I’ve got a few audio-visual bits and pieces I’m pondering releasing, and this puts me in something of a quandary…

You see, on the one hand, I have three near enough complete audio lectures/talks by the late Hunter S Thompson that I could put up, covering the period from 1977 to 1991 or thereabouts…

Or…

I could post an little audio-visual mash-up I’ve concocted; one that combines video footage of Hazel Blears with Cartman’s version of ‘The Aristocrats‘…

What do you think?

Gonzo lectures or gratutitous verbal profanity… which would be best?

Actually, I must admit that I’ve contemplating the possibility of a little video project, in which film clips of public figures are revoiced with different versions of the Aristocrats.

I’ve already spotted the perfect version of the joke for David Cameron - and, of course, he is an Aristo, which makes the whole idea even funnier.

Mmm - anyone with any particular thoughts on what to release next, nominations for people you’d like to see ‘telling’ The Aristocrats, or may be just whether any of this is likely to get me arrested?

…back again.

Safety’s Back… brought a friend…

Politics is about the future not the past.

Oh for fuck’s sake - change the fucking tape will you!

Look, politics is about the past, present and the fucking future.

You learn the lessons of the past, you apply them to the present and you plan for the future.

Fucking hell, this like Neil the Hippy trying to teach Vyvian about fucking gardening in The Young Ones.

We sow the seed. Nature grows the seed. And then we eat the seed…

Now, do you fucking understand…?
No. Of course you don’t - who am I fucking kidding?

After ten years in office Labour needs a new vision and new policies if we are to successfully meet the future challenges faced by our country and the wider world.

And?

Winning future elections requires us to renew ourselves intellectually, politically and organisationally.

Okay… so this is all just the usual soap powder politics bollock. Welcomes to the launch of new and improved New New Labour. We haven’t got the fucking clue what it is or why its better than the Old New Labour, but it’s new and that’s what counts.

Renewal cannot happen behind closed doors. It requires an open participatory debate in the Party, amongst our supporters and with the wider public about the future direction for New Labour.

Which is why the first thing you do is e-mail all the party’s MP’s and hold a fucking media launch - that’s real fucking inclusive of you.

Ten years ago we had a clear vision about direction. And in those ten years we have done much to make both Britain and the world better and fairer. We take pride in what has been achieved under Tony Blair’s leadership.

Now the world has moved on. It is the right time not just to take stock but to set out the new ideas that can give New Labour renewed momentum.

And those ideas are…? I’m waiting… yes… yes… no, you haven’t got a fucking clue have you?

A Conservative victory would be bad for Britain so we believe that we should have the courage to take the radical centre ground in British politics by setting out a compelling vision for the future rather than simply relying on what we have achieved in the past.

You see? Haven’t got a fucking clue what they’re talking about, so the trot out a bogeyman.

Yes, we know a Tory victory would be bad for Britain… because they’re just as much a vacuous bunch of cunts as you are.

The 2020 Vision is about looking to the world a decade or more ahead. It is about identifying the new challenges the world faces and the new policies needed to implement progressive values.

A decade or more ahead, eh? Good… well you can fuck off and call me back in, say, about another seven or eight years, then.

By modernising our means but staying true to our ends we can make the twenty first century a progressive one.

You fucking what? Has one of you cunts swallowed a fucking spin doctor?

We believe in radical reform.

Well, yes. Don’t you always

For us reform is for a progressive purpose – to make for a fairer society. We look to policies that empower individual citizens, reward aspiration, spread opportunity, tackle intolerance and inequality, provide security, protect the environment and that are internationalist not isolationist.

Ooh goody.. a whole string of meaningless fucking buzzwords as usual. Yeah that’ll fucking work won’t it?

Look, you can fill the same sentence with complete and utter nonsense and it still makes about the same amount of sense.

For us reform is for a footling purpose – to make for a blinkenspiel society. We look to policies that discombobulate individual citizens, snotgobble aspiration, bloviate opportunity, kershnoogle intolerance and inequality, blastnostricate security, kazoompa the environment and that are squadelphious not Frisbeetarian.

See what I mean - it makes about as much sense as Safety shitting buzzwords, doesn’t it!

And we look to a style of politics that is based on dialogue, debate and devolved power.

What? Dialogue, debate and devolved power - you mean like the last ten years?

Can you give me one good reason why I should believe any of this bollocks? Go on… just one…

Yes…?

Yes…?

No. Of course you can’t. You just trotting out the same old tired rhetoric aren’t you… Yes, you are….

The 2020 Vision is an open forum for individuals and organisations who believe in New Labour’s renewal. The 2020 Vision aims to facilitate a wide-ranging debate about the future of progressive modernisation. Through an interactive website, publications and regional and national events The 2020 Vision will seek to encourage the development of ideas and policies that can contribute to progressive reform.

Okay, I’ve had enough enough of this already - just who is the cunt that bought Safety a bullshit machine gun for Christmas and how much will it cost to have the bastard kneecapped…

…with a JCB.

Renewal cannot be about going back. It is about moving forward.

Does anyone else get a bit creeped out with all this talk of renewal?

Wasn’t ‘renewal’ the euphemism they used in Logan’s Run to describe putting all the thirty-year olds in a disco and then vaporising the fuckers?

OH MY GOD, SAFETY WANTS TO VAPORISE THE OVER THIRTY’S…. DON’T VOTE FOR THESE BASTARDS OR YOU’RE ALL GOING TO DIE - © Daily Mail 2007.

That is what The 2020 Vision aims to do.

No, sorry old boy… don’t understand your banter.

We interrupt this programme for a message from our sponsors…

Bitter?

Twisted?

Political career right down the shitter?

Then you need ‘2020 Vision’, the new fragrance from Clarke and Milburn.

Ah, yes. The sweet smell of bullshit.

Ellee Seymour, the Alice Tinker of the British Blogosphere, on the subject of domestic violence…

Let’s hope our jails are never too full for the viscous bullies who beat up women.

Yes, let’s bang up all the oily bastards and have done with it…

It’s seems that Hazel Blears is not going to be the ‘Murdoch Candidate’:

I come to you straight from Hazel Blears’s launch for Labour’s deputy leadership and my ears are ringing. I don’t think it’s tinnitus. Indeed, I know it’s not. Instead it is a new condition called Hazelitis or, as it is destined to be known, Bleary Ear.

The problem lies in Hazel’s words-per-minute output. It is a shorthand nightmare. The words crowd together, hundreds of them in every minute, gasping for breath. It is like battery farming with sentences. It is hard to explain but if you force yourself to read this column at five times the normal rate, you will see what I mean. The brain simply cannot take the strain and so the ears, at some point, just stop working.

Battery farming with sentences… Hehehehehe. Not bad. Not bad at all…

But how would she differ from John Prescott? “Well,” she said, giggling. “I’m small and I’m a woman which will be very different indeed!” Plus, she chirped, she had energy.

Indeed, she is like one of those battery-operated rabbits who just never stops. We shuffled out, ears almost bleeding, to a rallying cry from the campaign manager, Caroline Flint, perhaps best known as Minister for Obesity. “Hazel Blears doesn’t just talk the talk, she walks the walk. She gets out there. She’s a great motivator. There are no no-go areas for Hazel Blears!”

I suspect this is true. If only there were, the world would be a much quieter place.

Mwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I’m admit to be keenly awaiting Hazel’s upcoming appearance on Celebrity Mastermind.

‘Your name, please?’

‘Hazel Blears’

‘Your occupation?’

‘Politician.’

‘And your specialist subject.’

‘Answering the question I’d rather answer even though that’s not the question you asked.’

I’m not a great one for gossip and rumour, at least not as it relates to my own side of the political divide, but if what I’ve been told over the weekend is correct then life is possibly going to become very interesting indeed for one local MP.

Adrian Bailey is the MP for the constituency of West Bromwich West, and if you’re not from these parts then that may be about as much as you’ve ever been told about him.

Baliey has been an MP since November 2000, when he won the seat in by-election caused by the retirement (to the House of Lords) of his far more illustrious predecessor, Betty (now Lady) Boothroyd, who was, of course, the first woman Speaker of the House of Commons, and for all that he’s known to be an ultra-loyal Blairite, that hasn’t particularly helped him climb the greasy pole - to date he’s reached the dizzy heights of Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department of Work and Pensions, i.e. an unpaid bag-carrier for, first, David Blunkett and, latterly, John Hutton.

Avid political watchers might also recall that he got into something of a spat with Tom Watson, following Tom’s resignation as a junior Defence Minister, having signed a letter calling on Tony Blair to set a firm timetable for his departure as Prime Minister:

Mr Bailey, who is in the neighbouring West Bromwich West constituency, immediately jumped to the Prime Minister’s defence and accused Mr Watson and his fellow rebels of being “destructive to the party”.

He said: “I believe a leader who has won three general elections should be trusted to time that exit.”

And he said Mr Watson and the others, who he said were “the younger MPs” were acting in a way that could be disruptive and not in the best interests of the party.

Bailey’s outburst in the local press hardly went down well with local members; two senior local councillors even described him as being ‘out of touch with voters’ - none more so than members of his own CLP if even half of what I’ve been told over the weekend is true.

To say that there’s dissent in his CLP ranks would seem to be rather an understatement. Outright revolt may be rather closer to the mark and this may well lead to moves to unseat Bailey as the CLP’s chosen candidate for next general election.

From what I’ve been told, the relationship between Bailey and a significant portion of his CLP has been deteriorating for some time, although matters really started to come to a head before last year’s local elections, at a time when the local party was expecting to come under serious pressure from the BNP - Labour lost three seats to the BNP at that election, all in Bailey’s constituency.

Two events, which took place in the run in to those elections, appear to have brought tensions to head within the CLP.

First, Bailey is alleged to have been deeply involved in efforts to unseat a well-respected and long-serving local councillor in order to insert one of his favoured supporters into the seat, a move that backfired spectacularly when the councillor in question stood down rather than fight what was expected to be a fairly bitter and acrimonious selection contest, leaving Bailey’s preferred candidate to fight the election and lose the seat to the BNP - this despite boundary changes having moved a sizable Asian community into the ward in question.

To compound matters, Bailey is also held by CLP members to have been behind a decision to delay the CLP’s annual general meeting from March (before the election) to the following July. This decision was taken out of the hands of local members and forced on the CLP by Regional Office on the pretext that fighting the election was more of a priority and the CLP did not need the ‘distraction’ of an AGM, although the view of many in the CLP is that this delay was engineered solely to avoid Bailey having to face a mutiny amongst the CLP membership.

As a direct consequence of the AGM being delayed, the sitting officers of the CLP chose, en bloc, not to stand for re-election when the AGM was eventually convened in July, leaving it in the embarrasing position of finding itself unable to fill the post of CLP Treasurer at its own AGM, forcing it to wait a further two months until an appointment could be made.

Eight months on and word is, again, reaching me of serious dissention within CLP ranks, this time over an attempt to railroad through Bailey’s reselection as the constituency’s candidate for the next general election.

The issue, as I understand it, is one of timing. Last year, the local elections were put forward as a pretext for delaying the CLP’s AGM for several months. This year, with the CLP under much the same pressure from the BNP in the upcoming local elections - early predictions suggest that Labour could lose another 3-5 seats to the BNP, most of which, again, will be in West Bromwich West - not only is the CLP’s AGM going ahead on its usual schedule but it seems an attempt has been made timetable the selection process for the next general election before the local elections, as well - a move that many in the CLP are interpreting as an effort, on Bailey’s part, to get his nomination reconfirmed before Blair heads off into the sunset. Bailey, it seems, is less than confident of the getting the full backing of the party machine without Blair standing over it and has been trying to push things through accordingly.

Whether the current rumblings of discontent amount to sufficient will to unseat Bailey is difficult to assess as yet, although he appears not to helped his cause one bit by the manner in which his supporters have attempted to fast-track his reselection.

Apparently, a timetable for the reselection, that would have seen it done and dusted before the May elections, was ‘agreed’ by a meeting of the CLPs officers at which two of those present were paid employees of Bailey’s constitutency office. Although this timetable has now been rejected by the CLP executive, in a meeting that has been described to me as ‘heated’, a number of members are now asking questions about whether these two individuals should have withdrawn from the officer’s meeting due to what seems a pretty obvious conflict of interest, as well as raising more general questions about whether its appropriate to CLP members who are employed by the MP to take an active role in debates/votes where their employment gives rise to such a clear and obvious conflict of interest.

Far from smoothing the way to a secure candidacy at the next general election, this latest round of procedural shenannigans appears to have made many CLP members all the more determined to open up the constitutency to other prospective parliamentary candidates and at least take a look at the alternative candidates who may be on offer. A poor result in the local elections and further losses to the BNP could harden the resolve of Bailey’s opponents even further, not least as another of Bailey’s employees is current having half his salary paid by the local Labour group in order than he can coordinate local campaign activities against the BNP. However, to date, there seems to be a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst local activists as to the conduct of this ‘campaign’, which many consider to be notable only for its lack of impact thus far.

Whatever happens, it seems likely that the upcoming selection process in West Bromwich West will be be one to watch. It’s too early to say, for certain, whether the knives are actually out for Adrian Bailey, but talk to a few of his CLP members and one gets the distinct impression that they’re being sharpened at the moment.

[A few corrections made for typo’s and accuracy - especially as there appears to be a journo watching]

A man walks into a bank and asks to see a Business Advisor. After a short wait, he’s shown to a private office.

‘Good morning’, says the man.

‘Good morning, Sir.’ replies the Business Advisor, ‘Would you care to take a seat?’

The man sits down.

‘Now, I understand that you’d like to discuss a loan to start a new business. Is that right?’

‘Yes. Yes it is. You see I’ve come up with this brilliant idea for a new type of widget. It’ll sell millions. Make an absolute fortune.’

‘Mmm… I see.’ says the Business Advisor, ‘Tell me more… Tell you what. Before we go into this in detail, perhaps you could give me an idea of around how much you might be looking to borrow?’

‘Dunno.’

‘Pardon?’

The Business Advisor looks a little taken aback.

‘I don’t know at the moment. I haven’t quite got that far in my thinking… but it’s a brilliant idea, I can assure you. It’ll make millions.’

‘Yessssss… So you don’t know how much you want to borrow yet? Tell me just what kind of planning for your business have you done so far?’

‘Pardon?’

‘Planning. Preparation… That kind of thing?’

‘Not sure quite what you mean.’

‘Well, have you, say for example, started to work on a business plan?’

‘No.’

‘How about some cost projections?’

‘No.’

‘Cashflow forecasts?’

‘No.’

‘Market Testing?’

‘No. None of that.’

‘You’ve built a prototype of you new widget, then?’

‘No… Not exactly…’

‘Well then, what exactly have you got?’

‘Mmm… Well, if I show you, you’ll have to promise not to tell anyone else about this… I can trust you, can’t I?’

‘Of course, Sir. This is a bank, after all.’

‘Right… Well, here it is…’

The man reaches into his pocket and pulls out a tatty-looking envelope and puts it on the table in front of the Business Advisor. On the back of the envelope, there’s a rough sketch of the widget drawn in red ink.

‘That’s it. The Widget… Just look at it. It’s Brilliant, isn’t it… it’ll sell millions.’

The Business Advisor thinks about calling security and then decide to humour the man instead.

‘Ah, yes. I see. That’s the plan for you widget?’

‘Well, more or less. It needs a bit of work. A bit of tidying up, so to speak, but that’s the basic idea. It came to me this morning, on the bus on my way into town to sign-on. One minute I was staring out of the window, watching the trees go by, and the next… Well it just came to me out of the blue and I just knew it was brilliant. Will sell millions. So I jotted it down and came right here to see you straight away.’

‘Yesssss. I see. So this widget of yours… if we did lend you the money - and I’m not promising anything at this stage, you understand…’

‘Well yes, naturally…’

‘But if we did lend you the money, how long do you think it would take you get this widget into production?’

‘Well, you see, that’s the tricky bit.’

‘I see. In what way, exactly, is it tricky?’

‘Well, you see it’s like this. This widget… well it’s brilliant. Way ahead of its time.’

‘Go on.’

‘And, well, err… that’s the tricky bit. You see, the technology needed to build the widget isn’t quite there yet…’

‘Not quite there yet?’

‘No… But it will be soon, the way things are going. I reckon that give it, say, another five, may be ten years and the technology will have caught up with my idea’.

‘So let me get this straight. You’ve got a rough sketch on the back of envelope, no idea how much you want to borrow, no business plan, cost projection or cash flow analysis, not even a prototype, and the technology you need to make you widget work might be available in five to ten years time… what makes you think that this bank will loan you any money?’

‘ Well, it’s brilliant isn’t it… the widget, I mean. It’ll make millions…’

‘Good day, Sir’.

…

Is it any wonder that 1.8 million people have signed a petition against road pricing?

Just a small, experimental, trifle…

Coming soon… Hazel Blears on Question Time… revoiced by Catherine Tate.

When it seems that Patrick Cormack’s future as an MP may be more secure than everyone first thought…

The vote which would have ousted veteran Tory MP Sir Patrick Cormack has been declared null and void.

David Billson, chairman of Staffs South Conservatives, said there had been a “clerical error” and a fresh vote would be held in the next two or three weeks.

A clerical error? Mmm, and exactly what kind of clerical error might that be?

It follows claims there were more votes cast than people present at a meeting last week to decide the MP’s future.

Sir Patrick, who was facing deselection after 33 years, described the development as “extraordinary”.

Last Monday’s vote went against Sir Patrick by a narrow margin but the voting figures remained secret even from the MP himself.

He said a party investigation had “established that the attendance record did not appear to reflect an accurate record of those entitled to vote and it has also revealed that more ballot papers were cast than people present”.

Ah, I see… that kind of clerical error - the kind of clerical error that everyone else refers to as ‘ballot stuffing’.

Well that’s alright then, there’s nothing to too concerned about because Detective Inspector Frankie Maude is on the case…

Party chairman Francis Maude had written to Mr Billson saying it was “necessary” to declare the vote invalid, as it could potentially be challenged in court, he added.

WTF? It could be challenged in court? What about your own party rules - surely there must be something in the Tory rulebook about ‘one member, one vote’ at least?
You mean that you’re not just a little eensy-weensy bit curious to know just how, exactly, a branch of your own party came to have more ballot papers cast than voters attending the selection meeting and eligible to vote, Frankie?

I mean its not like you’re saying there’s been a miscount or you’ve given the ballot papers the once over and found an error in the spoiled papers - you’ve apparently got more votes than you had voters, which is usually about the time that get around to suspending the branch while you try to figure out exactly what’s gone on and where these additional ballot papers might have come from…

Except that in the Tory dictionary this is called a ‘clerical error’???

Something fishy is going on here, methinks, as whatever has actually happened the suggestion that having more votes than voters is merely a clerical error seems to me to possibly the worst possible explanation you could have humanly come up with.

It’s just been brought to my attention that the Electoral Commission may be investigating the purchase and sale of the Tory’s former headquarters in Smith Square after a Lib Dem Peer, Lord Oakeshott, questioned whether the transaction contains what would be, in effect, a £4.9 million anonymous donation into party coffers.

So far as I understand the transaction, the Tories held a lease on its Smith Square premises valued at £10 million and, in March 2006, purchased the freehold on those premises, together with that of a second property in nearby Tufton Square, at a cost of £15.6 million.

This deal was, however, rather more complicated than your average property transaction as it was conducted through a Tory-owned subsidiary, C&UCO Properties Ltd, which acquired the freehold by taking over its previous owner, Platinum Overseas Holdings, which was registered in the British Virgin Islands.

Remarkably, when quizzed by the Electoral Commission about this transaction, last September, the Tories claimed that they had no idea who the owners of Platinum Overseas Holdings actually were when they took over the company.

The Tories have since sold the two properties to an Irish property company, Harcourt Developments, for £30.5 million, netting them a total profit on the deal of £4.9 million in less than a year.

The Lib Dems have repeatedly claimed that that the deal under which the Tories acquired Platinum Overseas Holdings undervalued the properties by at least £4 million, but Lord Oakeshott, who manages a property investment company, has claimed that the true market value if the freeholds should have been at least £25million and has apparently written to the Electoral Commission raising concerns concerns about the transaction.

The Sunday Telegraph also revealed, last September, that the manner in which the deal was structured enable the Tories to avoid paying stamp duty on the purchase, saving them £625,000 in tax and that they have kept Platinum Overseas Holdings offshore, since purchasing the company, on the pretext that they intend to sell the company - quite what there is to sell, having disposed of its primary assets is unclear.

To add further a little further intrigue, when questioned about the transaction, Tory Party Chairman, Francis Maude, claimed that the sale of Platinum was conducted by Citigroup - however the Telegraph claimed in the same article that sources at the bank were unaware of the existence of this transaction.

Give Paul Staines’s recent obsession with the word Sith Smith, you might have thought that the scent of a possible financial scandal in major political party that involves tax avoidance, dodgy property deals, undeclared anonymous donations and offshore companies would be right up his street, and yet all he’s had to say on the subject is…

Tories Sell Old Smith Square HQ for £30m

So that leaves the Tory party virtually debt-free, whereas Labour are bordering on insolvent and barely able to afford holding a leadership election, never mind a general election.

Can Gordon get his mate Ronnie “PFI” Cohen [pictured] to cough up some of his profits for the party?

Maybe Paul could offer some expertise of offshoring and tax avoidance instead?

He is, apparently, well versed in such matters.

The Electoral Commission are supposed to be the independent ‘watchdogs’ of Britain’s democracy, with responsibility for regulating many of the campaign activities (and finances) of Britain’s political parties and yet it seems that they’re just as much part of the ‘establishment’ as anything else if Devil’s Kitchen’s explanation of the current situation facing UKIP is anything to go by…

A UKIP donor, who has lived and worked in the UK all of his life, does not fill his Electoral Register form and the Electoral Commission decide that UKIP must repay (to the Treasury) the entirety of Alan Brown’s donations for the year 2005.

And just to clarify the situation…

So, just to spell that out again: a clerical error regarding a British individual’s electoral status (that UKIP could not possibly be expected to anticipate or, reasonably, even know about) results in the Electoral Commission deciding to claw back the money (which goes to the Treasury) and effectively bankrupt UKIP in the process.

This is all because, apparently, the donor in question, a Mr Alan Bown, managed to neglect to register himself on the Electoral Register between 2004 and 2006, despite the fact that was on there at the same address up to 2004 and since got himself back on to the register… at the same address.
Meanwhile, as DK correctly points out…

The Lib Dems receive a donation of £2.4 million from a convicted fraudster based overseas, and the Electoral Commission considers that the party has no case to answer.

This is, of course, Michael Brown, who is currently serving a two-year prison sentence for perjury and making a false declaration to obtain a passport, and who was also not registered to vote, but got away with making his £2.4 million donation to the Lib Dems because he routed through a ‘cash shell’ that even the Electoral Commission doubts was actually trading in the UK.

It is not clear to the Commission that 5th Avenue Partners Ltd was carrying on business in the UK at the time the donations were made.

Iain Dale is, naturally, delighted with this turn of events, and well he might be.

Labour are still embroiled in the whole ‘loans for peerages’ business.

The Lib Dems still face losing its £2.4 million donation from Brown - the Electoral Commission’s press release states that they are ‘considering the available evidence and expect to reach a decision on whether to apply for such an order in the next few weeks‘. That was issued on 27 October 2006, seventeen weeks ago, and they’ve still not come to a decision.

And now UKIP look set to lose £360,000 or so in donations because of a minor cock-up.

And yet there has been relatively little attention given to the Tory’s finances, despite the fact that they held off declaring their own loans to the Electoral Commission to the very last minute while they paid off £5 million of them in order to ensure that the sources of those loans, and the terms of which they were made have never publicly disclosed - and replaced them with loans from other third party’s of of near unknown provenance…

Like the ‘Medlina Foundation’, which loaned the Tories £950,000 and who gave, as their contact address, a lawyer’s office in Liechtenstein.

Or how about Big Ben Films, a cash shell front for Johan Eliasch, a Swedish businessman, based in London, who is the chairman and CEO of sporting goods manufacturer Head. Eliasch is also a banker, film producer and deputy treasurer of the Conservative Party and an advisor to William Hague and member of the advisory board of the Centre for Social Justice, a think-tank set up by Iain Duncan Smith.

Strangely, according to the Inland Revenue, Big Ben Films was listed as a non-trading company at the time the loan (£2.6 million) was made.

And then there’s Ironmade Ltd, another non-trading company that loaned the Tories a shade over £1 million on 1 June 2005, having only been registered with Companies House on 13 April that same year.

Whie I’m no great fan of UKIP, I’m with DK all the way on this one - stripping UKIP of its funds for nothing more than a simple clerical error is way over the top, and its a bit rich of Iain Dale to coming the smart-arse over party funding when his own party is actively exploiting every fucking loophole in the book to keep its own funding shrouded in as much secrecy as possible.

A level playing field this ain’t and the Electoral Commission should both reconsider it decision on UKIP’s funding AND pull its fucking finger out when it comes to the Tories working the rules for all they’re worth.

Once all the current investigations are concluded, and well before we go anywhere near providing state funding for political parties - and I don’t support that anyway, I think there is a real need to properly clean out the entire cesspit of political party financing, and that, for me, means…

1. An amnesty on prosecutions for abuse of the honours system or in relation to party funding - look we’re not going to get to the truth if people think they could wind up doing time.

2. A full public inquiry into the funding of political parties over the last, say 20-30 years - one that requires a full and frank disclosure from all political parties of past donors, loans, etc over that time.

3. Alterations to the existing rules on corporate donations to prevent the identities of donors being hidden behind shell companies - let’s see exactly where the funding is coming from.

4. The removal of one of the biggest of all current barriers to democratic participation, the requirement that all candidates put up a £500 deposit in order to stand for election.

Think about that last one for a moment.

In order for any new, or current, minor political party to step up and try and challenge the current dominance of the political system by the big three established parties, the present system puts a tariff on their efforts of well in excess of £300,000 in order for them to run enough candidates to be consider a genuinely national party.

Is that not putting up a blatant barrier to participation in the electoral system?

Yes, such a change would clearly be to the benefit of both UKIP and extremist parties on both the left and right, making it easier for them to run considerably more candidates at general elections, but then as far as I’m concerned that a good thing - the democratic way of doing things is to allow people to stand and let the electorate decide and not price people - and smaller political parties - out of the democratic process.

Democracy should me not only that anyone over the age of 18 can vote in election but also that any of an appropriate age should also be able to stand for election to any political office, regardless of the financial means at their disposal.

Anyway, speaking of loopholes and the exploitation thereof, I’ve been taking a good close look at the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the law under which the Electoral Commission regulates the conduct and campaign finances of political parties and their donors/supporters, and in particular taking very careful note of Part VI of the Act, sections 85-89 inclusive, and what it has to say about ‘Third Parties’.

A Third Party, in case you’re unaware of the ins and outs of this Act is any individual or organisation that wishes to spend more than spend more than £10,000 in England, or £5,000 in each of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland supporting or opposing a party or group of candidates. Third Parties have to be registered with the Electoral Commission if they wish to spend more than these amounts and, once registered, are subject to regulation by the Electoral Commission in terms of receiving donations and the amounts of campaign expenditure the can incur during periods leading in to elections and must report donations and expenditure to the Commission for inclusion in its public registers.

The precise rules on expenditure and regulated periods vary, depending on the election.

For a general election, for example, the regulated period is a full year prior to the election and the caps on expenditure run to £793,000 in England, £108,000 in Scotland, £60,000 in Wales and £27,000 in Northern Ireland, while for other elections the regulated period is 4 month prior to the election and the spending caps are much lower.

You’ll notice, if you’ve been paying attention, that these rules cover not only campaigning for a political party, but also against other parties, and that why I’ve already emailing an enquiry to the Electoral Commission requesting that they review the activities of Fox News Lite with a view to considering whether and in what circumstances it may be necessary that it - or rather the company behind it, Doughty Media Ltd - should be considered to be operating as a Third Party under PPERA and therefore subject to regulation by the Electoral Commission.

Make no mistake, this is not a one-off enquiry but the beginning of what I expect to be an extensive dialogue with the Commission on the subject of internet-based high-cost/value third party media operations, of which Fox News Lite is the first to emerge and the ultimate objective is to persuade the Electoral Commission to undertake a formal review of such developments using powers granted to it under section 6 of the Act:

6. - (1) The Commission shall keep under review, and from time to time submit reports to the Secretary of State on, the following matters, namely-

…

(f) political advertising in the broadcast and other electronic media;

(g) the law relating to the matters mentioned in each of paragraphs (a) to (f)

Subsections (a) to (e) cover other stuff like referendums, electoral boundaries, regulation of political parties, etc.

In particular, one of the key issues I intend to raise is the matter of the persistence and longevity of political advertising on the Internet, as opposed to other forms of political advertising such as party political broadcasts and election leaflets.

While the latter are, to all intents and purposes, transient - here today, gone tomorrow - internet based advertising ‘hang around’ long after the time at which it was first released, making it relatively easy to bypass the regulations covering regulated periods prior to elections.

Take Fox News Lite’s recent anti-Livingstone ‘attack ad’ - I haven’t checked the exact details but I would expect that the Mayoral elections in 2008 will be, like other elections, subject to a regulated period in terms of campaign activities by both political parties and third parties, such that any significant campaign expenditure during that period would have to be registered with the Electoral Commission.

That’s fine, so far as election broadcasts, leaflets, etc go, but when it comes to the internet, attack ads like those produced by Fox News Lite can be quite easily by put together and published well outside these regulated periods, but remain live and accessible on the Internet right up to the day of the election. In short, the system of regulated campaign periods is next to meaningless when you’re working with a medium in which campaign broadcasts can be produced months in advance and just left to run right the way through the regulated period.
Its a pretty obvious loophole and one very easily exploited - at least up to now given that this is something that the Electoral Commission almost certainly hasn’t considered, although when one considers that Fox News Lite already bypasses OFCOM regulations on political broadcasting and that Iain Dale, its director of programming, was very vocal in his opposition to EU proposals to regulate internet ‘broadcasting’, one has to take the view that those behind Fox News Lite probably are aware of this loophole and are looking to exploit it for as long as possible - which may well not be quite as long as they might have hoped if I’m successful in my dialogue with the Electoral Commission
In most respects these regulations are a complete and wholly unworkable bag of shite, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t still a world of difference between geneuine community sites like YouTube or individual video bloggers and parodists, like the wonderful Gweirdo, and an expensive US-style on-line propaganda operation like Fox News Lite - the former needs no regulation at all, the latter, at the very least, should be compelled to be open and honest about its political motives and cut out all the pretence about being ‘anti-establishment’ and trying to sell itself as giving an independent view point - which seems to me to make the Electoral Commission the ideal regulator for the job.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the Electoral Commission is prepared to take this up - and I’m in no mood to be taking ‘no’ for an answer - and also what reaction if any all this may prompt from amongst Tory ranks - if the last few weeks have been anything to go by, most likely the usual bullshit about ‘Brownite plots’, which is a complete load of bollocks, not least as if the Fox News Lite lot were at all intent on being honest about their political activities and motives then they’d have already registered as a third party, anyway.

So before any of this goes through the usual piss-poor spin machine, it’s worth pointing out that this isn’t about trying to shut down Fox News Lite or curb their activities - the most I’d expect from this is that the Commission takes a view on whether professional media operations like Fox News Lite, and any similar future set-ups spawned by supporters of other political parties, should be registered under the existing regulations and whether, indeed, the existing regulations are adequate or the purpose of covering these kind of semi-detached professional political advertisers or whether they need to be updated in light of recent developments to ensure that all parties have to play by the same basic rules.

It’s only fair, after all.