I agree with Nigel Farage on three things, and they are not small things. I would love to see David Cameron toppled; I do not think nations should blithely do anything just because "business leaders" tell them it is the right thing to do; and I would love to see smoking in pubs. (Naturally, I still believe in the rights of workers not to be given lung cancer by their employer's customers, so these pubs would have to be self-manned. Drone pubs, if you like, where death is administered anonymously. I think this would work well, on an entry-fee basis; business leaders would no doubt point out that jobs would be lost).

Where we differ – and this would probably be a sticking point – is on the matter of Farage's importance to British politics. To put Farage at the centre of political debate gives credence to the idea that any of the fix we're in is rooted in our already flaky union with Europe. It's a credence that is entirely unwarranted. But here I appear to fall foul of the entire cadre of psephologists and commentators: I do not think that a party without a single MP is that important.

I don't think we should be worrying ourselves about whether they have any policies (besides leaving the European Union and cutting immigration which, when you examine them closely, turn out to be the same policy). I don't think we should fuss if they're reduced to buying their ideas off the shelf from rightwing thinktanks – especially considering that this is what the Conservatives are doing much of the time, and considering, furthermore, that most rightwing thinktanks are just rehashing policies that you can watch fail, for free, in the US.

I do not think, if Ukip looks set to divide the Tory core, that that is cause for anyone's concern except the Conservatives. I do not care to spend a minute's more time wondering what they'll do to consolidate their "triumph", regardless of whether or not I think they'll consolidate it by simply reiterating the same inchoate philosophy and hoping never to be tested on it.

If the Tories choose to swerve to the right, I don't see how that could possibly be worse than the direction they have already chosen, in which they cut immigration in the wrong places, like student visas, attack the unemployed, scam the disabled, dismember education and outsource or flog anything valuable they can see – to the inevitable profit of someone they were probably at school with.

Every time I say "why do we even care about Ukip?", someone says "you can't ignore the groundswell. The only reason we've even got this nationwide political disaffection is that, whenever people who like Ukip vote Ukip, people like you say 'so what?'."

The fact is that Ukip has done well out of an election based in Conservative heartlands, and it has done better than anyone predicted. It has 147 councillors. The Green party has 141. The Greens have an MP and two London assembly members. Many of those will have "split" the Labour vote, as first-past-the-post analysis terms it, but there's no shortage at all of high-profile, rightwing Greens.

When Cameron set out to make himself more likable to voters in our naive year of 2010, he did so by allying himself to huskies, and not to smokers in pubs. He did that because he thought there was a groundswell of people who believe in anthropogenic climate change, and know that there is no individual solution to it, that only a political solution will do.

These people are legion. If there aren't more Greens, it's because voters, apparently egregiously, still trusted the three main parties at least to buy into the principles of an environmental agenda that is globally agreed to be the most important one we face. Had we known how toothless the Lib Dems would be in coalition, and how facile Cameron's commitment to his promises was, there would doubtless be more than one Green MP. And that would be one + x more than Ukip – and, I believe, one + x more than Ukip will ever have.

I thought for a long time this was a PR problem the Green party had. I thought Greens were too hardline about the evils of business, too sudden and too bull-headed with their co-operatives agenda, too orthodox in their amalgamation of environmental issues with those of social justice. But this is not their problem; this is our problem. It doesn't matter if you vote Green or not: if you believe in man-made global warming then it is for you to make known that you, too, are a groundswell.

If you were to walk up and down a high street with a picture of Nigel Farage and one of Natalie Bennett, we already know which one people would recognise.

But that's not because he's knocking on more doors and putting out more leaflets. It's not because he has more support. It is because he is on telly more often. There is a critical failure of all media, but most pressingly of broadcasting balance, here. They should adjudicate airtime not on the basis of who's splitting whose vote, but on the basis of who people actually vote for.

It may be distressing to see a party whose third, stabilising leg of policy is to stop gay people getting married with fractionally more councillors than a party aiming to build a new energy balance that might feasibly be of use to generations to come. But we cannot give in to distress. Bear in mind that Ukip's local election supremacy is just that, fractional, and the Greens trump them in parliament.

Write to Ofcom. Complain to everybody. This is not balance.

Twitter: @zoesqwilliams