Are the Tories the best bet on the EU?

I don't like the EU. At all. It's an undemocratic joke, and in the 21st century we need to be moving power closer to people, rather than away from them, towards Brussels. I think we should leave.

As such, I now face a bit of a quandary. Previously, I'd been very hard on the Tories when it came to the EU. In my mind, until 2010 they'd probably been a more europhile party than Labour (after all, Labour gave us the 1975 referendum, the Tories took us in, signed us up to SEA & Maastricht and denied us a referendum on any of it). If you disregard the rhetoric, they'd been pretty disastrous.

But the game has changed. I presume Mr Cameron has started imagining Nigel Farage lurking around every corner, complete with pint of bitter and cigarette, ready to evict him from Number 10 at a moment's notice. And Cameron has tried to deal with Nigel by promising an EU referendum*.

When he first announced this, I was incredibly sceptical. He wasn't known as Cast Iron Dave for nothing. The excuse that we couldn't hold a referendum on Lisbon as it'd been passed was just bullshit (the only other referendum we ever had on joining the EU was two years after the act!).

But Nigel is creeping ever closer, and Dave is really panicking. Now we actually have a bill, promoted by the British Prime Minister, calling for a referendum on leaving the EU. That's quite a major thing.

I think it'd be politically impossible to dump that if he won a majority in 2015. So what do we do?

Hmmm.

*This is a silly idea, as it fails the grasp the fundamental that Ukip's growing support is only tangentially linked to opposition of the EU.

Healthcare

You know what I'm really annoyed about today? Healthcare. More specifically, the appalling standard of debate around the NHS in this country.

I was prompted to get annoyed about this after having one of those 'blah, blah, blah, I'm not listening, I'm just going to repeat my moronic point over and over again' conversations you have with young left wingers every so often.

It went something like this:

Me: I don't think the NHS is very good. Perhaps we should look at alternative ways of delivering healthcare.
Idiot: SO YOU WANT PEOPLE WHO CAN'T PAY THOUSANDS TO DIE THEN?!?! AMERICA!!!!
Me: When did I say anything about copying the American system? I just think that we could do better than the current NHS.
Idiot: YOU'LL NEVER WIN THIS DEBATE, PEOPLE WILL NEVER VOTE FOR AMERICAN HEALTHCARE.

I was quite annoyed by this exchange. But it's something I see quite often. People are unable to coherently defend a healthcare system that allowed thousands to die, so they raise the spectre of American healthcare.

I have three points to make:

• I have never met anyone, ever, who has advocated replacing the NHS with the American system.
• There are 193 members of the UN, yet people who defend the NHS always talk as if there are only two countries in the world. Why is this? (We all know why, really)
• When Communism fell in the early 90s, and eastern European states were looking to secure universal healthcare, how come not a single one copied the NHS? More broadly, how come NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS COPIED THE NHS?

We need to tear this strawman down. Allowing the NHS v America (the rest of the world doesn't exist) debate to continue is literally killing people. Don't allow the debate to be framed like this any more. Call people out. What about German healthcare? French healthcare? Canadian healthcare?  The list is endless.

On bus drivers

Imagine the scene:

You go into Greggs, really fancying a Sausage, Bean & Cheese melt (they're about 95p, from memory). You've only got a tenner. You present your money, and instead of enthusiastically accepting your offer to pay, the Greggs employee gives you a look of pure disgust. Your crime? Paying for something with a note.

Would this ever happen? No, of course it wouldn't. Our economy is based on the exchange of money for goods and services. Being given change is a key part of this. After all, we don't always have the right amount of currency for the good or service that we want to buy.

There is one business though, where it's acceptable to treat your customers like an inconvenience if they have the affront to pay with a £10 or £20 note. And which business is this? The business of providing bus travel.

I've always found this really confusing. But it came to a head a couple of weeks ago. I boarded a bus with the intention of buying a £2 ticket with a tenner. When I made the generous offer to purchase travel on this bus, I was looked at as if I'd shat on the bus driver's mother.

What the chuff is this all about? Why is it acceptable for bus drivers to treat you like shit when you have the nerve to pay with a higher value note?

Think back to my example above. Thankfully, Greggs have always enthusiastically taken my money in exchange for their pasties, no matter what denomination note I offer to pay with. And you know what, if they don't have the right change, they tell me & we work something out.

But not a bus driver, oh no. I remember another occasion where I tried to buy a £4 ticket with a £20. The bus driver replied:

"What do you think I am, a bank?"

Now I wanted to say "If you were a bank, I'd want you to give me all my money back plus interest, you cretin". I didn't, though, because I didn't fancy being thrown off the bus and standing in Castleford bus station for an hour.

This has to stop. We all suffer from it, and it's time to stand up and say 'no more'. I can completely understand that bus drivers don't always have a massive amount of change, but this is absolutely no excuse for treating customers like irritants, rather than people who are keeping you in a job.

How about a 'Pay for your bus with a £50 note' day...?

#statementtofollow

This is a short one, really. Those of you who I've discussed this with will appreciate my thinking in a bit more detail, but for the rest of you:

• In recent months I've become more and more concerned about the increasing levels of social conservatism in Ukip official policy.
• I joined a party in 2011 that had no policy on gay marriage, but had a leader who appeared to tweet in support of it.
• I also joined a party that looked to be ditching silly things like the Burka ban & moving towards real libertarian politics. 
• Unfortunately it appears that, nationally, a decision has been made to swing Ukip towards a brand of right-wing populism that I'm not entirely comfortable with. 
• Particularly, in the last couple of months it feels like 80%+ of what we've seen has related to either a) gay marriage or b) Eastern European immigration. I support gay marriage, and, whilst I do believe immigration should be restricted so only the best people allowed to settle in Britain, I'm not happy about a tone that is so repeatedly negative about immigration.

I can completely see the electoral benefits in embracing a right-populist approach. But I'm not a right-wing populist. I'm a liberal at heart, who believes in limited government and that people are generally good. I want a state that gets off people's backs, not one that tells them who they can & can't marry.

The disgusting dismissal of my friend Olly as YI Chairman, because he dared to support gay marriage on live radio, just confirms the direction Ukip is moving in. It's not a direction that I can go.

I've resigned as Deputy Chairman of Ukip Wakefield District, and intend to take a break from active politics.

On an 'interim Chairman'

I'm furious. As per the blog title, really.

Most of you will know that my friend Olly Neville was removed by the Ukip NEC as Chairman of Young Independence (YI), because he had been in the media disagreeing with some Ukip policies. Just imagine if the leader of Ukip had been in the Guardian mere days before disagreeing with party policy on drugs. But I digress.

What has really annoyed me is that some Ukip bigwigs have tried to frame the scenario as the NEC removing an 'interim Chairman' who had no democratic mandate anyway. This is bollocks.

The actual situation is as follows:

Former Chairman Harry Aldridge decided to step down six months early, so a younger and more university focused figure could take over. Elections were scheduled by the Council for November.

Two candidates put themselves forward, Olly Neville and Matt Smith (I actually proposed Matt for the job, so it's hardly like I'm an Olly loyalist).

A well publicised election took place, which saw the highest turnout in YI history. This election was all electronic, and was run by an impartial third party, as nominated by the outgoing Council.

*AFTER* the polls were closed, an undisclosed complaint was made to the NEC, probably about the overly aggressive nature of the campaign (it was tame compared to most internal elections).

The NEC, in their wisdom, decided that internal democracy wasn't really that important for us kids, and decided to invalidate the election and postpone it until March.

As the polls had closed, the YI Council knew the result. 

As a consequence of this, and due to Harry Aldridge's continuing desire to step down, the outgoing Council took a decision to co-opt the winners of the invalidated election into the positions that rightfully belonged to them. This decision was overwhelmingly backed by the Council.

So no, bugger off with this 'interim Chairman' rubbish. Olly was rightfully Chairman, elected on the highest turnout in YI history, and you bumped him, because he dared to speak his mind. SHAME.

On cannabis legalisation

The strongest thing I've ever consumed is either a really dodgy vindaloo from this place in Leeds, or a nice single malt.

As such, I've got no real personal stake in the cannabis legalisation debate. I do though, on the whole, think it's a nonsense that cannabis is illegal. As far as I can see, police time would be far better spent dealing with real criminals, rather than stoned teens sitting in untidy rooms discussing pop philosophy.

I know cannabis is bad, and can do all sorts of bad things to people, but I'd like to pose a question, and if anyone can provide a satisfactory answer, I'll reassess my views on the debate:

Is there any argument against cannabis legalisation that doesn't also imply that other substances, such as alcohol, should also be illegal?

I await responses.

Being a floating voter is weird

I like to pretend I'm quite an open minded chap, when it comes to politics. I'm sure a few of you think 'That Arnie, he's alright...for a 'kipper . But in reality, just like the rest of you, I'm actually very partisan. It's hard to admit that, but I've been thinking about my voting habits.

The first election I could vote in was the 2008 Wakefield Council ones. I was sure I was going to vote Tory, regardless of what other candidates were on offer (what a triumph that was..).

In the 2009 Euros I was torn between the Tories & Ukip, but that's not really indicative of being a floating voter, that's just a value judgement on which of the two right wing parties more closely matched my views on Europe (eventually I went Tory, fwiw).

In 2010, both the locals and the general I voted Tory.

In 2011 I got so pissed off with the Tories over AV (what a stupid thing to be pushed over the edge by!) I went Ukip. In 2012 I stood for Ukip.

Thinking about this really bothered me, as I'd not really considered the merits of the candidate in any of those six elections.

The PCC elections were different, as Ukip didn't nominate in West Yorkshire. So at the seventh time of asking, I was genuinely a floating voter. I was interested, and would definitely vote, but I had no pre-determined idea of who to vote for. I promised myself that I would consider all four candidates (Lib, Lab, Tory, Indy).

I went to a hustings to make my decision, which was dreadful. I think previously I'd always allowed my candidate bias to convince myself that the person I supported was actually really good. I now see they probably weren't. 

In reality, none of the four were particularly brilliant. I suspect this is what floating voters see whenever a candidate talks. I got one piece of literature (Labour, obvs), which had an English error in it. If I'd not been a Twitter nerd who regularly visits the Vote UK website, that would've probably been all I saw.

Have the PCC elections offered me a window into what it feels like to be an a-political, floating voter? I think so. And I'm alarmed. 

I know how hard it is to get media attention, and how difficult it is to find leaflet deliverers, but something must change. If this is what it feels like to be a floating voter, then I'm not surprised that no one votes any more. 

Now I can't wait until 2014, when I will trick myself into thinking that every Ukip Euro Parl candidate is amazing, and everyone else is rubbish. Being a floating voter was scary, I don't want it to happen again.