I am not a member of a political party. I do comment on what they do, because that has impact on the lives of those in poverty in this country. And of course tax and politics are inextricably interlinked. But it has been a key feature of my work that is a politician asks for help I give it, with one exception. I have always maintained that if a party that did, in my opinion, encourage discrimination sought my advice I would not give it because that is contrary to the principles of UK charity law. For the record, for that reason I would not advise UKIP although I first made the distinction when the BNP were elected to the EU Parliament. I happen to think the BNP's assessment of UKIP correct.
I can , however, say that, as a matter of fact, I have advised members of all the mainstream parties in parliament and some of the smaller ones. I am happy to have done so.
I am however worried by news in the FT this morning that says:
Two anti-immigration politicians with criminal convictions for inciting ethnic tension were admitted on Wednesday night to David Cameron's eurosceptic alliance in the European parliament.
Reading the report in detail it appears that the offences were serious, and one recent.
The question then is a serious one. How far can a party go before it moves into endorsement of discrimination? It's an issue I need to consider.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I don’t envy you – there are no easy answers. I don’t think anyone would begrudge you though for offering sound advice to the Tories, even if they do align with unquestionables in the Euro Parliament.
As the disaster of this government continues though, and UKIP seemingly bringing out the worst in our mainstream political parties, I would think it gets harder and harder not to take sides?
As one who “took sides” many decades ago, I’d suggest that the best advice to give the Tories is that they dissolve their organisation. Any further communication may be considered detrimental to moral credibility.
One who sits on fences gets splinters in both cheeks. And maybe a chip on the shoulder.
i’d say that horse has already bolted; the tories openly discriminate against anyone unfortunate enough to have to claim benefits.
but i’m not sure that is reason enough not to work with them. i’d work with the devil himself if i thought it would further the cause i was committed to, particularly if it offered the chance of greater publicity (and so more opportunity to present your opinions to a wider audience).
there are people in all three parties who don’t fit the dominant mould (eg. Tories like Zac Goldsmith, Carswell and Steve baker and Labour’s Michael Meecher) all these overlap in that they want serious reform of the Banking system-they should form a separate party, however difficult that may be. But I can’t forgive the aforementioned Tories for supporting the vilification and harrying of the poor, ill and unemployed -utterly unforgivable.