As Brexit has demonstrated starkly our politicians think precious little of the opinions and wishes of the British electorate. Their antidemocratic treatment of the vote for Brexit is not an aberration. Rather it is simply a reflection of how the British elite are determined to have their own way come what may and in this unusual instance their behaviour has been forced into the open by the holding of a referendum.
The ghastly truth is that all the major mainstream parties either ignore or cynically misrepresent the issues which, apart from our relationship with the EU, are the most important to the British: the English democratic deficit following devolution to the Celtic Fringe, foreign military adventures, the suppression of free speech and the nature of the economy.
These issues are not addressed honestly because they either clash with the prevailing internationalist agenda or because to address them honestly would mean admitting how much sovereignty had been given away to the EU and through other treaties.
This antidemocratic failure to engage in honest politics is an established trait. The wilful removal from mainstream politics of vitally important issues has been developing for more than half a century. The upshot is that the British want their politics to be about something which is not currently on offer from any party with a chance of forming a government.
The British public broadly seek what these days counts as rightist action when it comes to matters such as preserving nationhood, immigration, race and political correctness, but traditional leftist policies on items such as social welfare, the NHS and the economy (has anyone ever met someone in favour of free markets and free trade who has actually lost his job because of them?).
The electorate’s difficulty is not simply their inability to find a single party to fulfil all or even most of their political desires. Even on a single issue basis, the electorate frequently cannot find a party offering what they want because all the mainstream parties now carol from the same internationalist, globalist, supranational, pro-EU, pc songsheet. The electorate finds they may have any economic programme provided it is laissez faire globalism, any relationship with the EU provided it is membership, any foreign policy provided it is internationalist and continuing public services only if they increasingly include private capital and provision. The only difference between the major parties is one of nuance.
Nowhere is this political uniformity seen more obviously than in the Labour and Tory approaches to immigration. Labour has adopted a literally mad policy of “no obvious limit to immigration”. The Tories claim to be “tough” on immigration, but then agree to accept as legal immigrants more than 100,000 incomers a year from outside the EU plus any number of migrants from within the EU (350 million have the right to settle here). There is a difference, but it is simply less or more of the same. Worse, in practice there would probably be no meaningful difference to the numbers coming whoever is in power. The truth is that while we remain part of the EU and tied by international treaties on asylum and human rights, nothing meaningful can be done for purely practical reasons. But even if something could be done, for which serious party could the person who wants no further mass immigration vote? None.
A manifesto to satisfy the public
All of this set me thinking: what manifesto would appeal to most electors? I suggest this political agenda for the “What the People Want Party”:
We promise:
- To always put Britain’s interests first. This will entail the adoption of an unaggressive nationalist ethic in place of the currently dominant internationalist ideology.
- The reinstatement of British sovereignty by withdrawal from the EU and the repudiation of all treaties which circumscribe the primacy of Parliament.
- That future treaties will only come into force when voted for by a majority in both Houses of Parliament and accepted in a referendum . Any treaty should be subject to repudiation following Parliament passing a motion that repudiation should take place and that motion being ratified by a referendum. Treaties could also be repudiated by a citizen initiated referendum.
- A reduction in the power of the government in general and the Prime Minister in particular and an increase in the power of Parliament. This will be achieved by abolishing the Royal Prerogative, outlawing the party whip and removing the vast powers of patronage available to a government.
- That the country will only go to war on a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
- An end to mass immigration by any means, including asylum, work permits and family reunion.
- An end to all officially-sponsored political correctness.
- The promotion of British history and culture in our schools and by all publicly-funded bodies.
- The repeal of all laws which give by intent or practice a privileged position to any group which is less than the entire population of the country, for example the Race Relations Act.
- The repeal of all laws which attempt to interfere with the personal life and responsibility of the individual. Citizens will not be instructed what to eat, how to exercise, not to smoke or drink or be banned from pursuits such as fox-hunting which harm no one else.
- A formal recognition that a British citizen has rights and obligations not available to the foreigner, for example, the benefits of the welfare state will be made available only to born and bred Britons.
- Policing which is directed towards three ends: maintaining order, catching criminals and providing support and aid to the public in moments of threat or distress. The police will leave their cars and helicopters and return to the beat and there will be an assumption that the interests and safety of the public come before the interests and safety of police officers.
- A justice system which guards the interests of the accused by protecting essential rights of the defendant such as jury trial and the right to silence, whilst preventing cases collapsing through technical procedural errors.
- Prison sentences that are served in full, that is, the end of remission and other forms of early release. Misbehaviour in prison will be punished by extending the sentence.
- An absolute right to self-defence when attacked. The public will be encouraged to defend themselves and their property.
[To be continued tomorrow in Part II]
I enjoyed your article. You have a lifetime of many hours of fun ahead of you polishing up each item and looking at results of different countries and previous debates who have considered each bit.
You will come to realise that ” education is the Key ” ( Tony Blair, Idiot Crossman etc ) ( Socialism destroyed it.). From the mothers input up to universities. It has since the 60’s, all been diverted to serve Social experiments . Let’s take mothers. Who taught kids for many years that Knives were cowardly. How to fight bullies, Wrestling was the normal way of establishing pecking orders whithout damage.. Fighting with fists was for older boys and was taught or learned together with its gentlemans rules which only the undesirable would break. Taken together with with ” sticks and stones ” etc . Then 11 plus taught you that some were different ( If not deserved ) And many other little rules of behaviour shaped and built our society. We were taught to be little gentlenen
It had huge problems. Labour tried to cure them and created much worse. And threw out the baby. Every time. Our present broken society is a testament to Labours dangerous ignorance and foolishness. Together with foolish child mothers, unable to look after their babies ( Dollies ) and with no culture to pass on. Tories stood bye, feeling guilty and virtuous, and not stopping it. Leaving it all to Grannies with more sense than the lot of ’em. It has taken a long time but Socialism has produced enough ignorance to be self supporting.
Phew.!. I don’t know where that came from. But, I suppose it is indicative of how complicated some simple statements can become.
In spite of the complete drubbing the Tory party has just received, Mrs May as usual has put her fingers in her ears and is now blaming the Brexiteers for not accepting her WA – if they had voted for it, Brexit would already be happening according to her.. Of course this is a gross distortion of the truth.. Mrs May must be challenged on her contemptuous way of continually describing her WA as ‘Brexit’ when she knows and we know and she knows we know that WA is BRINO – BREXIT IN NAME ONLY and would keep us under the rule of the EU without means of escape. She must be challenged to her face every time she tries this slight of hand to get her/EU deal passed. She is showing us how well she is versed in the disreputable,dishonest EU way of ‘negotiating’. Mrs May is thoroughly DISHONOURABLE. and the sooner we are rid of her the better. . .
Hear hear, Vera
When I got up this morning, and before I visited this site today, I was thinking to myself about the ‘idea’ of a new political party, which I tentatively called “The Different Party”.
Following the local election results, it has become clear to me that a huge majority of the British electorate are fed up with politics in this current form, and can’t even bring themselves to vote for anybody, not even an independent or smaller party.
So I found another interesting piece of ‘synchronicity’ to come across this article here today, and I look forward to reading the concluding parts over the next few days.
What I do feel will appeal more to voters is if we had The Different Party actually trying to do something radically different. Of course there would need to be some kind of ‘manifesto’ but this should be kept as simple and straight-forward and easy to understand as possible. And representatives from this party will need to be open, honest, and straight-talking.
The Different Party would reject the ‘traditional’ party labels of ‘left’ and ‘right’. And it would not be looking for ‘career politicians’ either, just ordinary people who want an opportunity to make a genuine difference. And it would look for its policy-makers to be ‘specialists’ in their field of expertise.
That’s all I’ve got for starters, perhaps more pondering is required…
That’s great Stuart. Now, how will you make practical progress in a country with a FPTP concrete wall around election success?
Rob, I don’t have all the answers, but the way I see it is that FPTP works for the ‘big parties’ while we have a majority of people not even bothering to vote. If just half of the two-thirds (on average) of people who traditionally ‘don’t vote’ could be encouraged to ‘vote differently’ then the Establishment LibLabCon’s grip on power could be destroyed in just one general election.
But as I said, I don’t have the answers, and I don’t know how this could be achieved at the moment. But it can’t be achieved by a party that sits on one side of the political spectrum trying to appeal to a limited number of voters.
I made a little suggestion in a reply that got un accepted somehow. I don’t understand why so i’;ll repeat it.just in case.
Have you thought of a sort of platform party whid could promote several diverse protest items. These not being main party aims or just ignored or even local,could lead to education of supporters and their mutual support with common services from legal to digital or refreshments..
Just a thought . ’cause every body is fed up with the main party con.
A Political Party’s manifesto should be a notice of implementation of new ideas, and adjustment to old ideas.
However, a manifesto has a very limited life with some Parties. The Lib/Dem manifesto of 2010 promised the cut to University fees and lasted only a few weeks, due to that Party being offered some power with the Tory’s coalition Government. It has to be seen for what it is, – Sod All ! ….. We now see how this has played out with the voters in the spate of local elections. Votes have been cast for an increase in Lib/Dem Councillors, and it is a reasonable acknowledgement that voters have limits to their memories, even though that Party paid the penalty in 2015 !
I am sick and tired of the FPTP vote system. It encourages so called ‘tactical voting’ where votes are cast, not for what a voter wants, but against what they don’t want. – What a total nonsense that is, and we are told to call it Democracy ! This Nation must grow up, especially now that Parliament has become unfit for purpose ! ….. In view of the changing stance of some Parties, it is necessary to read manifestos, not because they are hard and fast contracts, but because they give an update to general style. – The Queen’s Speech gives a better take on things, although some of those items bite the dust, and is delivered after the voting has been done. – But what value is a manifesto ?
Lib/Lab/Con all have form on this, and that is why I support one of the New Parties that follow the Brexit requirement. Without any Government History, they could hold to their promises, and yet this brings about CHANGE ! Ooer, change ! Are voters so daunted by this, that they hold to uselessness rather than show a little boldness ? We can just poddle along, without change, and all slide down the pan together as a Nation, but that will go against the very DNA of the British. IT’S YOUR CHOICE MATE !
Mike I hear ya.
Trouble is, when push comes to shove, how the hell are you gonna get past “But if I don’t vote Tory, Labour will get in!” – and vice versa.
Too many people on ID have said what you say, but I’ll listen to the first person coming up with answer to that problem.
Spoiled votes are the key. Insist on their count . And make your spoiler as pertinant or funny or interesting as possible without being illegal. Ask some other party activist what to say and ask for a count . say ” Vote Monstr raving etc Use your outrage.
I like reading what individuals think would appeal to ‘most electors.’ I would guess that the above list would get 10% to 20% approval.
To start off on a contentious note – the Good Lord gave us brains and it it would be the ultimate discourtesy to decline to use them.
By whom are “human rights” declared? So-called “human rights” are actually privileges we accord to others in our own self-interest. With privileges comes the responsibility to uphold those privileges for others, otherwise they are negated.
Privileges may be and indeed are withheld in some appropriate measure from those judged to be miscreants, so that they can come to value these privileges for themselves and uphold them for others (you never appreciate what you have until someone takes it away).
The fundamental privilege is to be permitted freedom to live and act in any way that is not likely to harm the health and privileges of others (including future generations) even if disagreeable to them, nor would impact upon their use of their property. All proposed law should be measured against this standard.
Not that dissimilar to “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind . . . and thy neighbour as thyself” from the Christian perspective (although “love” may not be a sufficiently precise term for legal purposes).
This works for me
I would definitely vote for this.
All interaction in human activity is governed by what we now call “human rights” which in today’s world have morphed into the denial of human rights.
Over the last 150 years there has been an upheaval in human rights with the Judaeo/Christian version being replaced by a liberal democracy version where science an the State have replaced God as the maker and owner of human life, with the right to the truth being replaced by the right to an opinion, with the right to a natural family being replaced by the rights of the individual, with the rights to the fruits of our labour being replaced by the rights of investors/markets, and the right to a value and destiny that nothing in this world can confer being replaced by the right to exploit human life as just another form of animal life.
Points 1-15 work for me. Looking forward to part 2.