Some thoughts the morning after

 The golden age of blogging roughly coincided with the last Parliament when the Conservatives were in opposition. Blogs played a role in the party debate as it sought to work out the direction to go in. After that other media took over but now seems a good time to put fingers to keys once more with some early thoughts on where the Conservatives go from here.

It is possible to win the 2029 general election

Many may think that statement is ridiculous. But politics has become ever more volatile. After multiple recent elections the commentary has declared one major party smashed up and heading for inevitable oblivion whilst the other is seemingly set to dominate politics for decades to come - only for the next election to turn all that on its head and see the pattern inverted. If the Conservatives get their act together quickly, sort out the many problems that have beset them and make the right pitch to the country then it is quite possible to overturn Labour's majority - their vote is not that high after all.

It is possible 2024 could be only a stepping stone to the party falling even further

In 1923 the Liberal Party won 159 seats. The following year, one hundred years ago, it fell to just 40 seats. Since then it has never won more than at most 72 seats at any election. It is a salutary reminder how a party can fall suddenly and rapidly.

There is a real danger this could happen to the Conservatives, especially if the party gets self-indulgent, talks to itself, pursues core vote strategies, continues to alienate people and slides into irrelevancy. The party must recognise this danger and void it.

This is not Canada in the 1990s

During the campaign with all the doom and gloom there was renewed interest in the 1993 Canadian general election when a new leader took the Progressive Conservatives from majority government to just two seats, with a new challenger on the right called Reform. Many have been privately relieved to have not fallen so far. The subsequent eventual fate of the Progressive Conservatives may seem alluring. They fought two further elections against Reform (or the Canadian Alliance as it became in 2000) before merging with them in 2003 after a long campaign to "Unite the Right". But one can't simply pick stretches of political history and assume all one has to do is copy what happened in another country. For starters by the time a merger happened several key figures were no longer in leadership.

A merger with Reform UK and/or a Nigel Farage leadership is not the answer

There are already knee-jerk calls for mergers and many wishing Farage would become the next Conservative leader. This would just transfer all the problems with Farage to the Conservatives. The man is politically toxic amongst the many voters we need to regain. He is also not leadership material. Each of his previous leaderships has seen him lose parliamentarians. He proved unable to sort out Ukip to make it a smoothly functioning organisation. His current party may be a party (the "Reform UK Ltd" jibe is annoying - lots of parties have company registrations for operational purposes) but it is a top down brand based around the leader with no real structure or democracy. Farage is an airwave politician, making his point through media. Time and again he has shown himself incapable of building a grassroots party operation, instead just making noise. Such is his political toxicity that Leavers had to do everything they could to make sure he did not get control of the official Leave campaign in the referendum. There is nothing to suggest he would be an asset to the Conservative Party, whether electorally or organisationally. Instead he would be political poison.

Now is not the time to be selecting a candidate for Prime Minister in 2029

We have just suffered a bruising defeat. The party needs to sort out a lot of organisation and have a proper debate about its direction. Even the method of how to chose the leader has come under renewed attention. To simply enter a contest for a long-term leader right now and try to filter all the questions through just two candidates whittled down by MPs would be chaotic. Instead we need a caretaker leadership to sort out the party internally.

There is an obvious, qualified candidate for this. A person who sits in a seat that has long-term swung heavily against the party and had a slender majority in 2019. But instead of bowing out they chose to stand by the maxim it is better to be a loser than a quitter. They know what it's like to be leader. It is time for the party to conscript as its interim leader Iain Duncan Smith.

(Footnote: For those wondering when the Liberals won 72 seats, I'm counting the combined total for the three Liberal factions in 1931. The looser nature of parties in the era makes it hard to determine just when some groups stopped being an organised faction that took disputes to the electorate and became a separate political party.)

The collapse of Ukip - continued continued continued

Four Kippers sitting on a bench,
Four Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one more Kipper changes their listing on a website,
There'll be three Kippers left sitting on the bench.

TO BE CONTINUED...?

The collapse of Ukip - continued continued

Six Kippers sitting on a bench,
Six Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper thinks the party's attitude to women is "disgusting",
There'll be five Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Five Kippers sitting on a bench,
Five Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper thinks the leader is dividing communities and creating "a distasteful regime",
There'll be four Kippers left sitting on the bench.

TO BE CONTINUED...?

The collapse of Ukip - continued

Seven Kippers sitting on a bench,
Seven Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper thinks the party has walked away from them and the original membership,
There'll be six Kippers left sitting on the bench.

TO BE CONTINUED...?

The collapse of Ukip

Twenty-four Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty-four Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should decide it's more important to fight for Brexit and defect,
There'll be twenty-three Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twenty-three Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty-three Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should get expelled for "serious financial allegations",
There'll be twenty-two Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twenty-two Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty-two Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should punch another's lights out,
There'll be twenty-one Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twenty-one Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty-one Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find her relationship with the party "increasing difficult",
There'll be twenty Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twenty Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should lose confidence in the latest leader and all the potential replacements,
There'll be nineteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Nineteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Nineteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should go and form his own local party,
There'll be eighteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Eighteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Eighteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find himself out of kilter with the party,
There'll be seventeen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Seventeen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Seventeen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should feel the party's been hijacked,
There'll be sixteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Sixteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Sixteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party has become a "vehicle of hate",
There'll be fifteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Fifteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Fifteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should discretely change her listing on a website,
There'll be fourteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Fourteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Fourteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party's direction an impediment to securing Brexit,
There'll be thirteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Thirteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Thirteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should point out the party wasn't founded to fight a religious crusade,
There'll be twelve Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twelve Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twelve Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party has left him,
There'll be eleven Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Eleven Kippers sitting on a bench,
Eleven Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party promoting English nationalism,
There'll be ten Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Ten Kippers sitting on a bench,
Ten Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should rush off to be Flash Gordon, Saviour of the Universe,
There'll be nine Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Nine Kippers sitting on a bench,
Nine Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party has lost its way,
There'll be eight Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Eight Kippers sitting on a bench,
Eight Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should be another to object to relations with the English Defence League founder,
There'll be seven Kippers left sitting on the bench.

TO BE CONTINUED...?

Can an established party truly vanish?

Today Ukip are holding an extraordinary general meeting to decide whether or not to remove their leader Henry Bolton from office. It comes at a time when Ukip is struggling on all fronts, with defections, election set backs, funders deserting, infighting and more, leading to many to wonder whether the party will soon disappear.

But just how easy is it for a party to truly vanish? Many parties have a brief period in the spotlight and manage to linger on for years afterwards, despite major losses. For example many would think Veritas was just a flash in the pan vehicle of Robert Kilroy-Silk for his actions back in 2005. In fact Veritas existed for another decade before merging into the English Democrats (and no, I don't know what happened to Veritas in the rest of the UK, if there was anything by then). It shows how for as long as there are still people around maintaining the registration, a party can just keep on going.

But what of the more significant parties that have actually won seats in elections? Well since 1997 the following parties have won seats at at least one out of Westminster, Stormont, Cardiff Bay, Holyrood or Brussels but since dissolved:

• Northern Ireland Women's Coalition
• UK Unionist Party - founded by Robert McCartney
• Blaenau Gwent People's Voice (okay its Westminster and Cardiff Bay candidates stood as independents but they were backed by BGPV) - founded by Peter Law
• Respect - founded by George Galloway
• John Marek Independent Party, later renamed Forward Wales - founded by John Marek
• Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party - founded by John Swinburne

Spot a common theme? With one exception, each of these parties was largely built around a single figure, in four cases a past or present parliamentarian/assembly member. Blaenau Gwent People's Voice did outlive Peter Law for several years but ultimately these were personalist vehicles that hinged on a single figure. When that figure either died or was defeated or sought to join a bigger party, their vehicle soon gave up.

The exception in the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, although even then the party was heavily identified with co-founder Monica McWilliams. However it did manage to develop beyond the one member personalist vehicle that others usually began as, but ultimately folded.

Now Ukip may have been heavily dominated by Nigel Farage, but it was created before him, has had many other representatives over the years and has a clear brand. In normal circumstances there is absolutely reason why it wouldn't continue to exist and contest elections with just a handful of people still going. Around the world this isn't unusual - for instance in the United States the Prohibition Party is still going (and still receiving money from a trust fund established during its heyday) long after its banner issue has ceased to be of any relevance. So expecting a party to disappear altogether may be premature and Ukip do still have some significant broadcast entitlements (helped by the media using a formula that's based on two election cycles) that will keep the group in the public eye.

However there is a major threat to its existence and it has little to do with Henry Bolton (although how the leader handles it may be a factor in how members decide today). The party has been found liable for some of the costs in a libel case (see BBC News: Jane Collins defamation case: UKIP delayed case for more details) and may prove financially unviable. If the party cannot pay then it could be forcibly liquidated. The case could shed light on exactly what and who constitute a political party and are thus liable for its debts. The party's intellectual property and registration might well become assets seized and auctioned off. Could someone buy up "Ukip" to carry on or will the case destroy the party for good?

Ukip splinter parties

It's happened yet again. Another new party is to be created by a prominent figure leaving Ukip. How many times has this happened now?

Here's my best attempt at a list, limiting it solely to those created by MEPs, Assembly Members and leadership contenders:

• Veritas - founded by Robert Kilroy-Silk MEP in 2005
• One London - co-founded by Peter Hulme-Cross, London Assembly Member, in 2005 *
• We Demand a Referendum Now - founded by Nikki Sinclaire MEP in 2012
• An Independence from Europe (and various other names) - founded by Mike Nattrass MEP in 2012
• New Deal - founded by Alan Sked, Ukip's founder and first leader, in 2013
• Affinity - currently being founded by John Rees-Evans, leadership contender in 2017
• "For Britain" - currently being founded by Anne Marie Waters, leadership contender in 2017

(* Lest anyone argue this is actually a splint from Veritas, this one's convoluted because Hulme-Cross's party was confused for a while. When fellow Ukip AM Damian Hockney defected to Veritas there was concern that with one member each neither party would be recognised as a grouping on the London Assembly with access to resources. A "Veritas-Ukip" group was formed to overcome this obstacle but Ukip weren't happy and kicked Hulme-Cross out. Subsequently Hockney left Veritas and the two founded this party together, hence it appears on this list.)

No less than seven.

And that's without including the numerous MEPs who've left to become either independents or join other parties over the years. Or the various other parties formed by local candidates that haven't gained as much prominence.

Have I forgotten any? I'll update this post where necessary.

UKIP splits

Last night saw the UK Independence Party sack the chair of their youth wing, Olly Neville. His crime? To publicly take a different position from the party policy to oppose equal marriage. He sets out his side of the story at The Independent: Exclusive: So much for the libertarians! How Ukip sacked me after I said I support equal marriage. Others in the youth wing have resigned in protest.

Yet UKIP has not sacked others who've spoken out controversially in recent times, most notably Winston McKenzie, their candidate in the recent Croydon North by-election and spokesperson on the Commonwealth, in spite of his public homophobia. And then there's the party leader who openly disagrees with his party's policy on drugs. It seems there's one rule for Nigel Farage and bigots, another for libertarians.

This exposes the fundamental contradictions at the heart of UKIP as Farage has tried to construct it. On the one hand it pretends to be a libertarian party and has attracted members as such. On the other hand it has also accumulated social authoritarians. Inevitably the two were going to clash at some point.

And this just adds to the long history of vicious splits in UKIP. Let's not forget the long list of others who've fallen out, including:

• Alan Sked, founder and first leader
• Michael Holmes, the leader under whom they first won election to the European Parliament
• Roger Knapman, the only leader to serve even a single full term and under whom the party was put on the map with help from...
• Robert Kilroy-Silk and His Ego, who drew huge publicity
• David Campbell-Bannerman, former deputy leader
• Nikki Sinclaire, former leadership contender

And that's just some of the highest profile. Quite a number of MEPs have dropped aside as well. For a party that's only been around twenty years that's quite a legacy of viciousness.

Relatively little has been written on UKIP's history, especially on the pre-Kilroy era, and many of the splits passed the wider political world by. In the case of Holmes, relations between the party leader and the national executive got so bitter that eventually the membership forced them all to stand down. It truly is the case that the smaller a party, the more vicious the internal feuds. There have been several other parties formed as splinters of UKIP, including Veritas, We Demand a Referendum, and no doubt others formed by even more obscure people.

I suspect Olly Neville's sacking in itself will soon be forgotten. But once again it has exposed the mess that is UKIP and why it is all anger and no delivery.

Update: Nikki Sinclaire confirms that of the 18 UKIP MEPs there have been to date, Nigel Farage has fallen out with no less than 9 of them.

UKIP London mayoral candidate admits: I can't deliver my promises

More confirmation of UKIP as ineffective, this time from their candidate's own mouth, as he admits that many of his promises are things the Mayor of London as no power to implement. Courtesy of Metro: UKIP London mayoral candidate admits: I can't deliver my promises.

The headline says it all really.

The failings of UKIP

There's an excellent piece in the Telegraph entitled Why no decent Tory should vote Ukip by Abhijit Pandya, who spent a year advising UKIP, has seen up close just how useless, ineffective and incoherent a party it is. Amongst the damaging charges:

[The] party's MEPs are obsessed with infantile stunts. These include wondering around Brussels, at the taxpayer's expense, singing "there is a hole in my bucket". Entertaining as it is watching Mr Farage doing this, and giving bombastic speeches in the European Parliament, it does nothing to curb the powers of the EU.

...[T]here is not a single amendment to a European regulation forced by Ukip, despite being Britain’s second-largest party in the European Parliament... [I]t is extraordinary that Ukip has not, in over a decade, managed to develop a strategy to undermine European law by appropriate subtle and strategic amendments.
...
The party is more interested in ranting and raving than in the more thoughtful task of fully engaging with its opponents on policy terms. This is why its failure to alter the course of Europe away from a social-democratic federal state has been immense.
...
...[A]s a consequence of being a one-issue Party, they are just about split on everything else. Ukip will go Left, Right or centre to grab the next available vote.
...
For Tories yearning for the old years of glory, a move to Ukip would be a move back to the feeling of looking at the remnants of the Tory Party after its 1997 catastrophe... Worse still it would benefit Labour, and another Labour victory is the last thing this country needs.

It just confirms that UKIP is not a striding force for anything, but just a protest vote accumulating, rabble rousing, whinge-the-whinge not fight-the-fight shouty movement.

Roger Helmer - Goodbye and good ****ing riddance

It is no secret that I am not a fan of Roger Helmer, one of the most useless Conservative MEPs. Quite apart from his regular bigotry, he has achieved sweet FA for this country in Brussels, just ranting the rant unlike other MEPs who actually work to get the best results for the UK's interests - and he himself has said all he's achieved is talking the talk. I've called for him to be deselected before and so I welcomed the news that he was retiring, only to curse when he retracted it.

Now comes the news that Conservative MEP Roger Helmer joins UKIP (BBC). Being a bunch of ineffectual talk-the-talkers rather than achievers, UKIP and Helmer are well mad for each other.

Meanwhile the Conservative team in the European Parliament has become much more efficient per MEP.

Online primaries - how not to do them

The primary election is a rare beast is this country. Even most of the selections the Conservatives brand as "open primaries" are actually closer to US style caucuses with a greater level of involvement required and thus smaller turnouts. The reason for this is obvious - it's near impossible to devise a mechanism whereby all eligible voters are able to choose a candidate for a party without incurring huge costs (the Conservatives did hold some postal ballots and send papers to all voters in a few constituencies but at great cost) or having no security controls to prevent the process from being fraudulently hijacked by the ineligible and/or other parties. Realistically a primary would require state support to work. But every so often a party throws such common sense to the wind.

UKIP are currently engaged in the process of selecting who should be their candidate for Mayor of London. I'll admit upfront that I don't find the actual contest itself to be the most exciting thing going. But one of the ways they're allocating votes is so ridiculously fraud prone that I'm amazed that it wasn't laughed out at first suggestion.

For UKIP have set up a website, UKIP's Mayor for London: Have Your Say, whereby anyone can vote on the six applicants for the candidacy. There are next to no controls on voting whatsoever - you simply select a candidate's box and click "Vote". There is no requirement or provision to:

• Give your name
• Give your address
• Confirm you are a voter in London
• Confirm you are not a partisan for another side/a mischief maker intent on ensuring UKIP is saddled with the most absurd candidate available.

Absolutely anybody anywhere on the planet can vote in this. And what's to stop multiple voting? The site seems to detect second vote attempts, but there's no shortage of technical people who know how to disguise a computer and/or IP address so that they could repeatedly vote to their heart's content.

At stake in all this are large blocks of "bonus votes" that will be counted at the UKIP conference when they make their final choice. So there is a serious potential for mischief making to distort the outcome.

Increasing public involvement in politics is a desirable and necessary aim. But to do so in such a way that the outcome is invariably tainted and discredited is not the way to go about it. Let's hope no serious party follows UKIP's disastrous decision.

By the way wouldn't it be hilarious if Winston "Six Parties" McKenzie won the nomination?

Political defections

David Campbell Bannerman MEP today defected from UKIP to the Conservatives. And cue the standard script whenever someone changes party:

The Losing Party: "The people didn't vote for this; there should be a by-election. This defection is just a spot of personal pique! Good riddance to good rubbish!"

The Gaining Party: "Our new recruit is a formidable politician who shows our party is a broad church able to reach out to all. And only a few partisan politicians want a by-election."

Etc etc...

Has anyone ever known a serious political party tell a would be recruit that they cannot join until they first have a by-election?

The UK's most disloyal MEPs

It was once said if you want to make something absolutely secret in politics you should announce it in the European Parliament. And the to this day the UK media give the parliament next to no coverage whatsoever, thus hiding much of what happens there. For example how may of you have heard that UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire has just walked out of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy grouping in disputes over policy and personalities? Very few as it's had hardly any media coverage.

And what is also not noted much is that certain MEPs and political parties are not helping give their country a strong voice in the parliament. However there is a website called VoteWatch.eu which helps tracks MEPs' voting records and it throws up some surprising revelations.

The big one that stands out to me are the results for "Loyalty to member state". Can you guess which country has more of the 50 least loyal MEPs than any other?

Yes it's the United Kingdom. Even more astonishing is that of the 32 least loyal MEPs, 16 consist of the entirety of the British National Party, the UK Independence Party and the Democratic Unionist Party delegations. They rank as follows:

2. Nick GRIFFIN - BNP
3. Godfrey BLOOM - UKIP
6. Andrew Henry William BRONS - BNP
12. Mike NATTRASS - UKIP
17. Nicole SINCLAIRE - UKIP
18. Marta ANDREASEN - UKIP
19. Nigel FARAGE - UKIP
20. William (The Earl of) DARTMOUTH - UKIP
22. Derek Roland CLARK - UKIP
24. John BUFTON - UKIP
25. Trevor COLMAN - UKIP
26. John Stuart AGNEW - UKIP
27. Gerard BATTEN - UKIP
28. David CAMPBELL BANNERMAN - UKIP
31. Paul NUTTALL - UKIP
32. Diane DODDS - DUP

Not a great list is it? So much for their claims to be different from one another. Or to be giving the UK a strong voice in Europe!

Oh and this is not a phenomenon exclusive to the UK had and far right. Other MEPs in the top ten include the following members of the BNP's and UKIP's sister parties:

1. Philippe de VILLIERS - Movement for France
8. Krisztina MORVAI - Movement for a Better Hungary
9. Jean-Marie LE PEN - French National Front
10. Marine LE PEN - French National Front

Stuart Wheeler must be expelled

One of the basic rules of a political party is that members do not incite voters to vote against the party's official candidates. It is a clear cut rule that is held by nearly all significant parties and one that has been enforced irrespective of the identity of the individuals involved.

The news that Conservative Party donor Stuart Wheeler has given £100,000 to the UK Independence Party (BBC News: Tory donor gives £100,000 to UKIP) is a clear cut breach of these rules. There can be no two ways about it - UKIP is a rival party. Wheeler cannot remain a member of the Conservatives whilst endorsing a rival.

Back in 1999 the party did not hesitate to expel members, even some once-medium sized names, who had endorsed the "Pro-Euro Conservative Party" when it stood against the Conservatives. The same principle must apply to Wheeler. There can be no double standards on the basis of which way a lot of people in the grassroots feel about the issue of EU membership.

Hattip to ConservativeHome Tory Diary: Eric Pickles must expel Stuart Wheeler.

UKIP - One party, one(ish) policy, one leader

I have just read Daily Telegraph: Why Ukip has just lost another member in which leading UKIP member Robin Page explains why he has resigned from the party.

Five years ago the story about UKIP was one of optimism, a party that was self-confident and aiming for a major breakthrough. Ever since the party has flopped around, it has lost a quarter of its MEPs, it has had very public spats and has degenerated into a cross between a rubbish bin for dissatisfied politicians and a vehicle for one politician's ego. Nigel Farage has achieved his ambition of being the biggest fish in the goldfish tank that is UKIP. A party run on undemocratic lines by a leader noted for his racism (Iain Dale's Diary: The Question Nigel Farage Must Answer) - UKIP is going in a very dangerous direction.

Eurosceptics turn their back on the UK

The UK Independence Party has announced a rebranding of itself as "the Independence Party". (Telegraph.co.uk: Ukip name change is part of attempt to woo disaffected Tories) In the party's quest to find extra issues, it's now trying to present itself as a party in favour of greater local devolution, having realised that opposing proposals to twin towns with places in Europe isn't a viable strategy for local government. But the timing of this - in the run up to elections for all three devolved parliaments - can't be coincidental. By downplaying the UK UKIP have shown themselves to be mere opportunists, willing to present themselves as both nationalists and unionists depending on whatever will get them votes anywhere. In that respect they could be Liberal Democrats!

The new UKIP leader

Nigel Farage has been elected as the new leader of the UK Independence Party. So it seems that UKIP has decided not to bother countering the charge that they contain racists, now having a leader who notably declared:

"We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us."

Once more it seems UKIP will continue to focus on the far right and maintain local links with the British National Party. Once more UKIP have shown their true colours. Turning off Kilroy has made no difference to their party's outlook.

The UKIP/BNP link

As is so often the case, thanks to Iain Dale for highlighting this story. In a council by-election in Dartford the UK Independence Party candidate (yes I know, what has the issue of leaving the EU got to do with town halls?) has asked the British National Party candidate to nominate him.

Given UKIP's record, from no less than their founder's words, as well as notable comments by their most likely next leader (and candidate in the recent Bromley and Chislehurst by-election) this doesn't come as much of a surprise. And this is a party that took in Kilroy after all! (Although I'm sure even they now regret that.) But still UKIP continue to present themselves as something very different from their true face.

What are these elections for again?

Following on from the earlier question about whether the local elections are a chance to decide who runs local services or a referendum on the Prime Minister, we now return to the subject. The United Kingdom Independence Party launched its campaign for the local elections.

UKIP was formed as a single issue party devoted to pulling the United Kingdom out of the European Union. Exactly what this has to do with town halls is beyond me and the UKIP website doesn't give many answers.

(On first looking at it, I noticed that UKIP doesn't have a .org.uk URL! Now inaccurate party web addresses are nothing new - the Scottish National Party were for a long time plagued by the joke of snp.org.uk, whilst Not So Very New Labour similarly has a .org.uk address despite not being a UK wide organisation. However this may be because of an unofficial UKIP website nicking the URL.)

At a glance the UKIP website doesn't really explain why they are contesting local government elections when the EU issue is an irrelevancy. There's a tiny mention at the bottom of their manifesto:

The UK Independence Party has 10 elected members of the European Parliament campaigning to take Britain out of the European Union – we do not think it right that most of UK law comes from Brussels and unelected EU bureaucrats. Likewise, we insist that local government in Britain must be returned from unelected Whitehall bureaucrats to local democrats. In 2006 we aim to raise the number of local UKIPcouncilorss, who will join the campaign for bringing representative democracy back to the British people.

So the party is no longer a single issue campaign! The manifesto contains hilarious pledges such as their position on local taxation:

Local Taxes

What's the problem? Council Tax has almost doubled in many areas over the past few years, hitting pensioners in particular. A vast amount of money is wasted on bureaucracy and politically correct jobs without the public ever being consulted.

What's the solution?

• Reorganise national and local taxes to slash council tax by 50%

• Return financial responsibility to councils by letting them keep local business rates

• Cut the money wasted on politically - correct initiatives and appointments.

So all the problems of local government finance can be swept aside by transferring over the business rates and axing some jobs and initiatives. I wonder why no councils have achieved this?!

Given the recent row, it's interesting to note that a search for "fruitcake" on the UKIP website yields no results. Nor are there any hits on Nigel Farage's own website. Nor does the site contain any reference to Nigel Farage's alleged remarks, "We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us".

And and for further hilarity, the UKIP list of branches can't decide if Croydon is in London or the South East, despite the Croydon branch's own website being clear that it is in London! One wonders if Nigel Farage and Gerard Batten know much at all about their constituencies.

This party isn't even the biggest joke in politics - that accolade goes to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.