I would not vote for the Conservatives because their leader rode a bicycle to work, spent thousands on an eco-makeover for his house, or felt the pain of a Norwegian glacier. Nor would I vote for the Liberal Democrats because their leader has stopped driving his big Jag. Nor would I vote new Labour because its leaders claim to have pioneered the politics of ethical behaviour.

This fashion for ethical politics is a desperate attempt to compensate for the melting away of principles. Politicians who have no distinctive vision of the future are reduced to standing on their personal record of ethical correctness. Instead of a battle between competing worldviews, we are left with a contest to see which party leader has the biggest windmill.

These “I’m a good girl, I am!” gestures are designed to demonstrate that one is a decent person. They are the modern equivalent of the affectations of the genteel mode of living in Victorian times. Ming Campbell has left his Jag in the garage in the way that some might leave the bottle alone for Lent. David Cameron’s domestic windmill is the energy equivalent of wearing a charity wristband (and likely to have about as much impact in the real world).

Yet there is something more going on here than mere spin. The message behind the new ethical politics appears to be that it is almost unethical to be human today. Just about everything associated with the progress of humanity from the caves to the 21st century seems to be on the “bad” list. From blue/green Dave Cameron to Newsnight’s own “ethical man”, we are lectured to do less, give up more, leave a smaller “footprint” on the planet.

Michael Meacher, the former Labour Environment Minister, has described humanity as a “virus” on the Earth. And one prominent environmental writer thinks it is more ethical to be gay than straight, since having children is a crime against the planet. To live, it seems, is to be guilty of stomping on the face of Gaia.

Just asking, but who gave environmentalists a monopoly on the meaning of ethics? Why is the ethical option always to lower expectations, to impose restraints, to bash humanity? From the point of view of a more rational, human-centred morality, it ought to be perfectly ethical to experiment on animals, to build new nuclear power stations, to start a population boom or even (whisper it) to drive a dreaded 4x4.

And there should surely be a moral right to reach for your gun any time a politician tries to play the ethical card.

• APOLOGIES to Billie Piper but is Margaret Hodge, the Labour Employment Minister, auditioning for a role as the Rose Tyler of British politics? Speculating in horror about her Barking constituents voting for the British National Party, Ms Hodge sounded like Doctor Who’s naive sidekick emerging from the Tardis to face the latest collection of creepy aliens. “What ARE these ’orrible creatures?”

  The overblown panic about the BNP confirms that politicians live on a different planet. Most seem to view the electorate as an ignorant mob easily manipulated by racist liars, assuming voters must be as thick as the Barking BNP councillor who resigned, complaining that political discussions “go right over my head”.

  If some more white working-class people do vote for the BNP, it is likely to be less because they want to give a thumbs-up to that obnoxious outfit’s programme than because they want to give two fingers to the patronising aliens from the political class. And far from being slow, they seem to have been pretty quick to grasp the fashion for playing the victim card in Ms Hodges’s world.

  Mick.Hume@spiked-online.com

Times Recommends

• We must lead the world to stability
• The recession's a blessing in disguise
• The guilty men who sent mum to Iceland