I bet I know the solution.

Traffic counts have been taking place at a busy retail park in Kent which is regularly gridlocked with shoppers.

The work has been focused on key junctions on the North Farm industrial estate, near Tunbridge Wells.

It is part of the North Farm Traffic Study, which is due to be completed by June when recommendations for solutions will be presented to council officials.

Traders have been calling for urgent action to ease traffic congestion amid fears customers are being driven away.

They say problems have escalated since John Lewis and Marks & Spencer opened flagship stores on the estate before Christmas.

What is the problem here, really? We can see that the local residents aren't mentioned here, so they are probably understanding that this retail park is providing jobs at a time when one isn't exactly falling over vacancies. Either that, or the council just don't regard their opinions as being important. Probably a good portion of both.

At a time when the economy is on its arse, we mustn't mistake the cries from the traders that there are too many people coming into the estate, their concern is that it is too difficult for customers to get on site, so they may not bother trying.

I have a feeling that the council will see the problem as being too many people are trying to get in. Calls to ease congestion would, in a sensible world, result in works to improve access and flow by increasing capacity on the roads and/or by introducing a park and ride scheme that is cheap, or even free and sponsored; it is in the interests of the business on site, after all. Thereby encouraging people to come, spend their money and ensure that a local success story continues.

But let us not forget that this is the country where this happens:

Why do I have a funny feeling that the solution will be the introduction or ramping up of parking charges, the construction of traffic calming measures and other things that make people want to stay away, rather than make it easier for people to get in?

Stupid, stupid everywhere, and no-one stops to think.

Bugger it being a big weekend for sport, this has been one of the biggest weekends for idiocy I can remember in a long time. Let's start with sport though;

Iran has indicated it will attend the 2012 Olympics in London, despite complaining that the Games logo resembles the word "Zion".

I couldn't help but chuckle when the story of a proposed boycott broke, but it would appear that perhaps it isn't that important to them after all.

They objected on the grounds that its resemblance to the word Zion - a Biblical term for Israel - was racist.

But now the Iranian-backed Press TV has quoted an official as saying Iranians will "participate gloriously".

Will they? Oh, that's nice. It's not often I agree with Cameron but he hits the nail on the head here:

In an interview with the London-based paper Jewish News, Mr Cameron said: "It's completely paranoid. If the Iranians don't want to come, don't come - we won't miss you.

I think Iran may have one or two more important things to worry about. Boycott the Olympics because the logo is a Zionist insult to Islam? Really? I can understand you boycotting the Olmypics because the logo is crap and a PR catastrophe, but this?

William Hague isn't about to quit, and hasn't lost his mojo and has the full support of the PM. That makes me think there'll be a new Foreign Secretary before the month is out. It seems that Baldy Bill hasn't learned from his mistakes of the past:

“So there’s a certain irony,” he adds. “People tell me there’s a newspaper article saying I lack energy, presumably written by some lounge lizard who’s rolled up at 11am and wondered what to write about (without being rude about journalists!) when I’m already on my second country that day. We’ve put a huge amount of new energy into British foreign policy.”

How many pints at how many pubs on the dray round? 'When I'm already on my second country that day'? I have visions of Hague sat at a table, with the tablecloth tucked into his collar, knife and fork in hand.

What is it with politicians and willy waving? What is it with politicians and making laws, then deciding that the laws they've made don't apply to them because they're too important? EU law especially. I forget who it was who made the point in the House over the prisoner votes debate about the danger of governments picking and choosing which laws they abide by, and the SNP are masters of this.

Plans to introduce minimum drink pricing in Scotland will be revived if the SNP wins May's Holyrood election.

If, although given the low regard the big three are held in at present, May probably can't come quick enough for the SNP.

But they [the plans] were opposed by Labour, the Lib Dems and Tories, who said minimum pricing would penalise responsible drinkers and was probably illegal.

It doesn't matter if it's illegal though, because a politician wants to do it. The thing with politicians (especially Socialists) is that the rule of law is absolutely sacrosant, right up until the point where it is obstructive or inconvenient for them, then it must be ignored.

But addressing delegates, Ms Sturgeon, also the Scottish health secretary, will say the SNP acted like a government, while opponents acted disgracefully.

Oh, how telling. She's right though, by completely disregarding a law they don't like, the SNP have indeed acted just like I would expect a government to act. The disgraceful actions of the opposition must only refer to their saying 'but that's against the law, we can't do that', if so, I have no desire to be a disgrace, does this give me carte-blanche to ignore all laws? Because I'm game.

As Counting Cats pointed out the Ecoloons are already starting to make capital out of the quake and tsunami in Japan. He has some arseclown putting it all down to homeless polar bears, or something. Meanwhile in Germany. . .

The nuclear accident in Japan has sparked a discussion about atomic power in Germany, where a massive anti-nuclear protest was already planned for Saturday. A senior Green Party politician has said that some German plants are vulnerable to the same kind of failure as happened at Fukushima 1.

Riiiiiight. Vulnerable to the same kind of failure?

According to the US Geological Survey, the last earthquake in Germany was as recent as February 14th this year, it came in at a jaw dropping 3.9 on the Richter Scale. 3.9 is labelled as 'often felt, but rarely causes damage'. The difference between 3.9 in Germany and 8.9 in Japan is akin to the difference between dropping teaspoon on your kitchen floor and dropping a reinforced concrete box full of lead and elephants on your floor.

I can find no records of a tsunami in either the Baltic or the North Sea. So when you say that 'some German plants are vulnerable to the same kind of failure as happened at Fukushima 1', you mean that after an earthquake of unbelievable power and then being hit by a bloody great tsunami it still hasn't blown up and made the east coast of Japan uninhabitable for the next four generations, I think I'd be tempted to take my chances. I wonder how many Japanese wind turbines are standing after the quake and tsunami. I'm betting not many, but then I'd be surprised if there were that many to start with, because the Japanese have more sense and realise that a functioning country is more important than making offerings to some green god.

It looks like 10,000 people in one town, half the town's population, has been wiped out. It makes Aberfan look like a stubbed toe, and you have the gall to make capital out of it for your own self-importance and political agenda? The Greens really are some of the least attractive people about, there is no depth to which they will not stoop.

Spam

For some reason, Blogger has decided to go mental about spam, something I've only been hit by occasionally over here. I've had to move a few messages out of the spam folder over the last few days and am having to get into the habit of regularly checking the folder.

Ironically, every comment that has been diverted to the spam folder hasn't been spam. It seems the way to avoid the spam folder is to talk about your scaffolding firm, search engine promotion tools, cosmetics, ugg boots or willy pills.

Go figure.

Anyhow, fret not, if you are one of the people who sees fit to comment over here, don't be put off, I'll fish you out eventually.

Falling out of love.

Another sporting entry.

It is a big sporting day today, as I write this I'm watching India play South Africa in a World Cup match. Cricket is a sport that I've grown into and find that I enjoy more and more. I think the 50 over game is soon to become a relic; it has never really been embraced by the purists and it is too long for those who enjoy the knockabout fun of the T20 game. Cricket is nice. It is respectful without lacking the capacity for those 'oooh, here we go moments' of controversy, it has shown it can change with the times without betraying its spiritual heritage, it is passionately followed, yet that passion rarely boils over into hostility. I like cricket a great deal.

We also have the penultimate (?) weekend of the six nations. Rugby is a sport that I traditionally dismiss as being 'egg chasing'. I find the Union code is obsessed with kicking whilst the League code is obsessed with never passing the ball. Union has always annoyed me, I've found that it specialises in a type of fan (the vast majority of whom are English) who are a particular type of bore. They seem to view their support of the sport as something of a crusade, and have this urge to pin football supporters in a corner, jabbing them with their finger whilst explaining why their code of football is morally, athletically and socially superior. I don't understand why they do it. Some people who like association football don't like rugby football, get over it. I'm sure there are many tennis fans who couldn't give a tuppenny fig about canoeing, yet the canoeing fans don't seem to want to brow beat the strawberry eaters.

The casual violence on the rugby pitch, in Union mainly, bothers me. It is seen as an amusing part of the game to behave in a fashion infront of a crowd that would see you up infront of the magistrate if you behaved that way on the street. Because it is perpetrated by, in the main, bloody good public school old boy middle class chaps, this is acceptable. It isn't. Oh, you'll get banned for stamping on someone with your studded boots, for attempting to gouge someone's eyes out or picking someone up and throwing them down head first into the ground, but punching someone in the face is all part of the fun. Still, I suppose to give them their dues, they all seem to be friends in the bar at the end of the game, everyone calls the referee 'sir' and they don't surround him, faces twisted in rage spitting bile and hatred, when he makes a decision they think may be incorrect. It's a funny old game.

As far as the handling codes go, I much prefer the American version. It is a bit stop and start, but I find it is a sport that is true to its roots, delivers a package which generates a lot of support, not only from the fans but also the sponsors, yet the vast amounts of cash poured into it have not led to wholesale changes in the format of the competition. Despite a worldwide audience of God knows how many for the Superbowl, there is no sponsorship on player's shirts. The officials are (literally) untouchable and the league makes sure that competition is sufficiently even for all 32 teams at the start of the season to ensure that interest remains. When the new seasons starts in September, 8 teams will have a real shout at winning the title, another 16 a decent chance of getting there with a bit of luck, 4 teams will find it a challenge, 4 teams will have no hope at all. (Bizarrely, the Cleveland Browns are perpetually in this last group, despite the league's best efforts to make it a level playing field. I'll start shitting out £20 notes before the Browns win the Superbowl.) Yet for all of this, for all of the hard hitting on the field sometimes the crowd seems a little sterile, almost as if they are enthusiastic, yet ultimately disinterested. It also bugs me that when the Vince Lombardi trophy is awarded at the end of the Superbowl it is handed over to the team owner, rather than the head coach, quarterback or most senior player. It just doesn't feel right.

So that brings me once again to football. A friend asked me last night 'are you watching the football tomorrow?' It reminded me that this afternoon it is Manchester United vs. Arsenal in the FA Cup 6th round. These are two of the biggest teams competing in the oldest and one of the most presitigious competitions in the world. My response? 'Dunno, I find that I'm falling out of love with football. The sport is becoming so ugly.'

What I mean by that isn't that it is ugly on the pitch, all the time, Barcelona and Arsenal both play a style of football that is so beautiful it could make angels weep. I've been to matches where the atmosphere is, to use a well worn cliche, electric; real goosebumps, hair standing on end, hang on, I've got to go to the toilet, electric.

But over the last few years the face of the sport has been changing. I'll start with the supporters. Heated rivalries are important, having someone you 'hate' is one of the most defining qualities of tribal football support, but it now seems that a good season is not measured in your own team's success but in your closest rival's failure. A good deal of my friends on Facebook (my personal page, rather than my Snowolf persona) are both Arsenal and Spurs fans. The Spurs fans seemed happier to see Arsenal go out to Barcelona this week than they were to see them see off Milan. Whereas the Arsenal fans seem more bothered that Spurs won, rather than they lost. Can this be so? Is it really true that the Arsenal fans would rather see Spurs go out than to see their own team win? It isn't attractive. Tease your rivals because you won, by all means. But because they lost when you were nowhere near? Really?

I wrote about Ferguson the other day, and now Wenger, the manager at Arsenal with whom Ferguson has had more than one difference of opinon, has been acting like a clown. There was a controversial decision to send of Robin Van Persie, Arsenal's Dutch forward the other night. He was sent off because of, I thought, a poor interpretation of a poor law of the game, but them's the breaks. At the end of the game Wenger and the referee were nose to nose and having a right old row in a most unbecoming manner.

Arsene, old chap, the decision is made, what is getting in the referee's face going to solve? So he made a bad decision. Live with it. He's human, we've all made poor decisions, even you. He then had the temerity to the demand an apology, whether it is from the referee for his reaction and/or decision, or UEFA for disciplining him and/or the bloody silly rule is not clear. Let's reverse the roles and suppose that when his 'keeper went off injured early on in the match that the substitute he'd brought on was a striker, and he'd dropped the aforementioned Van Persie back to play in goal and Barcelona had gone on to score to eight. An unlikely scenario, but perhaps Arsene had decided it was the right decision, under pressure in the glare of the spotlight, at the time. How would he react if an Arsenal fan went nose to nose with him to protest the decision. Would he take no action and just mark it up to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? No. There'd be bannings from the ground, flashing blue lights and probably a fine if not a short spell inside. So what makes this OK for him then?

As for the referee, he should know a lot better, and I believe that just as the managers are contractually obliged to speak to the media pre and post match, the officials (who are professional now) should also be obliged to speak to the media about why they made a decision they made. UEFA must stop pretending that their officials can do no wrong. Managers must stop pretending that they can do no wrong and that the officials can do no right. It really doesn't make the game fun to watch.

Nor does the constant moaning and whining, from the players. The endless simulation of injury. The incessant badgering of the ref over every decision, the mimed invitations to show their opponents cards for some imagined foul play, the grabbing and pulling of the officials. Laying hands on the officials? Do that in Rugby, the NFL, Major League Baseball, hell, any sport other than WWE Wrestling and see where that gets you. Yet the officials on the pitch do not deal with it, the administrators do not deal with it, the clubs condone it.

The game's calendar is pulled and pushed about to meet the demands from sponsors. Well, they need that sponsorship money, is the response. Yes, right up until the point that the sport becomes so detached from its base that no-one watches. Then see how the sponsors turn and walk away. The traditional supporters excluded by sky high ticket prices used to bankroll the enormous wage demands from players, that are met by clubs with no business plans and levels of debt that would make the Irish government sweat. The sulking from those players if their every demand is not met, every request is not granted. They take £100k per week plus, and then expect their employer to tug their forelock and wipe the player's arse for them, and amazingly, the employer does it! What madness is this? I've no problem with earning a shed load of money, but. . .

Ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly.

No, I'm falling out of love with football. I think I'll take the dog for a walk instead.

Movie night.

Two little films for you tonight.

We'll start with the comic relief. The first clip is an animated short from the DVD extras of 'Despicable Me', an excellent family film if you've not seen it. It is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. It has been recorded by some chap off his TV with an HD video cam, probably illegally posted, but there you go. The quality is good though. Enjoy yourself for three minutes.



The second video is a little more serious. It had Mrs. Wolfers applauding. I commend it to you now and urge you to watch.

Don't it make you proud?

Yes, The Economist's Democracy Index ranks us 19th out of 26 in democracies around the world.

Clicking image should, viagra like, make it bigger.

Yes, the UK, not as good as Malta or Luxembourg, slightly better than Mauritius and Costa Rica.

Still, could be worse, the Italians and French are ranked under 'flawed democracies'.

It's the only time I can think that I'd like the European parliament to be recognised, I wonder which category they would come under? Hybrid regimes, perhaps? That'd put them in the same category as such luminaries as Hong Kong SAR, Albania, Malawi and Palestine.

It's enough to make you swell with pride.

It's about courage.

An interesting little article over at Direct Democracy today about how the question of an in/out referendum regarding the EU won't go away, how many Tories are turning to UKIP and the phenomenon of cross bench agreement between Labour and Conservative MPs in their support for such a referendum. It's a rum old do, and I do think the debate about the votes for prisoners was the moment a very large penny dropped.

I remember the days when Labour were EUro-sceptic, well in part at least, there was a very real danger that Labour in opposition in '93 could have wrecked the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Of course they didn't because even then, their top table was completely in hock to the EUro project. I remember being raging at the time as a very naive teenager who was foresquare behind the EU, I've worken up since then. But the world has changed since the early nineties, not least because Labour are starting to lose votes to the BNP. I don't think this is because Labour are propped up by a bunch of horrible racists, Socialists have many ugly facets, but casual racism isn't one of them, it is because so many people are utterly fed up with the EU. Those Labour voters who are fed up with it aren't likely to vote UKIP, because they are at heart Tories. Despite their discomfort about the BNP's agenda, they are the only party offering what they want in a left centric fashion (pay no heed to the hype, there is nothing right wing about the BNP, they are as red as red can be, just as Mussolini was), so they will go there.

For the Tories the argument is simpler, they understand markets and are not burdened by a sense of loyalty - my party right or wrong - as it were. If the party they follow stops offering what they want, they will take their vote elsewhere. Unfortunately for the Tories their top table is also hopelessly, helplessly wedded to le projet. The backbenchers will stamp their feet, and can do it all they like, it will make no difference, the only thing cast iron about Dave and his chums is that he will do everything he can to ensure that the UK remains in the EU. Just like Mubarak in Egypt, Cameron will defy the wishes of the majority to the bitter end, right up until the moment a man with a (metaphorical in i-Dave's case) gun taps him on the shoulder. It is no coincedence that one of Cameron's first gambits was to neuter the 1922 Committee.

Even so, it is easier for the Tories to unseat their leader than it is for Labour. Lest we forget, Labour have never chucked a leader out on his ear, it just doesn't work that way, and the current leader was elected by the internationalist trade unions, not the party membership.

The Labour back benchers could find themselves slapped down in short order.

The Tory backbenchers will be studiously ignored.

The LibDems, well, just look at Nick's history, they talk a brave fight, calling for a full referendum when everyone else was calling for one over Lisbon was one of the more transparent bluffs I've ever seen. They'd run a mile if they thought one was ever on the horizon. They're a blusted flush, anyway. When Farrage talks about UKIP being the proper voice of the opposition right now, I don't think he's too far from the truth.

I've always maintained that Labour sold their heritage down the river when they plumped for Blair and Brown, they abandoned their core constituency because they wanted power. That damage will take years to repair, if it ever is.

The Tories did the same thing when they elected Cameron, they'd rather be in power than have a leader who represented their views. Well, it was your party, your choice.

So, it is all about courage.

Will the MP's have the courage to jeopardise their hands being on the levers of power? Will those who vote for the big two have the courage to vote in a way which means their tribe may not have power?

Do the Labour backbench MPs have the courage to go against their newly imposed leader? Doubt it.

Do the Tory backbench MPs (who at least have two options) have the courage to either defy their leader and try to bring about a leadership challenge, or even more radically try hold him to ransom by threatening to bring the government down by taking the UKIP whip if he doesn't submit to their demands, and do they have the courage to actually do it if he calls their bluff? Doubt that too.

No, the real courage must come from the voters. Do the electorate have the courage to realise that our continued membership of the EU is the biggest issue out there? Make no mistake about it, if you want to be a resident in a territory that is a constituent part of a Federal single European state, then you want to stay in. If you don't then you want to get out. There are, and can be, no half measures here, the stated aim of the EU is clear, if you think it won't end in one bloody great big country stretching from the Bosphorus to the Atlantic, then you're kidding yourself.

Do the electorate have the courage to end their own abusive relationship with their tribal party and vote elsewhere? Is there really a desire to get out of the EU? Do people really care?

Unfortunately I fear not, and this is what the EU, the European Commission and the leaderships of the big three bank on. I'm confident that if a referendum came to pass, that an out vote would win the day, but I don't think the electorate have the gumption to force the issue through the lobby or the ballot box. I think that those who do care can make life uncomfortable for their natural parties, but I don't think they can bring the house down.

So that means it is down to our MPs to do the right thing and give us the chance to have our say, once and for all, whichever way it goes. The prospect of relying on them chills me to the bone.

Does he have any redeeming features?

This descends into trivia, but has got my goat this weekend. If you want something with a little more import, head on over to Old Holborn's place, where it would seem that some serious shit has gone down. . .

Anyway, who is it that does not have any redeeming features?

I could be talking about William Hague, who has not had a good couple of weeks as foreign secretary. Indeed he's proven that the spirit of Palmerston is alive and well, although perhaps unfortunately for Baldy Bill, it seems to be living in the body of an assistant working on a whelk stall in Folkestone.

But I'm not though.

I could be talking about the poor old Duke of York, who appears to have made some very poor choices when it comes to friends. He's accused of being boorish, heavy handed and of having bad judgement. Well, he did marry that woman after all.

But I'm not talking about him either.

I'm talking about one of the nastiest, meanest and downright objectionable people to have occupied the public stage for the last twenty five years. He is arrogant, lacking in grace and manners, bears grudges whilst suffering from a towering persecution complex, which is kind of ironic, given his history of embarking on campaigns against other individuals, and is a master of hypocrisy.

To many people he is a hero, to many more his is the role of villain, posturing, shouting and screaming, bullying and intimidating others. Who am I speaking of?

Sir Alex Ferguson, the manager of Manchester United. I have no club axe to grind here, I was the supporter of a small non-league team until they went out of business last summer. It always amuses me that the supporters of five or six clubs perpetually accuse each other of trying to buy the title, long gone are the days of the The Lisbon Lions, the Celtic team that won the 1967 European Cup when all team members were from within 30 miles of Glasgow. I have no problem with United, Ferguson I have a big problem with however.

His latest act was to refuse to speak to the media following United's 3-1 away defeat to Liverpool over the weekend, he also barred his assistant, Mike Phelan (who normally does the talking to the BBC, more of which in a moment) and senior player Ryan Giggs from talking to the media post match. It is a mark of the man that on the fairly rare occasion when United lose (and for all his faults there is no doubt that for a generation, Ferguson has proven himself to be one of the best, if not the best in the game) this is the sort of stunt that he pulls. I cannot remember any occasion where having lost we've seen Ferguson come out and say 'fair play to the opposition, they were the better team today and deserved the victory'. You see, Ferguson's United, in his mind, are never beaten, they are cheated by a dishonest opposition, a negligent or colluding referee, a poor pitch, on one famous occasions by the colour of their shirts. I'm not a psychologist, but I'm betting he's a fascinating case study and it certainly seems to work, I'm guessing that a lot of his team talks are based upon the concept of a band of brothers, struggling against a system which is set up to penalise them.

This latest episode all comes down to comments made by Ferguson following the recent game against Chelsea. United lost, and, surprise surprise, it was all down to the referee, Martin Atkinson. Atkinson, it would seem did not send off a Chelsea player that Ferguson considered should have been sent off. Ferguson said that he 'feared the worst' when he heard that Atkinson had been selected for the match and that 'You want a fair referee – or a strong referee, anyway – and we didn’t get that.'

On the sending off that wasn't he said: 'He does Rooney clear as day, [Atkinson was] six yards from it, he doesn’t do anything'. Ferguson has form in this area and is the subject of a two match suspended ban for similar displays, he may well find himself barred from the dressing room and pitchside for four games when the wheels of FA justice finish turning. I have no problem with any manager or player criticising a poor refereeing performance, but here Ferguson is questioning the integrity of a fellow professional, and that isn't on.

It is also the height of hypocrisy, given the line trotted out by Mike Phelan following an elbow that was thrown by Rooney in the game against Wolves, an assault which the referee decided did not merit ejection from the game, to the amazement of the non-United supporting public. Without any hint of irony, Phelan told the BBC that 'The referee saw what he saw and he kept the game rolling. We can’t dispute a referee’s decision. He is out there on the field to take charge of the situation.'

Quite, well, what's good for the goose, or does it only count if the decision is in United's favour? If it isn't then it can be disputed until the cows come home.

So why was Phelan talking to the BBC? Well, in 2004, the BBC made a documentary about Jason Ferguson, one of Sir Alex's sons, who was acting as a player agent. The programme made some allegations about Jason's activities and character that perhaps did not reflect well on either Ferguson. As a result of this, Ferguson never speaks to the BBC. I have never heard of any action taken against the BBC for defamation, so make your own judgements on that.

I can't stand this man, his attitude, his behaviour, his face, his inability to chew gum with his mouth closed, his habit of threatening reporters who ask him a question he doesn't like that they'll never work again. In my opinion he is a bully, who tries to use his position to belittle others and expects special treatment, treatment that would have him ranting if others received it.

He's not the only villain of the story, Wenger at Arsenal is notoriously short sighted, Carlo Ancelotti at Chelsea seems to blithely allow the most appalling behaviour from his charges, the list goes on. But Ferguson takes the biscuit. The best line I heard about him was on the radio the other day; 'He could start an argument with the Dalai Lama, in a prozac factory.'

I detest him, especially when you consider him against the character of one of his contemporaries, the late, great Sir Bobby Robson.

Stick a fork in them, they're done.

An excellent example of the BBC reporting some of the news this morning. I'll show you what I mean:

Labour have won the Barnsley Central by-election, while the Lib Dems slipped to sixth in the South Yorkshire seat.

Who finished second, then?

UKIP, the Conservatives, the BNP and an independent all finished ahead of the Lib Dems, who had finished second in the seat in 2010's general election.

Blimey, but who finished second?

Lib Dem candidate Dominic Carman said his party had been given "a kicking", while Labour's victorious Dan Jarvis said it was a message to the coalition.

I think it will be the first of a number of protracted and very painful kickings that the LimpDims will get over the next few years, it will culminate in an almighty tonking at the next GE which will probably see them in ICU on life support. Errrrm, who came second?

The contest followed the former Labour MP's resignation over his expenses.

Second place though? Who was it? 

At the general election Eric Illsley had held Barnsley Central with a majority of just over 11,000 and 47% of the vote, with the Liberal Democrats in second place.

OK, so who finished second this time?

But the MP resigned his seat after pleading guilty to falsely claiming £14,000 in parliamentary expenses. He was later jailed for a year.

Yes, yes, we know that, but let's get back to last night, you know, the new bit of the news? Who ended up in that position between first and third place?

Labour got 14,724 votes in the by-election, extending their majority slightly to 11,771, but the turnout fell to 36.5%, compared with 56.4% at the last general election.

Yes, come on, come on!

Labour took 60.8% of the vote, UKIP's Jane Collins 12.19%, the Conservatives' James Hockney 8.25%, the BNP's Enis Dalton 6.04%, Independent Tony Devoy 5.23% and the Liberal Democrats' Dominic Carman 4.18%.

Boom! There it is, even if they don't actually say UKIP came second, there it is, in plain sight, UKIP came second. Why did it take them eight paragraphs to actually give us the news?

More to the point, and at the risk of being accused of accusing the BBC of pro-Tory bias, why is there no mention of UKIP seeing off the Tories, their closest (in terms of policy) rivals?

Yes, Labour won and increased their majority, but this is Barnsley, hardly a shock that. The fact that UKIP beat the Tories, by taking getting on to half again what the Tories managed to poll is big, big news. The LibDems? Meh, their goose was cooked the moment they entered into a coalition, because there's a big difference between the voters and the top table; the voters wanted LibDem policy, the top table wanted a go at pressing the buttons, and now Clegg and chums look like the little kids who press the buttons and waggle the joystick on an arcade machine even though no-one has put any money it. They're playing at being in government, bless.

The media, and the BBC particularly, are banging on about a disaster for Clegg, which it is, but it is oh so predictable. The real sit up and take notice headline is UKIP. They were never going to win this seat, not in a million years, but I would expect them to coming in behind the big three by some distance, perhaps even behind the BNP in a Labour seat as well, the question is, how many Tory voters abandoned the ship and plumped for a seat in the anti-EU lifeboat? Their share of the vote went up from 4.7% in May to to 12.1% yesterday, they've almost trebled their share of the take. The Tories have gone from 17.3% to 8.2%, so is it fair to assume that the 8% extra UKIP gained came from the 9% loss suffered by the Tories? I doubt many of them came from the 13% that deserted the LimpDims, who probably account for the biggest portion of voters who stayed at home in a turn out that was significantly less than was seen in May.

It is always difficult to tell in a by-election, but if we see the same in a general election, where the traditional Lib Dem voters decide that they don't want anything to do with the party, (or probably more likely, Clegg, anyone notice how quiet Vince Cable has been recently?), but have no intention of turning out for the other big two, then the next general election, especially if AV is carried in May, could be very interesting indeed.

What I'd really like to see is a by-election in a 'safe' Tory seat, it would be interesting to see how UKIP perform there, and also to see how much the BNP would take from a no-hope Labour candidate.

The coverage, such as it was, of the campaign in Barnsley was dominated with people bemoaning the general crapness of the big three. Change is on the wind, it is only a little breeze at the moment, but it could turn into a gale, given the right conditions, and they are conditions the big three are unwittingly bringing about.

As for the BBC? Of course they're not biased towards the Tories, that is a ridiculous notion. The only thing that trumps their hatred of the Tories is their love of the Euro-project, and so UKIP will get no recognition at all. Indeed even if the totals for Labour and UKIP in this by-election were transposed, the news would still be about the collapse of the LibDems. Yes, it was predictable, but that's news, isn't it? As far as they are concerned we want dog bites man, what happened was man bites dog, and the EU is a big, ugly, mangy dog.

No, we don't need to know about that at all.

What changed?

So, what changed inbetween this statement from 2009 by the large foreheaded, fey, chinless wannabe PM:



And this statement from 2011 by the large foreheaded, fey, chinless actual PM?



Could it be that the EU has transformed into a shining paragon of virtue?

No.

Could it be that the Lisbon Treaty was resoundingly rejected by the Irish a second time?

No.

Could it be that Labour won the last general election, thereby ensuring there was no way for i-Dave to live up to his promise.

No.

Could it be that our Prime Minister is a duplicitous, deceitful, lying, opportunist, arseclown who would promise us all a pet unicorn if he thought it would get him one extra vote?

Could be.

Could it be that our Prime Minister is so thoroughly in thrall to the EU that he wouldn't dare go against them?

Could be.

Could it be that our Prime Minister is so scared of the EUphile LimpDims calling time on his little party, that he would sell our country's future down the river, just to ensure that he remains in power?

Could be.

Isn't it funny how the desire to get into the big chair makes you tell terrible, terrible lies, and how the desire to make sure you stay in the big chair means you piss all over everyone who put you there?

Why the hell do people persist in voting for the big three when they know what is going to happen? Is it stupidity, gullibility or negligence?

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him.

h/t to Campaign for Independent Britain via facebook.