Minister backs "primaries"

Now, we're not often in favour of anything that aims to make Britain more like the USA because it's very obvious that we have a far better way of doing things over here - for example: no death penalty, TV that's only 98% rubbish, ginger beer, Marmite, real cheese instead of yellowish stuff in an aerosol can and so on; while they have corndogs, the KKK, Kid Rock and Sarah Palin. No contest really, is there?

David Miliband. Despite appearances, he is not in fact 13 years old and is fully eligible to act as Foreign Secretary.
Copyright-free image from Wikipedia.

But, every now and again you come across an American idea that seems to make a lot of sense and you can't help but wonder if we ought to copy it (not least of all because everything we copy from them we also make a lot better - ie, rock and roll, techno, graphic novels and...erm...other things). One example is the primary election, whereby constituents get to choose from a list of prospective candidates from each party who will then contest the coming election; instead of only being able to vote for a candidate chosen by the party as is currently the case.

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, has come out in favour and praised the US Democrats for the way in which they involve people who are not party members in the decision making process. However, any system which allows non-party members to take such an active role is likely to attract limited support from many politicians as it might lead to a fall in numbers of people who bother to join, a good source of party income: Labour's membership list numbers some 166,247 people, so with current membership renewal fees standing at £19 for the unwaged or £38 for those lucky enough to have hung on to their jobs in Brown's Britain, this equals a minimum of £3,158,693 for the party's coffers even if they all paid the reduced rate (in 1997, membership stood at 405,000 - which would have been £15,390,000). You can be sure of one thing - they ain't gonna be keen on losing over three million quid.

The Conservatives have been playing with the idea, which is unsurprising as they're doing their best to look as different as possible from Labour just so they can appeal to those voters who don't follow politics particularly closely but want to give their support to anyone but Gordon - it's surely significant that the recent "Totnes Primary," in which Tory Dr. Sarah Wollaston was chosen as candidate by the constituents, came so soon after the Norwich North by-election in which Labour's decision to rid themselves of popular MP Ian Gibson proved misguided when the Tory candidate won twice as many votes as the Labour candidate, a disaster for the party which has been partially blamed on Labour supporters choosing not to vote for a party-picked candidate they didn't want.

Neal Lawson, of left-wing group Compass, is not in favour and attacked Mr. Miliband who, we says, is one of those responsible for driving the party "to its death." He added, "This would be the death knell of the party." We can understand Mr. Lawson's wish to keep the party alive, of course - after all, he obviously loves it enough to have allowed it to become a very large and important part of his life.

It would be a little sad to see Labour die - just like it's sad when an elderly relative dies. After all, when it was performing at its best, Labour was undeniably a great institution which achieved an enormous amount in its efforts to improve daily life for a vast percentage of the population. But when you know dear old Great Aunt Maude has been fed up to the back teeth for the last twenty years since her legs gave up the ghost and put her in a wheelchair for the rest of her life, severely limiting her opportunities to go out on the piss with her mates, don't you feel that, despite the sadness of her passing, just a little happier knowing that she's gone to a better place where she'll suffer no longer? Maybe it's time to put Labour out to grass too, let it spend its last few years peacefully dozing in the sun. It might seem unfair that it cannot keep soldiering on forever; but new parties, spawned in response to the new needs of the modern world, will arise with new ways of doing things. That's just the natural order of things.

Whatever. Increasing constituents' participation in this way, by allowing them to choose for themselves who they want to represent them in Parliament, is quite simply more democratic. The cost to any particular party - be it a reduction in funds or even a threat to their very existence - is of very little importance in comparison. Anything that increases democracy and gives citizens more say in the way that their country is run is worthwhile.

Poll Results

We created a poll asking how readers were planning to vote come the next General Election. The choices were as follows:

A. Conservative

B. Labour

C. Liberal Democrat

D. By writing "Fuck Off" on a brick and chucking it through a House of Commons window.

Labour received a total of zero votes, closely mirroring their performance in the local and European elections that took place at the beginning of June. The LibDems also received none, possibly because most LibDem voters only read the Guardian and don't have time for blogs such as Acid Rabbi in between doing that and shopping in Waitrose. We didn't bother including the BNP for the simple reason that few BNP voters are likely to bother reading a blog called Acid Rabbi, and anyway few of them have the mental capacity to use a computer. We also ignored UKIP because, well, we find that's the best thing to do with them.

The Conservatives were awarded 14% of the total vote, which translates as a stunning 2 votes, whereas option D - writing "Fuck Off" on a brick and throwing it through a Commons window - was by far th most popular with an incredible 85%, a whole 12 votes.

Unfortunately - and tempting as it may be - were anyone to actually do this, the brick would not count as a vote, even though if everyone in the UK who would have chosen this option had they have seen the poll were to do it during a well-attended debate it would most certainly get noticed and the protest it represented would be hard to ignore. It'd also almost certainly attract the attention of riot police with tear gas and dogs and result in mass arrests, of course.

Maybe, as an alternative, ballot papers need a "None of the above" section? In the meantime, it looks like the Tories are in the lead.

Cameron, the Master Popularist

Listen to David Cameron speak with your eyes closed and you could easily be forgiven for assuming you are listening to Tony Blair, not least of all because every sentence seems to start with "Look..." before going on to list the great things he claims his party will do.

Like Blair, Mr. Cameron is a master popularist, highly skilled at correctly guessing what the public will want to hear and saying it at the right time - ie; before Gordon Brown says the same thing, which serves to give the impression that it was his idea in the first place - even if he's actually just repeating in a louder (and much posher) voice what Mr. Brown has already said.

A: Stegosaurus. Had an arse with a brain inside it.
B: David Cameron's Face. Looks like an arse with a brain behind it.

A case in point is the two leaders' reactions to the ongoing expenses scandal. While Brown was still flustered, wondering what on Earth he needed to do and whether or not there might be a way that it could all be made to look like nothing very important (some hope of that!), Mr. Cameron had already realised that it was on the cusp of becoming the biggest and most damaging event in British politics for decades, one that would forever taint Parliament's reputation amongst voters. Rather than even attempting to argue that his MPs had done nothing wrong, he seized a prime opportunity for some point scoring and announced that Conservative Party members would be expected to explain their claims and begin paying money back, regardless of what was eventually decided. He knew that, no matter what happened, as far as the electorate were concerned the MPs had been caught with their sticky fingers in the till and nothing was going to reduce their anger so instead of trying to defend them he contrived to give the impression that his party knew it was in the wrong, was very sorry and was now going to make amends. That's still not a very good impression to give, but it's a lot better than looking as though you're futilely trying to get away with your misdeeds in the face of damning evidence which, until very recently at least, is precisely the impression Labour were giving.

Labour have caught up, but it's too late. They may have now paid back more than £316,000, 66% of the total amount repaid compared to the Tories' £131,000 - 27%, and that may be at least partly because Labour have had a lot more MPs but as far as the public are concerned, Cameron forced the repayments before Brown did and therefore, if not honest, must surely be less dishonest than his rival. Now, the Conservatives have said they will pay back a further £125,000, bringing their total to around a quarter of a million - very close to that repaid by Labour.

Look at their body language in the Commons, during Michael Martin's resignation. Mr. Brown - slumped on the bench, reading his notes, looking for all the world as though he'd enjoyed a wee dram or two of Laphroaig in the Commons bar (not that any of us here can find fault with a wee dram or two of Laphroaig, the enjoyment of which is a basic human right in our opinion). Mr. Cameron, meanwhile, sat upright on his side of the debating chamber, watching and listening with rapt attention. A few bloggers shared their thoughts on it at the time, whereas we are not great believers in body language, feeling that too many people attach too much importance to it; but regardless of what we think, a lot of people will have seen it and formed the impression that Cameron listens to people while Brown isn't interested in others. His sincerity may be doubtful, but he still comes out looking better.

Back in 1994, Blair used the Labour Party conference to announce his plans for Labour's future, beginning with the radical changes to Clause IV of the party's constitution. At that time, the Conservative party was at its lowest ebb - John Major was a highly unpopular Prime Minister and his party had been rocked by a series of scandals popularly known as the "sleaze allegations." Blair took advantage of this and followed up his '94 action with further moves in a special 1995 conference when he replaced the Clause entirely with a statement declaring the party to be one representing democratic socialism, and in doing so created what was to become known as New Labour. The rest, as we all know, is history - in the 1997 General Election, Labour trounced the Tories, who suffered their worst defeat since 1832, and began the long period of government that we remain in to this day.

Right now, Labour are still recovering from their awful results in the recent local and European elections, a contest that saw them attract their smallest share of the vote since the party began. The expenses scandal has hit all of the main parties equally, but it's Labour who look as though they'll end up with the greater amount of egg on their faces (with the possible exception of Nick Griffin, who isn't even involved) because many of the most notorious claimants - ie; Elliot Morley, Shahid Malik, Baroness Uddin, Margaret Moran - are Labour members. Hazel Blears hasn't helped matters either, as she now realises. Lord Mandelson may yet prove to be Labour's albatross - Mr. Brown may have an enormous fondness for him and he may be gaining popularity amongst Labour MPs, but when the public hear his name, they immediately think of his two forced resignations and associate him with controversy.

Meanwhile, only two Tories have achieved infamy on such a scale - David Chaytor, who is by far the most damaging of the two and may even face criminal prosecution, and Peter Viggers with his duck house which would have cost £1600, had he have been granted the requested money, which is a sufficiently low amount and a case just funny enough to have become used as a little light relief amongst the many claims for far larger sums (the LibDems, on the other hand, seem to have come out of it all smelling relatively rosey - it was one of their MPs, David Howarth, who has managed to achieve virtual sainthood by claiming nothing other than basic costs strictly related to his job. Precisely why they are not making the most of this is unclear - perhaps they don't want to attract attention to themselves right now, hoping that the other parties will draw fire and that small matter of Micheal Brown's £2.4 million will be forgotten about).

What goes around comes around, and fortunes change. Twelve years ago, it was the Conservatives who suffered a run of bad luck and Labour took control of the game. Right now, Labour have been dealt a phenomenonally bad hand and as much as the party bluffs, they can't change that. The Tories may not have any aces, but David Cameron is a far wilier player than Mr. Brown.

Brons' wrongs

Andrew Brons, the MEP-elect for Yorkshire and The Humber who we've already talked about once today, will be able to buy himself as many nice new suits as he could ever wish for to go with his nice new job and he'll have no problems storing them - his cupboard is being well and truly vacated by a whole gang of skeletons. Brons is a classic example of the new, genteel face of the British National Party who claimed on Channel 4 News last night that he and his party "don't wish people to hate other races."

The BNP has been very keen on pretending it's not racist in recent years, ever since they finally realised that the vast majority of British people find racism abhorrent and refuse to vote for any organisation that espouses such policies, and have been successful enough to have persuaded quite a few people to tick their box at the polling stations - enough, when combined with the extremely low turn-out at last week's European election, to have got two BNP members seats in the European Parliament, in fact. But can we really trust a man who, in addition to the incidents already mentioned in the earlier article, also:

Claimed that racist idealogies have a scientific basis whilst giving lectures on racial nationalism when he was a National Front education officer?

Edited the NF magazine New Nation with Richard Verrall, the writer of Did Six Million Really Die?, a work that as its title suggests doubts the authenticity of claimed Jewish deaths during the Holocaust?

Said he was an ex-university lecturer, while in reality he worked at a secondary education college?

BNP: Racist? Us?

Here's Andrew Brons, the British National Party's new MEP who'll be representing the good people of Yorkshire and the Humber on last night's Channel 4 News.

Let's have a little bit of background on the man to start with. Brons has been active in far-right politics for many years, having started out in the National Socialist Movement when he was just 17. National Socialist...hmm...sounds a bit Nazi-ish, doesn't it? Back in those days, the far right weren't so keen to distance themselves from Hitler's fascism as they currently are now, probably because they hadn't cottoned on to the rather obvious fact that the vast majority of the United Kingdom's electorate are highly unlikely to vote for any group resembling the very people that many of our grandparents (and, back in those days, parents and even friends) gave their lives to defeat. During the 1960s, members of the NSM - an organisation formed from a splinter group of the original 1960s BNP on Hitler's birthday by one Colin Jordan who died in April this year. Jordan advocated "pan-Aryan universal Nazism" and openly used Third Reich symbols - were responsible for a campaign of arson against British synagogues and Jewish property.

With the NSM in turmoil following the departure of John Tyndall, Brons left to join the 60s BNP, which later merged with the League of Empire Loyalists - a group led by Arthur K. Chesterton, who had served under Oswald Mosley in the British Union of Fascists - to form the National Front. Brons stood as an NF candidate in both of 1974's General Elections, winning 2.3% of the vote in both instances and became leader of the party following its poor performance in the 1979 General Election. During this time, he and a group of NF supporters conducted a leafletting campaign in Leeds and were heard to shout slogans including "White Power" and "Death to Jews" - when a policeman of Malaysian ethnic origin asked the group to disperse, Brons called him an "inferior being." This event led to his appearance before magistrates and he was convicted with abuse and breaching the peace, for which he was fined £50 (a reasonable sum at the time).

Brons put his political life on a back burner in the mid-1980s, concentrating instead on his career as a lecturer in Politics and Law at Harrogate College. He retired from this position aged 61, and a number of articles attributed to him have subsequently appeared in Identity, the BNP's magazine (warning - that link connects to the magazine's website, so don't click it if you're likely to feel offended by the contents). During this month's European Election, he won 9.8% of the vote in his constituency, making him the BNP's first (and so far one of only two, the other being BNP leader Nick Griffin) MEP.

That's all we're going to say on the man himself and his political leanings (for the moment, at any rate) - it serves as an introduction for those not previously familiar with him and readers can probably guess the opinions of a blogger called Acid Rabbi when it comes to groups such as neo-Nazis. What we want to take issue with here is the interview from last night's news.

Interviewer Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked Mr. Brons for his thoughts on racism (01.01): "What about racism? Do you think racism is a terrible thing, or do you quite like it?" Brons replied with a bit of bluster on how the term is a Trotskyist invention, adding that "racial hatred of any kind is unpleasant and must be condemned. We don't wish people to hate other races."

Nick Griffin, leader of the "non-racist" BNP, received a suspended prison sentence in 1998 for... wait for it... incitement of racial hatred.

Er...right. So what about that bit in the 2001 General Election BNP manifesto where it states that native Britons - who, according to the party, can only be white people - being given priority in the jobs and homes market, effectively making non-whites second class citizens? What about Nick Griffin's statement to Wales on Sunday back in 1996, when he said that "All black people will be repatriated, even if they were born here"? What about his conviction for inciting racial hatred in 1998? Not forgetting your party's gloating in 1991 when a group of your supporters stabbed that African immigrant at London Bridge Station, you know the one - your newspaper claimed the victim had had his kidney surgically removed during the attack?

Or the part of the BNP constitution that says the party is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration" - "immigration" could be construed as non-racist, but not "non-white immigration." What about Richard Edmonds' reply in 1993, "We are 100 per cent racist" when asked if the BNP was, in fact, racist by Duncan Campbell of The Guardian? While we're on the subject of Mr. Edmonds, who is a high ranking BNP member and served as their National Organiser, what about his time in custody in 1993 over a racially-motivated attack? Or his conviction for deliberately smashing the statue of Nelson Mandela on the South Bank in London? OK, so he was expelled from the BNP eventually - but then he was brought back in by Nick Griffin and given a job on the Advisory Council. That's a very strange thing for a non-racist party to do.

Richard Edmonds, who serves on the non-racist BNP's advisory council, is a veteran of the far right who was convicted of a racially-motivated attack. Image from Hope Not Hate.

Brons offers an absolute delight of an idiotic statement when he claims that (07.00) "...many parts of this country are almost unrecognisable to the original inhabitants." Well, they would be. After all, we have cars, houses, science, televisions, microwaves, aircraft, medicine, domestic animals, farming, money and literature nowadays; we also cook our meat and don't cower overnight in trees to escape the attentions of things like bears. We're now an island too, no longer connected by a land bridge to mainland Europe. All of those are big changes to have taken place in Britain since the original inhabitants set up home here sometime before the last Ice Age.

Most of us can see straight through all the BNP lies, Mr. Brons. Right now, it seems you have succeeded in convincing a worryingly-high number of people that your party isn't racist. It is obvious that this was necessary if you were to gain any power - let's face it: you're so desperate for power you'll all say just about anything in order to get it, won't you? - because the vast majority of people in this country are proud of our long and honourable tradition of offering asylum to those who need it and our tendency to accept anyone, no matter what colour they happen to be, if they're decent, hard-working people. That's why so many of us admire Gandhi. That's why so many of us maintain friendships with the peaceful, hard-working Asians who have contributed so much to our society. We also know that we have benefitted enormously from the cultural contributions made by immigrants to this nation - Britain would be a far poorer place without reggae, rap, drum and bass, the blues, rock and roll, jazz, bhangra, belly dancing, steel drum bands, samba bands, the Notting Hill Carnival, curry, chicken chow mein, fish and chips (an adaptation of the traditional Jewish dish gefilte fish) and many more; not to mention the many British sportsmen and women who are of immigrant stock. You know, don't you, that the reason the far right have never enjoyed any real success in Great Britain in the past was due to your overt racism and because the British people are, with few exceptions, quite simply not racist. You also seem to have finally worked out that it'd be a good idea to try to hide your admiration for the policies of the Third Reich, because no patriot in their right mind would ever vote for a group who align themselves with the Nazis when countless brave men and women risked their lives and our country's future existence to defeat them. You took your time on that one though - are you really all so stupid?

If - and God forbid it ever happens - your party achieves its aims, allowing you sufficient power to start shaking off the sheep's clothing you're all wearing and to once again display your true selves, you can be sure that, overwhelmingly, this nation will turn its back to you. You represent none of the aspects of Great Britain that make us proud to be British.

Andrew Brons will be taking up his seat in the European Parliament on Tuesday 14th July 2009. Following that date, he'll be easy to contact via the UK Office of the European Parliament website - this link will take you straight to the relevant page - so, if you love Great Britain and are proud to be a part of it, make sure you take a few moments to let him know what you think.

Let Mr. Brown know what you think of him

Kalvis Jansons, who writes a blog here on Blogger, left a comment after reading When's Broon Goin' Doon?, which we published here on Acid Rabbi a few days back.

Kalvis says:

Tell Mr Brown what you think:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

And you should. Labour have just taken a hammering in both the UK and in the European Elections which you'd have thought would be a sufficiently strong message for the PM, but politicians of all varieties are notoriously bad when it comes to understanding what the electorate really think of them and their policies. You don't need to write a full and extensive letter - if you really feel Brown must go (either because you are against everything his party stands for or because you support what the Labour Party is supposed to represent and feel that if he stays in place the Labour party is in serious risk of being killed off for good) just type a few words. In fact, why not let Brown know what you think directly? Contact him - it's your right to do so. You can even copy and paste the text below...just change "signature" to your name and send it off using this link. Easy!

Dear Mr. Brown,

As a member of the British Public, I believe that it is the Prime Minister's job to represent my best interests. However, like many, I do not feel that you have thus far accomplished this task and I have no faith that you will do so in the future. With this in mind, I am asking you to step down in order to allow a contest to decide the Labour Party's leadership. We, the British People, did not vote you into power and this is the only way that we can make our opinion plain to you.

Yours, signature.

When's Broon goin' doon?

The results of yesterday's elections are coming in, revealing that our green and pleasant land is rapidly turning blue and Tory as the Conservative Party gain control over vast swathes of the South, East Anglia and the Midlands. The LibDems have won in Bristol, but that tiny patch of orange is beginning to look like a satsuma floating in a deep blue ocean.

At present, the Tories have gained three councils while Labour - as of yet unrepresented on the map - have lost one. However, there are now 29 more Conservative councillors - bringing their total up to 166 whereas Labour have lost 25, which brings them down to just 22. These figures will change as more counts are completed but thus far it's looking like Brown's party are not just going to suffer a defeat but are in for the sort of kicking that can sometimes finish a political party off for good.


In the last week, four prominent Labour members have resigned their posts. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith - still recovering from the embarrassment of her Parliamentary expenses paying for her husband's porn viewing habits - announced her resignation on Monday, then Hazel Blears went just ahead of her almost certain sacking in the current reshuffle. Next came Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell, who left after sending a sensational letter to Gordon Brown in which he pleaded with the Prime Minister to step down for the good of Labour's future. Now Defence Minister John Hutton has gone. Brown is desperately trying to fill the yawning hole left in his party by filling the gaps with people who will remain loyal to him. David Cameron has said that "the Government is falling apart," and just for once it looks as though he's right - Labour is in a shambles.


Brown has insisted that he will not stand down but there is increasingly little faith in his capabilities amongst back-benchers from his party. If 70 MPs are willing to sign a petition, Brown will have no choice but to face a leadership contest - and according to last night's Daily Politics BBC TV show 80 of them have shown willingness. Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, says, "There have been too many mistakes and misjudgments over the last two years. In the interests of the country and the Labour party, I think Gordon must really consider his position." Barry Sheerman, Huddersfield, is more scathing. Brown "clearly doesn't like" the Labour party, he says, adding that neither does he "rate it, and takes no notice of it ... I would vote for a change of leadership."

Despite messages of support from remaining Cabinet ministers, Brown is now quite possibly the least popular leader amongst rank-and-file Labour MPs in the party's history. Today's results indicate that, without a miracle, Labour is heading for a crushing defeat in the General Election which must come next year at the latest. However, with the Chief Whip and - more importantly - six out of ten voters saying they think an earlier vote is desirable, it may happen even sooner. Whenever it happens, there seems to be very little chance of Labour getting away intact as a political entity.

If he truly respects, loves and believes in the party he represents, Brown must step down. Whether or not the's the right man for the job is irrelevant: his leadership is opening deep rifts in the Cabinet and among the back-benches, creating turmoil. Though a new leader will have virtually no hope of steering Labour to another election victory, he or she will represent an opportunity to begin picking up the pieces if what has been a most extraordinary and destructive year in the Commons and to batten down the hatches ready for the storm to come.

Onoes! We're all too stupid to vote!

The United Kingdom Independence Party, desperate as ever to do all they can to ensure the maximum number of people vote for them, are threatening legal action due to the way the ballot papers being used in today's election are folded. In areas with many candidates, a larger ballot paper is being used to fit all the names on - polling station officers have been instructed to unfold the papers before handing them over to voters.

The anti-EU party is at the bottom of the list of parties contesting the European election on the paper which is folded in half - this has apparently proved sufficiently fiendish to confuse many a poor, simple UKIP voter, a number of whom have contacted the party to complain. Godfrey Bloom, UKIP MEP, says that if it proves to have been as much of a problem as suspected, his party will demand a re-run of the entire voting process. He added that UKIP fears it will lose thousands of votes (with any luck, that's quite a few more than they'll get anyway) as supporters prove to be in possession of insufficient intelligence to work it out for themselves and unfold the paper - presumably they'll then pick whichever candidate has the funniest name instead.

"Even people who have been going in to the polling stations intending to vote for us have not been able to find UKIP on the list because the paper is razor-folded along the bottom edge. It makes it extremely difficult in some parts of the country to find us on the list and several hours have elapsed in which this fault has not been rectified," he says.



Meanwhile, Labour's Tom Harris - who appears to have a little more faith in the public's intellectual capabilities - has argued on his blog against those who have compared the deviously-arranged papers to electoral fraud in Zimbabwe.

"The thousands of political refugees who have claimed asylum in Britain in recent years rarely mention the murders, rapes, beatings, intimidation and land-grab. No, no, no… It was the insistence by Harare returning officers on folding ballot papers that finally persuaded them to jump in the back of that lorry for the 3000-mile journey to Blighty," writes the Glasgow South MP.

So, UKIP voters...how does it feel when the party you wish to represent you and your country in Europe publically declares you to be stupid?