When was free speech outlawed in this country?

The above is video of the Police removing the BNP candidate, Derek Adams, from a hustings in Delph during campaigning for the recent Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election. It seems that the organisers of the hustings invited some but not all of the candidates; five were not invited, Derek Adams being one. Here is a full list of the candidates for Thursday's by-election:

• Debbie Abrahams (Labour)
• Derek Adams (British National Party)
• Kashif Ali (Conservative)
• Peter Allen (Green Party)
• David Bishop (Bus-Pass Elvis Party)
• The Flying Brick (Monster Raving Loony Party)
• Loz Kaye (Pirate Party of the United Kingdom)
• Stephen Morris (English Democrats)
• Paul Nuttall MEP (UK Independence Party)
• Elwyn Watkins (Liberal Democrats)

I assume that the Labour, LibDem and Conservative candidates were invited as they are the main political parties in the country, but which of the minor parties were invited and which were not? I would be interested to see if those invited are the five highest polling candidates or not on Thursday.

The interests of democracy are not served by muzzling the BNP. However vile one finds some of their opinions they are a legitimate political party with views no worse than some parties on the far left of British politics who are never denied a platform.


Thanks to EU Referendum and The Saddleworth News for the spots.

Stamp Out Voting Fraud

With last night's election win, allied with the huge increase in postal voting, in mind I was interested to find this article relating much of what I have reported about the possible voting fraud at the Glenrothes by-election, take a read and consider what Unlock Democracy have to say on preventing electoral fraud.

You might also like to take a look at The Orange Party and their views on electoral fraud. They include several helpful links, including this one to a Scotsman article which warns us that

"LABOUR wants to sign up every supporter to a postal vote ahead of the general election, in a plan that has sparked concern among democracy watchdogs.
The idea is revealed in a secret election handbook obtained by The Scotsman. Postal votes are more susceptible to fraud than poll-booth ones, but Labour's day-to-day election planner reveals a timetable for signing up all possible supporters to vote by post."

and also this one which is the BBC report that tells us re postal voting that:

"The system is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that," Judge Mawrey said."

As I have said before, the next general election will be the dirtiest and nastiest ever and no trick will be untried as Labour campaigners fight for every vote and advantage. It is still possible that Gordon Brown could be returned as Prime Minister in 2010; depressingly possible.

Glenrothes mark 2

The Glasgow North East by election is later this week and Rantin Rab has spotted something odd. Apparently:

"Postal vote applications granted - 6,065 (2005 figure 2419).

Constituency voters roll total on the 1st October 2009 = 60,037. Voters roll at the end of October = 62,475. A huge increase of 2,438.

The massive increase in postal votes mirror those in the Glenrothes by election last year. 80% of the postal votes granted in Glenrothes were used."

I wonder if as in Glenrothes the electoral register will conveniently disappear after the Labour by election victory...


Meanwhile I see that the BNP think that something odd is going on in some Council by elections where Labour are seeing large increases in their vote, somewhat against trend. The Green Arrow website has more details, two links are here for St Helen's ward, Barnsely and here for Hayling, Three Rivers District, Hertfordshire. Please note that whilst The Green Arrow website is a BNP supporting website, mine is not.

The BBC and its very different treatment of UKIP and the Greens

Yesterday I mentioned the way that the BBC had, as usual, portrayed the Greens as the fourth party of British politics when it has become increasingly apparent that UKIP has overtaken it. Today I read that Dan Hannan feels similarly:

"Several weeks ago, the BBC decided to start running stories about how well the Green Party would do at the Norwich North by-election. It is far from clear whether programme editors thought that this would happen anyway, or whether they hoped to make it happen. After all, what minority candidates most crave is airtime: to be treated as mainstream, and so to anticipate the “wasted vote” argument.

The BBC obliged. Lord, how it obliged. Throughout the campaign, it ran programmes with Conservative, Labour, LibDem and Green spokesmen. Now don’t get me wrong: I rather like the Greens. But there was no basis to the claim that they were the fourth party, either nationally or locally. The last test of electoral feeling was June’s European election. The United Kingdom Independence Party won 13 seats and came second; the Greens won two seats and came fifth. In local elections on the same day, UKIP beat the Greens in most Norwich North wards.

UKIP activists politely drew these facts to the BBC’s attention in the hope of fairer coverage. They misunderstood the Corporation’s mindset. In Beebworld, Greens are essentially nice, and deserve a fair crack of the whip. But UKIP are anti-immigration, anti-Brussels and, worst of all, sceptical about climate change. They are not Our Sort Of People, and should be covered accordingly, if at all.

Newsnight, Look East and Radio 4 all chose to disregard UKIP and treat the Greens as the main story. Three days before the poll, the BBC’s Eastern region TV held a hustings meeting for four candidates: Conservative, Labour, LibDem and Green.

What was the result in the event? UKIP won 11.8 per cent of the vote - comfortably ahead of the Greens and remarkably close to the LibDems (or “worryingly close” as I just heard a Radio 5 Live presenter put it).

Did our state broadcaster apologise for its mistake? No, alright, that would have been expecting too much; but was it, at least, a little abashed in its tone? Nope. It simply edited UKIP out of its coverage. On the one o’clock news, a little bar chart came up to represent the results: blue for the Conservatives, red for Labour, yellow for the LibDems and, er, green for the fifth-placed Greens. The party that had come fourth, and been just 800 votes behind the LibDems, wasn’t represented. Nor was UKIP mentioned on the contemporaneous radio news."

Nick Robinson desperately spinning for Labour

Nick Robinson looks increasingly desperate as he tries to spin for Labour. Let's ignore his habit of seemingly only blogging on days when he can post anti-Conservative angled articles. This morning he posted this humorous piece about the likely spin that would be employed by each of the three main parties after the Norwich North by-election result became known. It's quite a good idea and one that I have toyed with before, although Nick Robinson's is not a great example of the genre. His piece is harsh on the Conservatives, soft on Labour, fair on the Lib Dems and as is usual at the BBC treats the Greens as the fourth party of British politics.

Then the result of the by-election was declared and Nick Robinson had to post again. This time he had to accept, presumably through clenched teeth, that:

"A massive 16.5 swing, not far short of what they got in Crewe and Nantwich, will allow the Conservatives to say that this is much better than the results I alluded to in my earlier post.

Labour, on the other hand, will point out that the swing originated largely from a collapse in their vote (-27%) and much less by an increase in the Tory vote (just 6.5%).

The truth is that Mr Cameron has done more than enough to look on course for an election victory and Labour has done badly enough to fear that one is inevitable. "

Here's the result:
Chloe Smith (Con) 13,591 (39.5%)
Chris Ostrowski (Lab) 6,243 (18.16%)
April Pond (LD) 4,803 (13.97%)
Glenn Tingle (UKIP) 4,068 (11.83%)
Rupert Read (Green) 3,350 (9.74%)
Craig Murray (Ind) 953 (2.77%)
Robert West (BNP) 941 (2.74%)
Bill Holden (Ind) 166 (0.48)
Howling Laud (Loony) 144 (0.42%)
Anne Fryatt (NOTA) 59 (0.17%)
Thomas Burridge (Libertarian) 36 (0.1%)
Peter Baggs (Ind) 23 (0.07%)
Con majority 7,348 (21.37%) 16.49% swing Lab to Con
Turnout 34,377 (45.76%, down 15.33% on gen election)

So what do we see? First of all a collapse in the Labour vote, I wonder if they will return at the general election or are they lost for a while yet. A Lib Dem vote that seems not to have benefited from the Labour collapse. A Conservative vote that is increasing but not spectacularly. UKIP and not the Greens are once again shown to be the fourth force in British politics, maybe the BBC could take note. A UKIP vote that increased without adversely affecting the Conservative vote. Minor parties and independents still doing better than in previous elections, will that continue to the general election?


As an aside what was George Galloway doing on Question Time last night? His Respect Party is a very minor party, certainly polling fewer votes than the BNP who I don't recall ever having anyone on the QT panel. Was he there as a serious politician or a celebrity; either way I, for one, would rather not see him again.

The BBC and the Norwich North by-election

The BBC Today programme's coverage (or what I have heard of it) this morning has been most odd. It seems that the BBC's Norman Smith believes that senior Conservatives view the poll as a "must-win" and that "anything less would be a significant reverse that could bring the Cameron juggernaut to a shuddering halt".

Oddly I don't remember such qualifications being placed on a Labour win a Conservative seat during the long run of seats won by Labour during the period 1986 to 1997. Then the emphasis was place on the Conservatives unpopularity and the Labour party gaining seats.

Let's take a look at the Langbaurgh by-election of 1991. Then the Conservatives lost their seat by 1,975 votes. The Conservative vote diminished by 2.6% and Labour's increased by 4.5%, the swing was 9.1%. Maybe someone at the BBC could show me how this was reported at the time as an unimpressive swing to Labour, not enough to guarantee a general election victory and a disappointment to Labour. Maybe this BBC person could also show where the by-election was described a "must-win" for Labour.


The BBC are institutionally biased against the Conservative party and without fairness and impartiality they have, in my opinion, forfeited their right to state funding via the licence fee. The time for words has passed, the time for action is now.

The sound of Gordon Brown getting his excuses in early

Gordon Brown seems to have accepted defeat in the Norwich North by-election:

"I agree that for these reasons - someone who is popular locally this is a unique by-election. I hope people who are Labour voters will come out and vote Labour.

"But I think people do understand the uniqueness of this by-election resulting from the Parliamentary events that came before."

So if/when Labour lose this formerly relative safe seat they will blame anything but the unpopularity of the Labour party and its increasingly hated leader. I wonder what their excuse will be when/if they hold a by-election in Michael Martin's old seat, something that they are trying their hardest to avoid at present.

It's a good job I am not suspicious

It's a good job I am not suspicious because if I was then this story would have me in a feverish state. Apparently:

"The SNP has called for an inquiry after it emerged marked electoral registers for the Glenrothes by-election were lost by the courts.

The registers, which are the only record of who voted in the Westminster election, must be kept for a year.

Tricia Marwick, Nationalist MSP for Central Fife, said the blunder was "beyond belief".

Labour comfortably saw off an SNP challenge to hold the Glenrothes seat, in Fife.

Fife Council said it had a receipt proving that the authority handed the electoral registers over to the sheriff clerk at Kirkcaldy.

Labour's Lindsay Roy held on to the seat with a majority of more than 6,000 in the by-election, which was held following the death of sitting MP John MacDougall.

Ms Marwick has now raised concerns that there are no records to show who voted in an election which had a much higher turnout than anticipated.

Ms Marwick called for an independent inquiry, adding: "It is almost beyond belief that a by-election which attracted media coverage throughout the UK, which delivered such a surprise result and had a much higher turnout than anticipated, now has no records to show who actually voted."

A spokesman for the Scottish Court Service said the incident was being investigated and described it as "deeply regrettable".

"Despite comprehensive searches for this document we have been unable to locate the marked register requested within Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court," said the spokesman.

"We can confirm that the sheriff clerk at Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court took receipt of these items following the Glenrothes by-election in November and that the voting papers for this election, which were deposited at the same time, are available."

Higher than expected turnout, surprise result, victory for Labour and the marked electoral registers go missing... I wonder if the high turnout was a result of postal ballots, I am sure you remember how postal ballots have been used in the past to boost votes for certain parties.

In 2007 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe reported that:

"It is clear that the electoral system in Great Britain is open to electoral fraud. This vulnerability is mainly the result of the, rather arcane, system of voter registration without personal identifiers. It was exacerbated by the introduction of postal voting on demand [in 2001] "

Glenrothes and the BBC

I woke this morning, turned on the radio and it was all of 10 seconds before I worked out that Labour had held Glenrothes. The sheer happiness in the tone of the Today presenter was obvious as he pointed out how important the by-election had been, how a bad result could have brought up more questions about Gordon Brown's position etc. etc. etc. As each problem if Labour lost was explained it became obvious that defeat had been averted and so (logically incorrectly) the opposite was true.

Labour have held a safe seat with a much reduced majority BUT "the Labour/BBC narrative holds - Gordon Brown is in control, leading the world through these troubled economic times, none of the recession is his fault and all will be fine if we stick with experience and a serious man. Lies and spin of course, but in the hands of men such as Mandelson and Campbell powerful weapons.

World stockmarkets

The Nikkei closed down 6.53% today, the Hang Seng down over 7%. The Dow Jones closed down over 5% yesterday and the FTSE 100 is down over 4% today. Yet this is not news to the BBC who have decided that "the narrative" is Gordon Brown's firm and decisive action on the banking crisis that has become the model for countries around the world and shows that we need a serious man in these serious times. The country that Gordon Brown says is best placed to survive the economic turmoil has a currency on the slide but that doesn't get reported because the BBC are in "save Gordon" mode, especially with the Glenrothes by-election voting taking place today.

Any minute now the Bank of England will make their announcement on interest rates and I expect the BBC will spin this to the advantage of the Labour party as well. The BBC have seen how a diet of lies and spin got Barack Obama elected in the USA, now they will feed the UK public with a similar diet up until the next general election.

Gordon "Jonah" Brown

I see that another person has fallen victim to the curse of Gordon. This time it is Scottish Labour MP John MacDougall who has died after a long illness. The BBC report that

"The Dunfermline-born married father-of-two had been a patient at the Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, where he was visited by Mr Brown on Monday."

A visit from Gordon Brown that could tip a healthy man over the edge. Is there any way of Gordon Brown coming with a Government Health Warning from now on?

I wonder if Gordon Brown is looking forward to another by-election in Scotland? Guido Fawkes is reporting that

"The latest poll (conducted 6-8 August) carried out in Scotland by YouGov recorded the biggest ever poll lead for the SNP with the party gaining a 19% lead over the Labour.... the SNP on 44% with Labour trailing on 25%."

Gordon Brown reacts to bad news

"My job is to listen and to lead, and that is what I will do..... people want to be assured that the government will steer them through these difficult economic times. I think that over the next few months it will become clear that the decisions we have made ... will see the economy through and ... will prepare the economy for the upturn and for prosperity to follow."

That quotation from a Q&A by Gordon Brown was not from today and the aftermath of the Glasgow East by-election, it was from May 2 this year as Gordon Brown reacted to his party's drubbing in the local elections. You can see the video at The Guardian website.

Has the economy improved over the last "few months"? Are we ready for the "upturn and prosperity to follow"? Is Gordon Brown the most deluded man ever to be Prime Minister of this Country?


Today Gordon Brown and his cabinet of knaves has been spouting the same crap about having to listen and learn and him being the right man to lead the Country. You can see some of this on the Sky news website. But it is all rubbish, does anyone outside of Government believe it? Does anyone in Government believe it?

By-election, what by-election?

I was driving and listening to Radio London this morning and was - I was going to write "shocked" or "surprised", but in reality I am neither - unsurprised to hear that last night's by-election result had completely dropped off of the news bulletins. It's not a London story and we had already covered it pre 09:00 might be the excuse proffered. So let's look at the running order of the 10:00 news bulletin:
1. Oyster card problems on London's transport system - a good, current, breaking news local, story
2. UK economy grew by 0.2% in second quarter of the year - a good, current, breaking news, national story
3. Barack Obama is flying to France and then the US following his speech in Berlin - an international story with an upcoming London angle - the first story deemed worthy of an outside broadcast piece
4. The GP practices petition - a national story with local implications, but no real urgency to it
5. The Qantas plan's emergency landing - The plane had left the UK from London so I suppose it had some local news value
6. The furore over Enfield council's closure of a sports ground - a local story but worthy of two outside broadcast pieces?
Then the news moved onto Sport and Weather.

So in the whole news bulletin, not a word about the Glasgow East by-election. A by-election where the party that is in government in Westminster lost its 25th safest seat in the country. A result that leaves larger questions hanging over Gordon Brown's future as Prime Minister. Not a word about the result? Do the BBC in London not have a duty to inform London of major national political stories? Who decided not to cover the story in the news bulletins? I think we can all guess at the reasons.

Seen through the Labour prism

As is generally the case, the BBC are reporting the SNP's victory in the Glasgow East by-election from a Labour point of view.

"SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East" - "The Scottish National Party has pulled off a stunning by-election victory by winning Glasgow East, one of Labour's safest seats by 365 votes.

The SNP overturned a Labour majority of 13,507 to win with a swing of 22.54%.

The SNP polled 11,277 votes in the contest, while the Tories came third with 1,639 and the Lib Dems, with 915 votes, came fourth.

SNP candidate John Mason said the victory was "off the Richter Scale", while Labour expressed disappointment.

Voter turnout was 42.25%, down on the 48% figure at the last election, with 26,219 votes cast.

The result was declared at Glasgow's Tollcross Leisure Centre in the early hours of Friday, after a re-count was requested by Labour, which won 10,912 votes in the contest."

The SNP victor, John Mason is given a couple of lines to express his views and then it is straight into Labour party navel gazing, complete with the Labour reflex line from Douglas Alexander that his party needed to "learn the lessons" from the "bad result" and from Margaret Curran that "I do believe the Labour Party has to listen and has to hear the message from the people of Glasgow East." Yet again we hear of the need for Labour to listen and learn; surely the public are speaking VERY LOUDLY and what they are saying is "we are sick of you, please go away".

The BBC allocate another few lines to the SNP further down the article before returing to the Labour party prism:

"BBC Scotland's political editor, Brian Taylor, said it was an appalling result for Labour in a constituency it had held in various guises virtually since the party came into existence.

He said: "Will it add to the pressure on Gordon Brown? Of course. Frankly, though, I don't expect him to stand down any time soon.

"He already knew he faced a tough fight. It will, however, increase the trepidation around him."

I decided to look at the other pages devoted to the Glasgow East result and consequences. The page entitled "'Shockwaves' for Labour" although headed "How serious is defeat for Brown?" on the actual page. This page is devoted almost entirely to the effect of the result on the Labour party's fortunes. The next page is entitled "SNP delivers political earthquake" but begins

"Margaret Curran started her campaign in Glasgow East by declaring that the "Labour fightback starts here"."

and is more of a history of the by-election result than anything else and devotes more time to the Labour party than the SNP.


I shall be listening to the Toady/Today programme to see how funereal it is this morning. If James Naughtie is presenting then I forsee much gloom.

The latest Labour election bribe

I see that the Labour Government have announced the postponement of the planned 2p increase in fuel duty due to be applied in October. Any connection with the upcoming Glasgow East by-election is entirely coincidental I am sure.

What the BBC did not want you to hear

The BBC managed to not broadcast David Davis's election acceptance speech last night, so here is what he said:

"First, may I thank the returning officer, his officials ad the police. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend the other parties that contested this election. One of the freedoms I defend is the right of anybody to stand in a democratic election. By and large this has been a courteous and entertaining campaign. I thank everyone for taking part. Four weeks ago, I resigned my position as Shadow Home Secretary, and Member of Parliament. Not for personal gain. Not for political advantage. But to defend a principle. The doubters said it couldn’t be done.
You can’t win a by-election campaigning for freedom. You can’t shift public support for 42 days.
You can’t spark a national debate, they said… people just don’t care about British liberty. And yet, 3 weeks on, we’ve sent a shot across the bows of Gordon Brown’s arrogant, arbitrary and authoritarian government. We’ve galvanised a new consensus … across the political spectrum … beyond the world of politics. A new resolve. A new spirit of freedom. A fresh sense of purpose.

Today, the people of Haltemprice and Howden have delivered a stunning message to the government…as our campaign has reverberated across the country. Four weeks ago as Gordon Brown stooped into the gutter to rig the vote on 42 days, Ministers crowed that 69% of people supported 42 days. Today just 36% support it. Four weeks ago, the government touted public support for a range of other draconian measures. Today, 71% support my stand against the attacks on British liberty. And in the House of Lords, the last Head of MI5 savaged the government’s 42 day proposal. It now lies in tatters, robbed of any remaining credibility. Along with this government. And that’s after just 3 weeks.

But today is not the end of this campaign. It’s the beginning. On Monday I return to the House of Commons, to take up my seat in those hallowed chambers. I do so with a clear mandate to fight Gordon Brown’s vision of ‘Big Brother Britain’ tooth and nail. To stop 42 days dead in its tracks.
To prevent the disaster of ID cards before it happens. To protect our personal privacy from being ransacked by the ever-intrusive state. But most of all for the thousands upon thousands who have written to me… Supported me…and voted for me….

I return to fight for those fundamental freedoms that define our way of life. The freedoms that millions died defending. The freedoms that make Britain Great."

The BBC cannot let the public hear such words of hatred towards Gordon Brown, it might upset them.

Thanks to Iain Dale for the transcript.

Henley by-election

Labour lost their deposit and finished behind the Greens and BNP, so the news goes. What is also interesting is that the Labour candidate received only 824 votes more than the Monster Raving Loony Party candidate. Yes Labour are down amongst the minor parties and odd-balls - how appropriate!

# John Howell - Conservatives, 19,796 (56.95%, 3.46% increase on 2005 general election share of vote)
# Stephen Kearney - Liberal Democrats, 9,680 (27.85%, 1.84%)
# Mark Stevenson - Greens, 1,321 (3.80%, 0.54%)
# Timothy Rait - British National Party, 1,243 (3.58%)

# Richard McKenzie - Labour, 1,066 (3.07%, -11.68%)
# Chris Adams, UK Independence Party, 843 (2.43%, -0.07%)
# Bananaman Owen - Monster Raving Loony Party, 242 (0.70%)
# Derek Allpass - English Democrats, 157 (0.45%)
# Amanda Harrington - Independent (Miss Great Britain Party), 128 (0.37%)
# Dick Rodgers - The Common Good, 121 (0.35%)
# Louise Cole - Independent (Miss Great Britain Party), 91 (0.26%)
# Harry Bear - The Fur Play Party, 73 (0.21%)