Could Clegg really be this Machiavellian?

Bear with me here.

The Lib Dems are in trouble. Real trouble.

If the proportion of people who vote for the party in next year's general election is in the low teens as is looking likely they could lose dozens of seats. They could even be back to the days of the parliamentary party "fitting in the back of a taxi".

But one thing that could ameliorate this is if in many of the seats that the yellows are defending where their challengers are the Tories, the blues do not do as well as the polls are predicting. And one way that this could happen is if there is a big UKIP surge around the time of the 2015 general election thus splitting the vote on the right and saving many Lib Dem seats in the process.

Of course most commentators think that the current UKIP polling numbers will fall back to more "normal" levels, say 5% or so and the dent to the Tories will be minimal.

But what if someone helped the UKIP leader Nigel Farage to raise his profile around a year before that general election? What if the profile raising was done in the forum of two debates between him and another politician, a member of the government which effectively elevated him to the status of a senior cabinet minister? What if Mr Farage was then widely seen to have won these debates, thus demonstrating that his views are very popular, far more so than the 10% - 15% that the polls would have us usually think?

In fact what if the fallout from such debates made it pretty much impossible for the UKIP leader to be excluded from the pre-election debates in 2015?

This could then of course lead to a big bounce for UKIP just around the time they need it to do maximum damage to the Tories and inadvertently help the Lib Dems.

Clegg couldn't possibly be so scheming. Could he?

On Coverage of UKIP vs Republicanism

Polls over the last 6 months have had UKIP regularly on or around 20%. As a result of this the party and its leader Nigel Farage in particular have had lots and lots of media coverage.

Farage is a regular on TV and radio and increasingly other senior members of the party such as Eastleigh by-election candidate Diane James and MEPs including Paul Nuttall get coverage for their views. Quite right too as far as I am concerned. 20% is a significant minority and it is right that UKIP gets the chance to regularly put its opinion across on issues, especially those closest to its founding raison d'etre of Europe and the EU.

A wish to abolish the monarchy and have a republic is also a minority view in the UK. Polls regularly show around 20% for this. Of course a majority of people in this country prefer to keep the monarchy and I respect that. But the minority view from those of us who would like to live under a different system barely gets a look in.

The mainstream media almost uniformly cover royal stories with the kind of sycophantic spaniel-like devotion you might expect in a totalitarian regime. But even this might be more tolerable if about a fifth of the coverage was devoted to discussions about what a different system might look like and how it might work. We hardly ever get this though. Just wall-to-wall coverage where the monarchy and its members are spoken of in reverential tones with virtually no substance at all and certainly no indication anyone might have a different view on all of this.

If UKIP was treated in this way just because "only" 20% of the population agree with their views there would rightly be outrage.

It's time the media in our country recognised that to run a positive story about the royal family is taking a political position on an issue that millions of our citizens do not agree with. The BBC as a publicly funded and (by charter) politically neutral organisation has a particular duty to ensure this balance in this area.

One of the problems is that the coverage ramps up when there is a particular event such as a royal wedding, anniversary or birth. At these points it probably seems churlish to devote a slice of the allotted time to a viewpoint that if enacted would have all of this pomp and circumstance consigned to history. I understand that. In which case, when we are outside of these specific celebratory times it is even more important to have more than 20% of the coverage allowing the republican viewpoint to be aired in order that balance is maintained across the piece.

Until that happens, those of us who want to see the merits of alternative systems covered are well within our rights to cry foul.

We're not being spoilsports. We just want a fair crack of the whip.

+++ Nigel Farage injured in plane crash +++

Just hearing that a plane carrying Nigel Farage has crashed near Brackley. I'm hearing rumours that the banner got caught up with the engine.

Nigel and the pilot have been rushed to hospital. His injuries are not said to be life threatening but the pilot is more seriously injured.

I hope they are OK.

BBC local news report here.

Interview with Nigel Farage of UKIP on drugs policy

I have just spent a few minutes talking to former UKIP leader Nigel Farage about his views on drugs policy. he recently called for a change in approach on Radio 4's "Any Questions" programme which I previously blogged about here. I did try to record the interview but my recording software has failed me! However fresh from my memory, here is how the discussion went:

I started by asking him to set out his views on this subject and why he holds them. He explained that in his view the "War on Drugs" has failed. Every year things get worse, and it costs an absolute fortune. However this is a subject on which the political classes band together and stick to the same script. If a politician moves outside this very narrow subject view then they are inevitably shot down. He pointed out that it is the most deprived parts of the country that suffer most from this failing drugs war and something needs to change. It is his experiences as an elected politician having seen this for himself and representing these people that has helped confirm his opinion on this. His view is that there should be a Royal Commission to take this subject out of the hands of politicians and allow a full, free process to take place where decriminalisation of drugs (or at the very least soft drugs) should be considered.

I questioned what sort of a reaction he had had to him having made his views plan on Any Questions. He said that the reaction from the political classes had been typical of what he had expected and that he was perceived as very much being out on a limb. However the reaction from the public in e-mails, letters and on blogs had been much more encouraging. The vast majority had been on his side and indeed he pointed out that the audience on the programme was a middle-England middle-class grouping from Devon and many there had been nodding in agreement with his comments. He said that the reaction he has had has made him even more sure that he is on the right track here.

I asked why he thought that drugs are such a no go area for politicians. His view is that it's just one of these subjects that politicians don't want to talk about. They group together out of fear of what might happen. He also thinks that they often don't understand the issue properly and can only think in terms of crack-downs irrespective of whether they work or not.

I also asked whether his UKIP colleagues agreed with him on this subject. He explained that UKIP is a very broad church and that he knows there are people within it who would actually go the other way and wish for there to be further crack-downs. However he does think that the direction of opinion within the party is with him. He pointed out that at its core UKIP is a libertarian party. He said they are the only party to oppose the smoking ban on principle and that they often show their credentials in this area on other subjects such as the fox-hunting ban which they see as an irrelevance. He suggested that were this policy to be put to the party, after a debate he would expect a majority to be in favour of it.

Finally, I asked him when he thought things would change in terms of drugs policy. His honest answer was that he does not know. He said that if David Cameron becomes Prime Minister then there will definitely be no change as their policy is identical to Labour's. Longer term it is harder to say, however he does think that public opinion is way ahead of the politicians on this issue and they cannot be ignored for ever.

Just as we finished I mentioned to him the fact that on Any Answers after the Saturday broadcast of Any Questions, Jonathan Dimbleby had stated that the majority of respondents had been in favour of what he had been suggesting. He pointed out that 10 years ago that would have been unlikely to happen and that it demonstrates his point about the public being ahead of politicians on the issue.

I would like to thank Nigel Farage for his time.

Bravo to Nigel Farage on drugs policy

I listened to this week's Any Questions on Radio 4 earlier today and the question of the resignation of Eric Carlin from the ACMD (that I blogged about yesterday) came up.

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage made a brave and very sensible contribution where he said that current policy is clearly not working, advocated a Royal Commission on drugs and said that all options including potential decriminalisation should be on the table. All the other panelists (Peter Hain, Nick Herbert and Susan Kramer) dismissed the idea that decriminalisation should be considered. I was particularly disgusted with Hain's response. He said in a condescending tone "There you have it folks, vote UKIP and get a free for all on drugs" which of course is not what Farage was saying at all. I am paraphrasing but that was basically how Hain responded. When pressed he insisted that if he tried to pursue a policy like that his electors in Neath would not stand for it.

What absolute brazen political cowardice from Hain. He is essentially admitting that the reason he is not willing to go down this road is because of his fear of the response of the electorate. And yet it is precisely his response to Farage where he instantly tried to caricature his position and scaremongering that leads us to the position whereby most politicians are too scared to engage with this issue properly. He himself is part of the problem he is complaining about.

It was disappointing not to hear Susan Kramer back Farage's calls. There are lots of people within the Lib Dems who agree with him on this. I am afraid her response that essentially what the government did in banning mephedrone in such a knee-jerk way was correct and "erring on the side of caution" does not represent my views at all. If anything it makes the drug more dangerous gifting it to the criminal gangs.

Fair play to Nigel Farage for being brave enough to advocate what he did. He is fighting a very difficult seat at the general election, Buckingham in the heart of "Middle England". You can hardly accuse him of saying what he said for politically calculated reasons so close to an election.

I hope other senior politicians who privately agree with Farage on this might start to feel a little bit more emboldened to speak more openly on this.

UPDATE: I think I might have misrepresented Susan Kramer's views slightly here. I meant she did not agree with Farage's suggestion that decriminalisation is a viable option. She did however agree that a Royal Commission should be set up.

Also, I forgot to mention that I was very heartened to hear on Any Answers later that Jonathan Dimbleby made it clear that a large majority of respondents agreed with Farage's suggestion.

Nigel Farage should have a Commons pass

On Friday, Iain Dale blogged about the fact that Nigel Farage, the outgoing leader of UKIP and MEP has been complaining that his Palace of Westminster pass has been removed. The Westminster authorities have decided to remove the privilege from all MEPs. They claim it is to "save resources" but there is a very strong suspicion that the move is to ensure that the two elected BNP MEPs cannot have passes.

Iain says:

I have to say I have never quite understood why MEPs had passes to the building in the first place, so I can't get as excited as Nigel Farage about this.

I disagree with Iain here and fully back Nigel Farage. I think Iain should be getting excited about this. The authorities have taken away a privilege from all MEPs apparently in order to ensure lack of access for two of them. Whether you like the EU or not it is surely right that we make it easy for our elected European legislators to liaise with our elected MPs? This measure will make that more difficult.

As I have said about the BNP before, when the debate was raging about whether Nick Griffin should be allowed on BBC Question Time, they have elected MEPs. From this, certain things flow in a democracy. The Westminster authorities may think they are doing the right thing but they are making a mistake.

How many more rules are they going to change to affect two specific MEPs but also cause problems for the remaining 70 who are not fascists?

PS: I have also noticed that quite a few of the comments on Iain's post seem to agree with me.

Nigel Farage - Tories should be careful what they wish for

Jonathan Calder has pointed out in an excellent post today that some of the leading Tory bloggers have been cheering on Nigel Farage in his bid to unseat new Commons Speaker John Bercow in his Buckingham seat. As Jonathan says:

"Yes He Can!" crows Tory Bear, complete with Obamaesque graphic.

"Go Nigel Go" cries Dizzy Thinks.

And Iain Dale says: "I'm glad I don't live in Buckingham." (I take this an admission that he would find it hard to maintain party loyalty if he lived in the constituency, rather than as a general assault on the this blameless Home Counties town.)

I suspect they reflect a much wider sentiment in the Tory party that John Bercow is not really a proper Tory and that he was imposed on them by Labour as a punishment for them getting rid of Michael Martin. They would shed no tears if Bercow lost his seat, and I think they would see this as just desserts.

However I reckon they are not thinking this through properly. As fun as it would be for them to see Bercow uncermoniously ejected from the Commons they would then have the leader of UKIP sitting on the green benches. This might not matter too much at first. On current polls Cameron is likely to have a healthy majority and should be able to bat Farage away during his honeymoon period.

But what happens when issues like Europe come to the fore? What happens when Cameron has to make the decision on what to do about the Lisbon Treaty? What about other issues where the political compass of the Tory Party is far closer to UKIP than its own leadership?

Currently Nigel Farage is an irritant outside the House to the Tories. Nigel Farage MP would have an even bigger irritant effect. You can imagine that eventually there could be defections to UKIP and with their leader already in the House the temptation for disillusioned Tories to make the break would be even greater.

The worst thing though for the Tories would be in the run-up to the election after next. After 4 or 5 probably very hard years in power as they have tried to drag the country out of the economic slump we are now in Cameron is not likely to be riding very high in the polls. The votes that UKIP will take from the Tories in that election could easily be the difference between keeping and losing power.

With Nigel Farage in the Commons, with or without possible Tory defections, UKIP's profile will be much bigger in a General Election than it is now. The extra kudos that goes with having their leader as an MP could easily tip the balance and force Cameron from power.

Those Tory bloggers who are currently giving overt or tacit support to Nigel Farage should think very carefully about what they are doing. They should look 15 moves ahead on the chessboard. Not 3.

Farage on QT and Global Warming

Triggered by a post on Norfolk Blogger, I have remembered that on Question Time the other night Nigel Farage (leader of UKIP) made some disparaging comment about global warming in the context of the recent cold weather. Later on an audience member made the point that with global warming, the weather in the UK would likely actually get much colder. Farage's response was an incredulous "Really!?".

Now I assume that what the audience member was referring to is the gulf stream which could be weakened or even switched off by global warming although he did not get a proper chance to elaborate.

I am not a climate scientist but I do try to keep abreast of the issues and for the leader of a fairly large political party in the UK to not even be aware of this but to still feel free to make sneering remarks about the cold weather appearing to disprove global warming is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

I have heard many other (usually right wing) commentators and politicians make similar comments and it strikes me as very simplistic and almost childish to say things along the lines of "IT'S BEEN A BIT COLDER RECENTLY SO HOW CAN THERE BE TEH GLOBAL WARMING!!!111". As usual, misleading soundbites substitute for serious debate.