Iceland vs Gordon Brown

Iceland vs Gordon Brown

By Dark Politricks

If you follow me on twitter at @darkpolitricks you will know I have just had a few days in Iceland. It was on my bucket list of things to do before I die and I had some cash so why not. I just wish I brought a video camera or better camera as the amount of rants I heard from taxi drivers about Gordon Browns actions during the Icelandic banking collapse could have filled 60+ minutes.

I had to get taxis as standing around in minus 10C waiting for a bus that will most likely drive past you isn't much fun. However I am glad I did. Not only was every single taxi driver able to speak perfect English but they are on the ball when it comes to politics, international relations and how the world really works.

Every single person I talked to was sick to the teeth of Gordon Browns action to use anti-terrorism laws to freeze Icelandic money in British banks. Not only did this help worsen the economic crisis in Iceland but it made the Icelandic people think they had been betrayed by a friend and ally.

If you don't know, Iceland kept the Brits alive during World War II by sending over fish for us to eat whilst all our trans Atlantic ships were being destroyed by German U-Boats. A little known fact is that per capita, Iceland lost the most people in the war, more than Russia, more than the Jews and more than the USA and UK combined. They only have a population of 320,000 (now), so a lot less back then, so you can see how many a few thousand people's deaths would compare to the total population.

Iceland suffered their economic crisis between October 2008 and the 31 August 2011, which was the day where the international bailout support programme led by the IMF officially ended.

The economic crisis revolved around a few Icelandic banks which were offering stupidly high rates of interest which attracted many foreign investors including many UK local authorities. Our dear leader of the time, Gordon Brown, had told them to invest their money in the highest paying interest accounts they could find. The Icelandic banks were offering high rates and were thus used by many.

The problem was that these rates of interest were totally unrealistic and there was no security for screw ups. In the UK we get up to £85,000 protected if the bank goes bust. So the Government bails small account holders out up to that sum. However Iceland failed to do this for foreign investors and it sent Brown and co fuming.

Every taxi driver I spoke to said that anyone with half a brain cell could see these banks high interest schemes would fail in the end and they eventually did. However Gordon Brown was having none of it. The UK along with the Dutch, demanded that Iceland pay back all the monies owed with interest or they would be thrown out the IMF.

Gordon Brown froze any Icelandic money in UK banks and used anti-terrorism laws to do so. This prompted the Iceland's prime minister Geir Haarde to call it "a completely unfriendly act" and was disgusted that a supposedly friendly nation was calling their country terrorists.

More than 25% of the Icelandic population (over 80,000 people) signed an online petition called "Icelanders are not terrorists". The UK responded by cancelling its scheduled patrol of the Icelandic airspace in December 2008. As Iceland has no standing army of its own it relies on other NATO nations to take turns in protecting it. The UK pulled out of this agreement leaving Iceland vulnerable to attack.

Iceland basically stuck two fingers up at these threats, kicked their whole government out when they seemed to bend over to the demands and took matters into their own hands by voting in a coalition government led by the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green Movement.

They even won a court case in the court of the European Free trade Area, when the UK and Holland took Iceland to court over the failure to payback depositors in the failed banks. The court ruled on the 29th January 2013 in favour of the Icelandic banks and saved the country from having to pay back billions to foreign savers.

The EFTA court dismissed an application by the EFTA surveillance authority, which claimed that Iceland had failed to comply with an obligation to ensure compensation of a minimum €20,000 to Icesave depositors in the UK and Netherlands. Over €6.7 billion was owed to UK and Dutch investors and whilst the UK paid back the investors out of their own tax payers money, they then demanded that Iceland was to pay back the money to them.

However logic and reason won the day and when Iceland's President's Olafur Grimsson refused to sign an amended law on repayment he forced a national referendum on the issue and 94% of Icelanders rejected the move to payback the cash.

The judges have sided with Iceland in the matter and it was plainly obvious that the rates of interest were unsustainable and a payback to foreign depositors was unfeasible. The Iceland banks are actually paying back some of the money by selling off assets so that people won't lose out - it is just the unrealistic rates of interest that won't be given back to savers.

At the time the crisis resulted in massive migration from Iceland yet Iceland's economy stabilized under the government of Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, and GDP actually grew by 1.6% in 2012. However many Icelanders remained unhappy with the state of the economy and government austerity policies. In 2013 they voted back in the same people who were in power during the crisis, the centre-right Independence Party but in coalition with the Progressive Party.

Relative to the size of its economy, Iceland’s systemic banking collapse was the largest suffered by any country in history. The amount of money owed by the 3 Icelandic banks taken into national ownership was equal to more than 11 times Icelandic GDP.

They also threw a load of banksters into prison - can you see a trend here? These people included:

• Baldur Guðlaugsson, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, who was sentenced to two years probation by the District Court of Reykjavík for insider trading.
• Aron Karlsson was sentenced to 2 years in prison by the District Court of Reykjavík for defrauding Arion Bank in real estate dealings.
• Lárus Welding, CEO of Glitnir, and Guðmundur Hjaltason, Managing Director of Corporate Banking of Glitnir, were sentenced to 9 months in prison by the District Court of Reykjavík for a major breach of trust.
• Friðfinnur Ragnar Sigurðsson, Glitnir employee, was sentenced to 1 year in prison by the District Court of Reykjanes for insider trading.
• Styrmi Þór Bragason, President of MP Bank, was sentenced to 1 year in prison by the Supreme Court for breach of trust.

The other thing to note is that whilst Ireland and Greece are now suffering like hell due to their Governments subservience to the banksters and their German EU masters Iceland is recovering well.

Instead of loading future generations up to the eyeballs with huge debt, and suffering serve austerity like many European countries Iceland is well on the way to recovery.

They have had one of the fastest economic recoveries on record. They stuck to their guns and told the banksters to fuck off. This is a lesson others should follow.


GDP of Nordic countries including Iceland from 2000 to 2007

Not only do the Icelandic people do things their way, but they are the leaders in the world for press freedom and Internet freedom.

Everywhere I went, whether it was the airport, the bus from the airport, the hotel, pubs, clubs or restaurants, all had free WI-FI. No logons just Internet access wherever I went, it was great.

No wonder many companies who don't want hassle from the NSA/GCHQ nexus of spy bitches base their servers there. It's just a shame we are sucking data straight from cables and main routers and until other countries build their own Internet infrastructure the axis of spying will continue to do so.

It is also not coincidence that the owner of Lavabit, who closed his business rather than succumb to threats to spy on his customers, was told by his lawyers that Iceland was one place he could move to and setup his business to escape NSA spying and Security Letters.

You can watch his interview on RT.com below.


The fact that anti-terrorism laws were used and abused by Gordon Brown shows that their true intention was nothing to do with terror but more to do with control over people.

The same laws were used to attack an 82 year man who dared protest the Iraq war during a Labour conference. Walter Wolfgang was dragged out of the conference for daring to heckle Jack Straw and detained under the terrorism act in 2005. They were also repeatedly used by the previous Labour government to detain and question tourists and other photographers "daring" to take photos of London landmarks.

Gordon Brown was only following in the foot steps of Tony Blair, the war mongerer who took us into 4 wars, destroyed many civil liberties and did more to destroy the picture of Labour as the "peoples party" than any other Prime Minister in recent years.

However whilst the UK is languishing in debt, the Greeks are begging on the streets and the Irish are cutting back services and trying to find ways to pay back their own banking debts the Icelandic people are doing just fine.

If you don't mind the cold, enjoy beautiful women and scenery then Iceland is one place to definitely consider going. Not only is everyone friendly but they all speak English and everyone I met was a good laugh. The fact that booze is so expensive yet the Icelandic people knock it back in gallons from 10pm to 6 am most nights must indicate that people are being paid enough to have a good time.

So whilst I had to apologise for my Governments behaviour constantly, I also let the Icelandic people know we also hated the Labour Government just as much as they do.

The fact that we are still suffering under many of Labours big brother laws, and that the farcical Protection of Freedoms Bill which promised so much when a Lib Dem idea yet turned into a "freedom from wheelclamping" bill just goes to show that none of our current political parties can be trusted when it comes to protecting our civil liberties and hard-won rights.

So just remember the next time the Daily Mail or Sun attacks the EU Human Rights Act or our PM threatens to pull out of it. We invented the thing in the first place after the 2nd world war. On top of that these rights protect you and me as well as the tiny minority of Jihadists the papers like to trot out as examples of the bill's failure. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater is the appropriate saying!

We don't have a written Bill of Rights like the American's (not that it seems to be doing much to help them anymore) so we must take what we can.

Until we get our own Bill of Rights and proper protection of free speech, without journalists boyfriends being detained at airports for revealing the massive spying our Government does on us, we should be happy for anyone who sticks up for our liberty.

The Icelandic people saw us as friends. When Gordon Brown froze their money it made it hard for them to import goods and prices shot up in their country. His act did more to harm them than the banking crisis in the first place.

The fact that a court sided with them just shows that he was in the wrong and they were right to ignore his demands.

Well done Iceland.

View the original article Why Icelandic people hate Gordon Brown at darkpolitricks.com.

The most hated ex UK Prime Minister after Tony Blair, i.e Maggie Thatcher died today

The most hated ex UK Prime Minister after Tony Blair, i.e Maggie Thatcher died today

By Dark Politricks

It has just been reported by the BBC that the hated ex Tory Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has died at the age of 87.

A hero to the right and a hated enemy of the left the ex Tory Prime Minister was a divisive figure in UK politics.

Baroness Thatcher was the only female PM in UK history and she was responsible for the devastating privatisation policies of the 80's.

Although her policies opened up many nationalised markets such as energy and telecommunications to private investment it also destroyed many working class communities all over the country, especially whole towns of people who relied on work at local mines or ship yards which were shut down.

She was responsible for the massive destruction of union power and her war with Arthur Scargill led to the closure of many mines, high unemployment figures and battles between soldiers dressed up as policemen and striking miners which were the highlight of news programmes although the early 80's.

For the striking miners there were no other jobs for them to go to and after the mines were shut down and whole communities in the North of England, and Wales were put on the dole.

The cost analysis benefit of subsiding the mines versus the cost of putting whole towns on unemployment benefit, the crime from drugs and drink and other social ills that led from the hopelessness she created were undoubtedly pro-subsidy.

However the Tory right were only thinking short term and the destruction of the unions and the move to privatisation was more important than the high unemployment and social ills it cost the country.

Please don't forget as the current Tory government is busy demonising people in receipt of benefits and busy moving people off disability allowance and back onto the much lower benefit "jobseekers allowance". That it was in-fact the Tory government of Thatcher that was responsible for "massaging" the unemployment figures in the first place, by switching people from "the dole" to "the sick", so that they could claim that unemployment was failing when in reality it wasn't.

3 million unemployed was a regular figure heard on the news during Thatchers time as Prime Minister.

She was responsible for privatising the national railways which has been a massive failure as well as numerous other neo-liberal economic policies which the right claimed "modernised" the UK in comparison to the rest of Europe. In reality it has led to the current situation we have now in which all 3 major political parties are centre based leaving no real choice for the electorate.

There is no major party that can call itself left or right any-more. We just have a mob of centrist politicians all debating over how much austerity we should be suffering to pay for the banks mistakes.

It was the long years out of power during Thatchers reign that made Tony Blair decide to "modernise" the Trade Unionist Labour party all but destroying it's links with the unions and making it another pro-war, neo-con leaning, bankster loving party of the centre right.

Some even say Tony Blair's Labour government was to the right of Thatcher with his over bearing policies of police surveillance, anti-terrorism acts that removed peoples liberties and his alliance with the Americans in their multiple wars.

Today will be a day of sadness for many on the right of politics and I wouldn't be surprised to see even supposed "left" wing leaders pay their respects to the ex Tory leader who helped destroy all meaning in voting Labour at the polling booths.

For others it will be seen as a day of celebration.

Baroness Thatcher was the hated figure that caused massive unemployment, high interest rates, Black Wednesday and our removal from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. She was also responsible for the Poll Tax riots, the Falklands war and the creation of vast wastelands in the north of England.

To people affected by her economic policies in a negative way I cannot see them visiting her funeral to see her off unless it's to make sure she has really died!

From the BBC News report

BBC News

Ex-Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher dies

Former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher has died at 87 following a stroke, her spokesman has said.

Lord Bell said: "It is with great sadness that Mark and Carol Thatcher announced that their mother Baroness Thatcher died peacefully following a stroke this morning."

Baroness Thatcher was Conservative prime minister from 1979 to 1990.

She was the first woman to hold the post. Her family is expected to make a further statement later.

Baroness Thatcher, born Margaret Roberts, became the Conservative MP for Finchley, north London in 1959, retiring from the Commons in 1992.

Having been education secretary, she successfully challenged former prime minister Edward Heath for her party's leadership in 1975.

She won general elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987.

Baroness Thatcher's government privatised several state-owned industries. She was also in power when the UK went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.

In a statement on the Downing Street Twitter feed, Mr Cameron said: "It was with great sadness that l learned of Lady Thatcher's death. We've lost a great leader, a great prime minister and a great Briton."

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "The Queen was sad to hear the news of the death of Baroness Thatcher. Her Majesty will be sending a private message of sympathy to the family."
London Mayor Boris Johnson tweeted: "Very sad to hear of death of Baroness Thatcher. Her memory will live long after the world has forgotten the grey suits of today's politics."

UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage called Lady Thatcher a "great inspiration", adding: "Whether you loved her or hated her nobody could deny that she was a great patriot, who believed passionately in this country and her people. A towering figure in recent British and political history has passed from the stage. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family."

Senior Conservative MP David Davis said: "Margaret Thatcher was the greatest of modern British prime ministers, and was central to the huge transformation of the whole world that took place after the fall of the Soviet Union.

"Millions of people in Britain and around the world owe her a debt of gratitude for their freedom and their quality of life, which was made possible by her courageous commitment to the principles of individual freedom and responsibility."

Lady Thatcher had suffered poor health for several years.

View the original news story as it unfolds on the BBC news site.

View the original article Hated Ex Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher dies at the main website www.darkpolitricks.com

Who should become the next most powerful man in the world?

Who should become President of the United States?

By Dark Politricks

This is a follow on from my seemingly popular article called "does anyone really thinks that voting for Mitt Romney will bring real change to the USA.

As I state quite clearly at the beginning of that article, if you dislike or even hate the current US President, Barack Obama, then I agree with your sentiment.

However is hating someone and their policies enough of a good reason to vote in someone who is potentially worse for your economy, liberty, safety and ultimately your country?

Is voting for Mitt Romney, actually voting for the lesser of two evils and if it is then is voting for any kind of evil morally acceptable?

As a Brit I often get asked to "stay out" of "our" American politics. Or to keep my nose out of American Presidential elections.

However it is pretty clear, at least to me over my adult life, that the US President is not only the leader of the USA but the figurehead of the most powerful super power in the world whose decisions and actions effect the lives of people all across the globe.

Whether the leader of the USA should have this much power over the rest of us is a very pertinent question yet one that is hardly, if ever, mentioned in the US mainstream media let alone the US Presidential debates.

However it is a question that the rest of the world knows the importance of, and people all the way from Pakistan to Australia, China to Germany and Brazil to the UK realise that whoever sits in that chair behind the oval desk can have a dramatic effect over the lives of people across the globes life.

For example if you live in Pakistan the leader of the USA could decide whether your family members are counted as "collateral damage" in a drone strike.

If you are Japanese it's whether a US Army soldier will rape your daughter and get away with it due to the "special contract" America makes any country hosting their soldiers and bases sign.

If your Australian it's whether or new US Navy base will be created to help ring fence China and bring your country into any future war with the next emerging super power.

If your Russian it's whether or not your country is gong to be designated as the top enemy of the USA as Romney stated and whether or not you will be ring fenced in by new NATO members and a missile "defense" system that could be used to attack your nation.

For us Brits it's down to the level of humiliation we will have to suffer by watching our politicians make sickeningly arse licking speeches to your congress as Gordon Brown and Tony Blair recently did.

It is also how far up your arse we will hang as a nation and how many of our young soldiers will die fighting the next war we feel duty bound to join you in.

If it's China it's the level of hostility you can expect to face from the next President. Will they see you as a nation that is propping up your failing economy by constantly buying your worthless Treasury bonds or will you be labelled a currency manipulator and then watch as the fading US star tries to fight it's way out of decline by picking a fight with you over Taiwan or Japan.

If it's Iran it's whether or not you are going to be attacked within 6 months or a year. Whether diplomacy will be given any form of a chance or whether the next President will bend straight over to the next Israeli PM and go to war for that country yet again in the Middle East.

Sending US troops to die in foreign lands to fight in deserts that they have no right being in, for a war that is both hypocritical and pointless on many grounds.

You see we non Americans DO have a voice and DO have thoughts about the way the most powerful country in the world should behave in the next 4 years.

Should it follow the neo-con policy of never-ending war, torture, and going it alone against world opinion. Or will they retreat back inside their own borders, become isolationist and chose to sort out their own economy and decimation of their civil rights before deciding to spread "human rights" and "democracy" across the world again.

Policies that many of us see as hypocritical due to their own behaviour and breeches of Human Rights that have become so famous aka Gitmo, Abu Ghrai, Dick Cheney's personal assassination squad and now Obama's king like behaviour to chose who lives and dies whether they are American or not.

Unlike the "I agree with Mitt, I agree with the President" farce of the last Presidential debate which was supposedly about foreign policy there are in fact third party candidates from parties such as the Libertarian Party or the Green Party who DO debate such questions that we mere foreigners ask. Questions such as:

• Should America be the worlds policeman? Especially during a time of "austerity" in which the US economy is running purely on money conjured out of thin air.
• Should this sham of a financial system in which the FED and the Treasury allow banksters like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan to take advantage of to make themselves rich even exist at all?
• Why do Americans feel the need to dance to Israel's tune and start and then fight wars that are not in the USA's best interest?
• Why is the American political system so corrupt that the Supreme Court can give corporations all the same rights as people apart from the right to be imprisoned or executed for their high crimes and treason.
• Is it fair that overseas countries and corporations can now pump obscene amounts of money into the Presidential election through Super PAC's and the aforementioned Citizens United decision and affect the outcome of an election to their benefit. All whilst home grown political parties such as the Greens or the Libertarians get hard;y any air time to make their point on mainstream media and are excluded from the televised Presidential debates which are designed to keep the two headed snake duopoly of a corrupt and owned political system in it's current broken and corrupt form.

Israel obviously knows the importance of being able to control or "lobby" the US President to get what they want and now with Citizens United China, Iran, Mexico and Russia can as well.

The only problem is that it doesn't really matter who they dump tons of money behind as the same old neo-con, pro-war, pro-Israel. amti-Muslim, anti-civil liberty policies will continue unabated whichever of the two parties leaders get voted in.

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney support:

1. Wars of aggression.
2. Bypassing Congress and the War Act to carry out wars that seemingly help their enemies gain control of important regions of the world i.e Libya and Syria.
3. Their support of rebel armies fighting existing regimes that the USA dislikes such as Syria, which maybe authoritarian in nature but are not full of al-Qaeda members and fundamentalist Jihadists who commit massacres en masse, film them and then upload them to YouTube.
4. Supporting drone strikes that kill 50 civilians, women and children for every "Terrorist" killed.
5. Both support the curbing of civil liberties at home, the NDAA, the PATRIOT ACT and other authoritarian pieces of legislation that have curtailed American citizens liberties at home.
6. Both candidates claim to support the constitution whilst doing everything they can to bypass it - for the good of the American citizen of course.
7. Both are big government in their own way.
8. Both are just figureheads for their real puppet masters and bend over to powerful lobbyists.
9. Both are pro-Israel and seemingly allow that country to literally get away with murder - including the murder of American citizens like Furkan Dogan.
10. And the list goes on as my article shows > "Does anyone really thinks that voting for Mitt Romney will bring real change to the USA?

Whilst the USA population is probably blissfully unaware of the other candidates in the race we in the alternative media have been pushing for an expansion of the closed debate the current two possible POTUS's are having.

Another third party candidate debate between the Green Parties Jill Stein and Libertarian parties Gary Johnson is happening this week. Make sure to watch it if you can.

This is the first debate between all four third party presidential candidates, Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson here.



Please take your time and let me know who you plan to vote for in the election or if you live outside America who you think should become President.

Are protest votes wasted votes

Are Protest Votes Wasted Or Necessary?

By Dark Politricks

Here in the UK we are gearing up for the general election which must be held by next June. The general perception of the outcome seems to be that the Tories will win but the size of the defeat is still up for debate. It could range from a very small majority to a massive swing to the right on the same magnitude as Labours historic win in 97. Therefore with the result of the election in all probability decided already is there any point in voting for anyone other than Tory at the next election?

The recent history of elections has shown that a large segment of British society is prepared to vote outside the main 3 parties in what can be termed by those who expect conformity and consistency in voting patterns “protest votes”. 

In the recent European elections UKIP, the BNP and the Greens all managed to win seats. History shows that elections to the European parliament have always been a way for the British public to vent frustration at the current UK government at the same time as not having to worry about the consequences of their actions due to the very limited power that the EU parliament can exert over EU policy.

In very basic terms a protest vote to the UK Independence Party (UKIP) tells Gordon Brown and co how unhappy you are about the rapidly expanding power of the EU, the broken promises about referendums on the Lisbon treaty and the general lack of democracy that the EU in its current form entails.

A vote to the racist British National Party shows the government that your concerned about uncontrolled immigration. Free flats to asylum seekers and long waiting lists for nationals. Overcrowded NHS services and jobs being taken by those willing to work for a much lower wage than the British worker is used to.

A large percentage of people voting for the BNP probably didn’t even consider themselves as racist or even agree with the majority that the party believes in, however the protest vote seems to have worked. Since the European election Labour has started to sound a lot tougher on immigration. At the last election when Michael Howard tried to make immigration an election topic he was deemed to have lurched to the right and it was considered as a major reason for him losing the election. However it seems times have changed and more importantly Labour is so far behind in the polls it doesn’t want to be losing votes to those parties that are willing to tackle the question of immigration.

Limits on the number of non EU immigrants have been brought in with a new point system. A system to ensure that newly advertised jobs must be offered to nationals first before going to foreign workers has been introduced. There is a new UK Border Agency to secure, monitor and control entry into the country. 

Asylum claims have been speeded up and more people are getting deported but more importantly than that the dialogue used by Labour politicians has changed from a purely “immigration is good for the UK” standpoint to one in which Gordon Brown can say in a speech that he wanted “British jobs for British workers”. In fact since the BNP started winning council and European seats numerous Labour ministers have spoken publicly about how Labour dropped the ball on immigration and have to tackle this topic if they are not to lose more ground to the BNP.

Therefore it seems that the threat of the BNP gaining support from disillusioned working class whites has had the effect of making Labour reconsider or at least re-market its policy on immigration in such a way as to reach out to this constituency which they used to consider their core supporters. However they haven’t moved to tackle the other and more importantly larger group of protest voters which are those people who voted for UKIP.

The Conservative party has always had a problem with its MP’s in that on the topic of Europe and they are split between Eurosceptics and Europhiles with both policy and rhetoric swinging between these two points of view. With David Cameron and William Hague as Foreign Secretary the Tories seem to be trying to reach out to UKIP supporters with their recent European policies. They have broken away from the major centre right group the in the EU parliament the EPP and created a new anti-federalist reformist group along with some other right wing parties from Eastern Europe.

They also tried to appeal to the majority of the British public who were outraged at Labours broken promise of a referendum on the Lisbon treaty by promising a referendum of their own on the treaty. However due to the fact that the treaty has now been implemented across Europe due to the Czech republic finally signing it they decided to drop this promise much to the outrage of public and MP’s alike. 

Both main parties have now broken promises to hold a referendum on Europe. This is a vote that the British electorate are itching to have seeing that the majority of people have never been asked their opinion on Britain’s role in Europe. 

Even those people that did vote in the last referendum in 1975 only voted for whether the UK should join the EEC which was at the time a free trade zone and not a political entity with federalist super-state trappings. Therefore a large proportion of the British people feel betrayed by this rail-roading of the country into a Euro-State something that right or wrong they feel they should be asked about.

Therefore a party like UKIP with the charismatic Nigel Farage as their leader has a good chance on capitalizing on this growing resentment and anger at broken promises. Add to this the public outrage with the recent MP expenses scandal which has tarred all the major parties at Westminster and it might just be the right point in time for people to consider making a protest vote at the next election and for it to actually count for once at a national level.

Nigel said in his recent conference speech that UKIP would be putting candidates up for every seat in the next election. This means that everyone has a chance of expressing their anger at the increasing lack of democracy within this country by voting for a party that would offer the country a chance to finally express their opinion on the matter. People might consider that UKIP is a one policy party and I would tend to agree however this one policy is one that matters to anyone who cares about democracy and our place within Europe.

The EU is a blatantly undemocratic entity which has just been proven by the recent installation of the new EU president Herman van Rompuy and Foreign Minister Baroness Catherine Ashton. Both of these people have been put into powerful positions without the consent of the people of Europe. There was no election which enabled the people of Europe to choose for themselves the right person for the job. Instead these two people, who have never won any kind of election on a national level, were chosen by our EU leaders for their own reasons.

Poll after poll has shown that the majority of British people want to belong to a Europe of nation states where each country has full control over its own economy, law and borders. They believe in free trade and movement of goods, services and people across Europe but they don’t want a federal super state. Although our politicians are very good at telling us that the EU is not turning into a federal super state it sure does seem that way.

The EU has given itself all the trappings of a country with a European national anthem, a flag, a president of Europe, soon to be embassies around the world and a seat at the UN as well as all the shared laws rules and regulations. 

Many people all across Europe see the formation of a single federal entity as desirable and I am someone who can definitely see the benefits that being part of Europe has brought to the UK. However on a point of principle the people of this country should have the chance to decide on what kind of relationship they want to have with Europe.

Therefore I am seriously considering using my vote at the next election to vote for UKIP. I live in a constituency that always unfortunately votes Tory and has done for time memorable. Therefore a vote for any other party is wasted anyway as there is no chance that Labour or the Liberals would manage to capture this seat. 

However even if UKIP doesn’t win many seats, if they can get enough votes to show the probably new Conservative government that the country considers the EU question important enough to vote for a single issue party like UKIP, then because the Tories are so split on this issue, there is a good chance the Tories will have to consider giving the people a vote on the matter.

Recent election results have shown that protest votes do work. Even if the party in question is not elected the large percentage of votes they collect means that the public’s decision has an effect on the behaviour and policies of the major parties, especially those parties who have shrinking support or small majorities in parliament. 

Every vote counts and these main parties require the votes of not only their core base but those people in the centre as well as those people who are considering changing their vote from another party. The good thing is that people who are concerned about the lack of democracy that our current position in Europe entails as well as the lack of democracy at home by not giving the people the right to choose their own destiny, exist on all sides of the political spectrum.

Probability theory states that UKIP will not win the next general election and the Tories will. A victorious Tory government with a large majority are less likely to be influenced by public unease over Europe than a small majority that is scared of losing every seat. 

Therefore if you are unhappy with the current state of British politics, angry at the greed shown up by the expenses scandal and concerned about Europe and the lack of democracy, then I would urge you to think about voting UKIP in the next election. 

Even if they do no win, we maybe able to influence government policy, by showing the level of support for a party that wants to give the British public a vote on their own future in Europe.

By Dark Politricks

© 2009 Dark Politricks