The unofficial online home of the UK Independence Party
Archive for July, 2009
Screw The Motorist…Again
Jul 31st
What is it with this government? Haven’t they punished motorists enough? Of course they haven’t…
Transport Minister Sadiq Khan announced this morning that Nottingham will become the first area in the country to introduce charges for parking spaces at your place of work. These schemes are known as WPL or Workplace Parking Levy’s.
Starting in April 2012, businesses in Nottingham with more than 10 parking places will be charged £185 for every space. It is likely most companies will pass these charges onto their employees as recommended by the government meaning a charge of £15.50 a month deducted from wages. The WPL will increase to £350 a year or £30 a month by 2014.
Motorists already pay around £30bn in fuel duty and vehicle excise duty, and that is ignoring the insurance premium tax on car insurance, the higher corporation tax and petroleum revenue tax levied on oil companies.
What is so bad about parking spaces? I never knew they were so detrimental to the enviropnment. If it the environmental aspect which is of concern, then raise fuel duty or VED rates. Taxing parking spaces seems to be entirely arbitrary, and designed to hit larger employers/larger companies.
But what if your workplace is not within easy walking distance of the train station, or buses do not run nearby? You know, like a lot of workplaces, especially in rural areas? Effectively this is a tax on being out of town, or in the suburbs. But then to Labour politicians, who dominate urban inner-city constituencies, that is an irrelevance.
Charging to park at work is seen by government as a form of…
‘demand management‘ and a way of raising finance for public transport; in this case the extension of the tram in Nottingham.
However, large companies such as Boots based on the outskirts of the city will not benefit but will still be expected pick up the bill.
If they then decide to pass this charge onto employees who cannot use public transport they will be forced subsidise the fare of passengers who can.
It is estimated that if rolled out across the country, over £3 Billion would be raised from motorists parking at work.
The Drivers Alliance has hit back with a blinding retort…
WPL is yet another thinly disguised attack on the motorist and indeed the very freedoms we hold so dear in this country.
How can it be right for a local council to charge anyone for a parking space when it is on private land and already suffers from excessive business rates. Workplace parking charges will not reduce congestion and will not encourage people onto public transport and why should it?
…
The only way such an attack on personal liberty and freedom can be acceptable is through the will of the electorate and the only way this can be determined is through a fair and balanced debate before asking people’s views in a referendum.
Well said. If I own the land then I should be able to use it as I wish, even for parking if I desire. And as for having such issues decided by referendum, we in UKIP fully support that. We have long had a commitment to local referenda, and if the government is to insist on intruding into our lives so viciously at every turn then the only way to ensure legitimacy is through a referendum.
Incidentally I was in Tooting Bec last night an walked past Sadiq Kahn’s constituency office, which is right on the high street. It is all of 1 minute walk from Tooting Bec tube, so fortunately he shouldn’t suffer the misfortune of having to park!
Godders Vision
Jul 31st
Godfrey Bloom, UKIP MEP, continues his GoddersVision series with these 3 videos on the appaling effects of the EU’s Landfill Directive…
Crisis in Public Finances Exposed by UKIP Peer
Jul 29th
UKIP Peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch has exposed the crisis in the public finances in a question in the House…
City firms contributed £32.5bn to the tax coffers in the year to March 31, 2009, it emerged today – less than half the £67.8bn they brought in two years earlier.
The amount generated this year is still enough to pay for the entire public security budget – including police, fire brigade, law courts and prisons – or a sizeable chunk of the £79.9bn a year spent on education.
The government is to disclose the latest contribution from City firms in a response to a parliamentary question from Malcolm Pearson in the House of Lords. Pearson, a member of the UK Independence Party, raised the question to highlight the contribution of Britain’s financial services to the economy, he told the Guardian.
In other words the city alone has left a hole in the public finances of £35.3bn – 5.25% of Government spending (set to be £671bn this year). The £35.3bn also represents over 7% of 2009/10’s expected tax receipts.
Meanwhile the city could face a further hammering, and possibly decimation as the finance industry moves to Dubai and elsewhere, with Open Europe discovering the Government does not intend to publish an impact assessment for the new Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive.
ComRes Poll
Jul 29th
Political Betting has a post up analysis UKIP’s election campaign strategy which is well worth a read.
Mike Smithson also reports on teh latest ComRes poll which is out…
In today’s ComRes poll for the Independent support for UKIP is at a healthy 5% taking more, incidentally, from 2005 Labour voters than from Tory ones.
We have been saying for ages now that UKIP attracts lots of Labour support, and yet it is universally assumed by political commentators and those inside the Westminster bubble that UKIP is universally a Tory hang-out for disgruntled Thatcherites.
The poll makes interesting reading. Naturally, the smaller parties have given mroe ground as June 4th becomes a distant memory, but the real interesting data is not the headline voting intention but the analysis of where those votes come from.
TV Debate
Jul 29th
The BBC Have Your Say site has just started a topic asking whether people would watch a TV debate at the next election. Apparently Mandy is coming over all democratic…
Lord Mandelson has said he is “open” to the idea of a televised debate between Gordon Brown and David Cameron during the next election campaign.
The BBC HYS twitter feed (@BBC_HaveYourSay) suggests that somebody has suggested that smaller parties should be let in on the debate and perhaps have a ‘knock out’ round to whittle dow those smaller parties who make it through to the final debate.
If the studio audience was selected randomly, by lottery, and not screened for ‘balance’ – i.e. it si a representative sample of the electorate – then maybe it could be quite interesting.
WHat do you think? Apart from the excrutiating pain of watching Brown deliver his *devestating*, *spontaneous*, attacks on Cameron, it would certainly be good for democracy. I’d watch it!
Privatisation
Jul 29th
I have been having a discussion with various people on the issue of privatisation. It is a loaded word in British politics, and guaranteed to divide opinion.
Those of us in the libertarian camp have fundamental support for private enterprise and voluntary exchange as a means of maximising liberty and prosperity. Those on the statist side of the argument, see the private sector as evil, selfish, motivated by greedy profiteers, and a danger to be avoided.
Writing on Comment is Free, John Harris has an article which I cannot let go un-responded.
Remember the great public-private argument? The passions it aroused seem to have peaked around five years ago. [..] Perhaps the toning down of the zealous pro-private talk that marked the later Blair years has convinced a lot of people that, under Gordon Brown, the great outsourcing drive – despite plenty of contrary evidence – is in retreat.
Maybe this is part of the problem. He calls it “the great outsourcing drive”, which is entirely accurate and encapsulates everything which is wrong with Labour’s governance style. Labour has simply failed to understand the private sector and how to utilise it.
The real gains from privatisation are gained by transferring ownership and cracking open the public monopoly to competitive forces in a market environment.
If planned private prisons open on schedule and the tendering of jails in the public sector leads to their privatisation, by 2014, 25% of prisoners could be the responsibility of private firms – which offer prison officers basic pay about 40% less than their publicly employed counterparts, are well ahead of the public sector on staff turnover, and score an average of 10% less on the government’s measure of prisons’ performance.
So private prisons can find staff for less pay and so save money? Good
Average performance score 10% lower? Bad
And this is a prime example of the incompetence of governments to introduce the benefits of the private sector and structure contracts and funding flows appropriately.
Across all three main parties, too many politicians have yet to understand the nightmare thus created: supposed value-for-money being realised via the slashing of wages, corrosion of conditions, and a degraded quality of service; or the reverse of cash savings, as contracting out creates private monopolies, and companies hailed for their dynamism turn out to be subsidy junkies.
He is absolutely correct that contracting out, on which this government is keen, can lead to private monopolies and to those companies becoming “subsidy junkies”. This is a failure in the abaility of Government to structure itself appropriately to make use of the private sector, and not a failure of the private sector. It does nto mean that no benefit can be derived in these areas from the private sector, just that it need to be done in the right way.
Meanwhile, when contractors affect to be “efficient”, down comes the axe. A report last year from the Department for Business claimed the average saving from outsourcing is about 20%, but in hospital support services it put the figure as high as 34%. In one of its priceless passages, the text claimed that “the evidence on quality change is weaker and more limited than that on cost savings” – but on the ground, the stories pile up
Again, if ever proof were needed that the framework for private sector involvement is flawed here it is. If the incentives and funding flows were architect ed appropriately then the providers would not be under-delivering on patient care. We can see even more evidence…
In June, there was a flurry of optimism about the extension of the Freedom of Information Act, and that it might apply to private prisons and detention centres. But this month, the justice secretary, Jack Straw, announced private contractors would still lie beyond its reach. Here is the prospect of an expanding shadow state, whose soaking-up of the government’s traditional responsibilities has not only financial benefits, but can remove troublesome matters from scrutiny.
Would the FoI act be expected to apply to a company supplying the government with paperclips? No, of course not. The reason for this distinction is clear when you think about it. On the one hand we have a supplier to government, taking payment in return for delivering the required goods. In the case of the health service we have private companies becoming contracting arms of the state. If healthcare providers were a step removed, to the position of the paperclip supplier, and only received funding when successfully selling services to the government, then the government would have the flexibility to choose a different supplier for the next purchase and the benefits of a competitive marketplace would begin to be realised.
Dishing out term-based contracts, or setting up PFI schemes, are simply not effective. Suppliers need to be forced to fight for their survival every day by improving their quality and reducing their cost of delivery, and the government in turn needs to have a choice of multiple suppliers in the short-term. An example of this inflexibility is given yet again…
The prospect of more private prisons underlines warnings that contracting-out will soon threaten control of policy. If a future government finally sees the light and decides to reduce Britain’s prison population, it will find the obligation to maintain plenty of big jails contractually locked down.
How exactly does this deliver benefit to the taxpayer?
Unfortunately John ends his piece by missing the point entirely and reverting to some deep seated and irrational dislike of private companies…
Here, anyway, is what increasingly seems to be the future: slick corporate logos flashing from prisons, hospitals, schools, detention centres, defence facilities, police stations and more
Of course, the NHS logos on hospitals and vans are ok. They’re different!
The point which he misses is, of course, that the private sector is brilliant, and is the best mechanism we have to drive improvements in services. It can only do this, however, when the right framework is set.
For example, school vouchers are a right way of going about it. They remove the hand of the state and put the users on control. Many schools would compete in an open market. Franchising out school contracts to private companies would be the wrong way of going about it, because it would tie the government into long term inflexible contracts, and still not introduce any meaningful competition into the system.
Equally, private sector contracts in the NHS are the wrong way to fix the problem. The right way would be to marketise the NHS, allowing all helathcare providers to compete freely and openly for government money on a case by case basis (e.g. per heart operation), or even put patients in control with a form of insurance based funding.
The private sector can work wonders if given the right conditions. The concerns of those on the left over the present government’s failure to use the market appropriately is entirely justified, but is not justification for shutting the private sector out and reverting to tried and failed socialist dogma.
Citizen Legislature?
Jul 28th
A thought on House of Lords reform in light of this announcement…
Labour MP Howard Stoate has said he will quit at the next election because new second jobs rules mean he will no longer be able to practise as a GP.
He said he believed the change would “diminish” his work as an MP.
Previous discussions about reform of the House of Lords, and making it elected, led to concerns over creating a “replica” House.
So what if the upper House was elected, but not comprised of full-time members? In other words it was designed to be a citizen legislature, and not a place for failed politicians, or appointed cronies? Members would continue to have outside occupations, and so bring their real-world expertise into the House, in contrast to the professional politicians in the House of Commons.
Due to their ‘part time’ nature, they could be large in number, representing constituencies similar to those which exist at present. The House of Commons, by contrast, could be slimmed down to perhaps 250 or 300.
Ideally, along with with such a reform, the Executive ought to be separate and independently elected, with ministers prevented from holding a seat in the legislature. This would remove the large numbers of legislators on the Executive payroll, and allow legislators to legislate and the Executive to govern with no (well…) conflict of interest.
Just a thought. Discuss below. I am sure I’ll re-visit this in the near future.
Why a Welsh breakthrough is so important.
Jul 28th
The news that two Independent Councillors in Wales have decided to join UKIP is fantastic news on the back of an unexpected victory for UKIP Wales which saw the popular John Bufton elected as an MEP. With Wales only having four MEPs in total, the level of exposure Bufton can now win for the party in Wales should not be underestimated.
Yet there is more to this breakthrough than meets-the-eye. With the General Election next year, UKIP now has to seriously push its credibility on issues that are always high up the agenda come General Election time. Education, health, crime, defence and pensions for a start. Though UKIP does have well-thought out ideas on all of these issues, they are not yet known. Not through any fault of the party itself, but simply because we are not yet seen broadly as a fully-fledged political party by the media outlets. The EU and immigration are two key areas UKIP are established on as a party. Come General Election time though, this will only get you so far.
Which is why the political situation in Wales presents such an opportunity. UKIP’s policy is to scrap Assembly Members, believing them to be another layer of needless politician. There is considerable weight to this argument; only around a quarter of Welsh people voted for the Assembly in the first place. This is a policy which in many ways typifies UKIP. We want to scrap waste, and devolve powers not simply to expensive talking-shop Assemblies, but downwards to local councils and local communities. With a powerful voice in the form of John Bufton along with our new Councillors, we now have the volume to sound that message effectively.
UKIP champion democracy like no other political party, not just on the EU but domestically. At a time when our political class have nothing but contempt for the value of democracy, that is a real vote winner. I wish John Bufton and his comrades in Wales well. Do not be surprised if they have a group of Assembly Members in the Welsh Assembly after the next election.
Who knows, if we can start to gain elected representation in domestic elections, perhaps one day the BBC will give us a fair crack.
EFD Group Gains 2 New Members?
Jul 28th
Nigel Farage’s blog on the UKIP website is carrying his latest missive reflecting on the past couple of months. One bit jumped out at me…
I had dinner with two Lithuanian MEPS, one the former President Rolandas Paskas, Now the EFD group is made up of 32 members from nine states, so a good start to the week.
If I am reading that correctly, and I think I am, then the new Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group formed earlier this month with 30 members from 8 member states has just added 2 Lithuanian MEPs, taking the total to 32 MEPs from 9 states.
Wikipedia suggests the new members were added on July 14th, in which case I either missed it and am late to the story, or it happened quietly.
The ‘new two’ are from the Order & Justice party, formerly the Liberal Democratic party, which apprently self-identifies as centre left. It would seem to be a more moderate party, and if so will certainly help UKIP balance the less moderate members.
Newly elected UKIP MEP, Nikki Sinclaire, carries the EFD group’s principles on her website which demonstrate that the EFD groups is a fairly loose association allowing national parties full freedom over all issues, but joining aground a common belief in a Europe of independent Nations…
The Group is open to Members that subscribe to a Europe of Freedom and Democracy and acknowledge the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and parliamentary democracy.
The Group subscribes to the following programme:
1. Freedom and co-operation among people of different States
Committed to the principles of democracy, freedom and co-operation among Nation States, the Group favours an open, transparent, democratic and accountable co-operation among sovereign European States and rejects the bureaucratisation of Europe and the creation of a single centralised European superstate.2. More democracy and respect of People’s will
Convinced that the legitimate level for democracy lies with the Nation States, their regions and parliaments since there is no such thing as a single European people; the Group opposes further European integration (treaties and policies) that would exacerbate the present democratic deficit and the centralist political structure of the EU. The Group favours that any new treaties or any modification of the existing treaties are to be submitted to the peoples’ vote through free and fair national referenda in the Member States. The Group does believe that the legitimacy of any power comes from the will of its Peoples and their right to be free and democratically ruled.3. Respect for Europe’s history, traditions and cultural values
Peoples and Nations of Europe have the right to protect their borders and strengthen their own historical, traditional, cultural and religious values. The Group rejects xenophobia, anti-Semitism and any other form of discrimination.4. Respect for national differences and interests: Freedom of votes
Agreeing on embodying these principles in its proceedings, the Group respects the freedom of its delegations and Members to vote as they see fit.
It might be news, it might not be. But good news can never be reported too often!
Tories Wake Up To UKIP Threat?
Jul 28th
Conservative Home is carrying a very interesting piece by a Conservative Councillor on the threat posed by UKIP. Is this an indication of the Tories finally waking up to the UKIP threat and the start of something more?
What Happened In Ramsey? This is going to be the question which gets asked amongst strategists, particularly Cambridgeshire Conservative ones, over the next few weeks. The By-Election held there last week delivered a “surprise” (I wasn’t particularly surprised, but I suspect others will be) at both District and County levels when UKIP stomped home with a double win. On paper, Ramsey should be a Conservative seat. The Lib Dems have always provided a respectable opposition. But times, as Mr. Dylan used to say, they are a-changin’. The scary thing as far as I’m concerned is that far too few of my fellow Conservatives seem to appreciate just what this threat actually means and just how serious it is becoming.
Well the fact of the matter is that Pete Reeve was a phenomenal candidate who politicians of all parties would have had difficulty in beating. The Conservatives certainly don;t seem to be taking th threat seriously, as evidenced by the fact this “surprise” was a long time coming. Effort put into the ward of many months has finally produced this result. It is not an accident, or protest, but good old fashioned politics.
I’ve been challenging this received wisdom for a while, but my arguments fall on deaf ears. It is true that many UKIP supporters’ natural home is the Conservative party and that some will vote with us at a general election. The rest of the supposition is wishful thinking which belongs firmly in the “sticking head in sand” school of political discourse.
Yep, we get lots of Tory votes. We also get lots of Labour votes. In fact in Labour areas we get an awful lot of Labour votes. So don’t assume if UKIP was disbanded that voters would flock to the Conservative party.
Conservative leaders hope that the rise of UKIP is a temporary phenomenon – that it will wither away over time. I don’t believe that is the case. The fact of the matter is that there is only one party who can overturn their relentless growth – the same party who is suffering as their core membership dissolves away. The Conservatives.
The UKIP rise is not a temporayr phenomenan. True, the Conservative could have put a stop to UKIP, but I now doubt their ability to. I think UKIP is passing a tipping point beyond which it cannot be swatted by the Tories changing policy. It is now too deep rooted. This is something the political class (westminster & media) do not understand.
Politicians of all colours better watch out at the next General Election. UKIP are hot on your heels.
2 Councillors Defect to UKIP
Jul 27th
Bloggers4UKIP is reporting that UKIP has gained 2 new councillors in Wales as the result of a defection.
As of this morning we have two new Cllrs in Wales. As UKIP Wale’s representation and message grows, two popular Independent councillors on Merthyr County Borough council have decided that UKIP is the most suitable national party to represent the needs of their constituents.
Cllr Adam Brown is the first non Labour councillor ever to be elected to represent the uncompromising well known Gurnos estate in Merthyr. Jock Greer is councillor for Penydarren ward. The pair are preparing to take their one cabinet and one scrutiny committee seats on the former Labour stronghold council.
They look forward to meeting you all at the party conference in September.
Councillor Adam Brown, and Councillor Neil Greer. Welcome to the family lads.
It seems something is happening in the valleys. First we breakthrough with our first MEP and then less than two months later we gaina couple of councillors. Long may it continue!
Added to the 3 council seats won on Thursday 23rd July, this means UKIP has gained 5 councillors in the past week and racked up a stonking by-election performance in Norwich North.
MEP Website Launches
Jul 27th
Michael and I have launched the new website for Paul Nuttall, UKIP chairman and MEP for the North West.
Check out www.paulnuttallmep.com and let us know what you think.
If anyone else would like a site building, as well as ongoing content management (setting up facebook, twitter, youtube, etc, and managing site content), just drop us an email at editor@indhome.com. Our rates are very reasonable 
IndHome Mobile
Jul 27th
Just to let you know you can now get Independence Home in a mobile version for easy and faster viewing. Just navigate here as normal and your device should detect your browser and load the appropriate mobile version.
I have tested it with my iPhone and it i sweeeet! (yes, Yasin, it works. How about your Nokia?)
Please give it a go and let me know if you encounter any issues. Hopefully it will mean you can keep up with IndHome while on the move.
Leaders of Europe
Jul 26th
I have just watched the latest “Leaders of Europe” programme which I have embedded below.
David Campbell-Bannerman, newly elected UKIP MEP for the Eastern Region, came across well I thought. Certainly in the first half of the programme he managed to emphasise the nuanced points within the ‘far right’ and immigration issue, as well as the issue surrounding the formation of Parliamentary groups with strange bedfellows.
In that first half he seemed to handle the debate very well indeed, and managed to make the UKIP point quite well. On the second topic, however, his insistence on the ’superstate’ issue, foreign high representative and embassies, reverted to traditional UKIP narrative which I don’t see as particularly helpful. It is almost tortured in an attempt to seek out disagreement, rather than on any point of principle.
While we should be rightly concerned at the growth of the EU, post Lisbon, into a single country called Europe, the foreign minister issues is o much less concern since it only necessitates a common position if agreed voluntarily. If this was subject to Qualified Majority, for example, and/or abolished independent foreign policy at national level, then it would be entirely wrong, but as it stands it doesn’t.
On the final topic about the Environment, David fares better being straightforward and honest, but I do not feel we as a party or some of our MEPs as individuals have the right line on this yet. Last year’s party conference passed a motion essentially calling for dogmatic pragmatism on the issue, and not to take sides one way or the other. Often some of the detail and nuances of our argument gets lost and fails to come across. This can make us look very anti-environment on the most narrow and most broad sense.
In all though a good performance. What do you think?
UKIP Could Be A Real Force
Jul 24th
Ed West has a good piece at his spot, entitled “Norwich North shows UKIP could be a real force (if they wanted to be)”…
Despite the massive and disproportionate attention given by the press to the loony left Green party, the media’s favourites were easily beaten into fifth place. As Sian Berry, Green London mayoral candidate in 2008, and “founder of Alliance Against Urban 4×4s”, tweeted a few minutes ago: “Can’t believe crappy UKIP still beat us in NN – grrr! Con 39.54% Lab 18.16% LD 13.97% UKIP 11.83% Green 9.74% Others 6.75%.”
Indeed, but as I always say to lefties who are shocked to find someone disagreeing with them – get out some more and speak to people outside your circle, because most of them don’t agree with your world view. So why did “crappy” UKIP do so well? The Common Agricultural Policy might have given East Anglians a particular grudge against the EU, but I wonder how many of those people were actually voting against the EU (since the Euro-elections are over) and how many were making a broader conservative protest against the big three? This was not a safe Tory seat, by any means; most people were predicting a majority of at most 3,000, and usually at the first sight of the Tories being threatened most of their UKIP-curious voters come back in the fold. For UKIP to get almost 12 per cent of the vote shows there is a real thirst for a genuinely conservative party.
As I’ve written before, UKIP could become a genuine national party but they have to drop their single-issue tag and offer an alternative to the big three, the BBC and the liberal consensus. It no longer matters that the culture war is over and the Left controls all the institutions, from universities to the police to the media – the internet has changed everything. The overwhelmingly conservative UK blogosphere has given conservatives a chance to wage a culture insurgence – and win.
So, what are you waiting for, Nigel?
I think his analysis is a particularly insightful one. Most commentators seem to fail to grasp the direction of the party – i mean they see UKIP’s position at that snapshot in time and deduce their own bleief as to the direction of travel and its motivations, the motivations of its voters, etc. This usually leads to a completely inaccurate view of UKIP as a political force.
Ed West seems to understand it far better. But it is not just Conservative voters who vote UKIP. Indeed is it likely any of those ‘casual UKIPers’ he mentions would not have voted Conservative to ensure a Tory win in Norwich North? Far more likely, i think, is that the UKIP vote came from elsewhere – the politically disenfranchised, and Labour voters, along with hardcore UKIP supporters. I suspect the UKIP result would have been higher if Tory UKIP sympathisers had voted as they would in a European election.
Do not forget that Euroscepticism runs high throughout the membership of the Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Conservatives. People do not just want a “real conservative party”, they want a different party to the amorphous glob represented by the “big 3″. Today UKIP also won a County Council seat, previously a Conservative seat, and also a District Council seat previously a Lib-Dem seat. Our support is broader than most people realise.
Sure, UKIP has a long way to go to claim territory on the domestic agenda, and has mroe work to do to become a broad based classical liberal party, but that is its direction of travel. All parties better sit up and take note, because come 2010 and beyond, UKIP are on their doorsteps.
The BBC predictably get it wrong.
Jul 24th
UKIP’s exclusion from the BBC’s televised debate between the candidates in Norwich North was a disgrace. In June’s local elections in Norwich North, UKIP stood in four wards. UKIP came second in three of them and third in the other. We beat the Greens and LibDems everywhere we stood and beat Labour in three of the four. Yet the BBC insisted the Greens were the fourth party in the by-election and UKIP were nowhere.
Knowing they were wrong, a result of 11.8% – compared to 9.75% for the Greens – proves that UKIP were treated unfairly. Glenn Tingle was a superb candidate and we ran a superb campaign (that I was heavily involved in). Had Glenn been given fair media treatment and been given a chance to debate with the other candidates on BBC1, who knows what result the party would have received.
