobic and racist political party at the extremes of British politics who have been weedling their way into the mainstream by trying to represent themselves as moderate and the "voice of the people") represents any part of the UK but, sadly, he does.

Here is his latest tirade in the European Parliament where, despite being anti-European, he's happy to claim every Euro possible to fill his pockets.



Ignorant, xenophobic and, let's be honest, rather thick - is this the image Britons want their country to be potrayed as?

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.