[Part I was published here yesterday]
- A general economic policy which steers a middle way between protectionism and free trade, with protection given to vital and strategically important industries such as agriculture, energy, and steel and free trade only in those things which are not necessities.
- A repudiation of further privatisation for its own sake and a commitment to the direct public provision of all essential services such as medical treatment. We recognise that the electorate overwhelmingly want the NHS, decent state pensions, good state funded education for their children and state intervention where necessary to ensure the necessities of life. This promise is made to both reassure the public of continued future provision and to ensure that the extent of any public spending is unambiguous, something which is not the case where indirect funding channels such as PFI are used.
- The re-nationalisation of the railways, the energy companies, the water companies and any exercise of the state’s authority such as privately run prisons which have been placed in private hands.
- An education system which ensures that every child leaves school with at least a firm grasp of the three Rs and a school exam system which is based solely on a final exam. This will remove the opportunity to cheat by pupils and teachers. The standards of the exams will be based on those of the 1960s which is the last time British school exams were uncontaminated by continuous assessment, multiple choice questions and science exams included practicals as a matter of course.
- To restore credibility to our university system. The taxpayer will fund scholarships for 20 per cent of school-leavers. These will pay for all fees and provide a grant sufficient to live on during term time. Any one not in receipt of a scholarship will have to pay the full fees and support themselves or take a degree in their spare time. The scholarships will be concentrated on the best universities. The other universities will be closed. This will ensure that the cost is no more than the current funding and the remaining universities can be adequately funded.
- A clear distinction in our policies between the functions of the state and the functions of private business, charities and other non-governmental bodies. The state will provide necessary public services, business will be allowed to concentrate on their trade and not be asked to be an arm of government and charities will be entirely independent bodies which will no longer receive public money.
- A commitment to putting the family first. This will include policies which recognise that the best childcare is that given by the parents and that parents must be allowed to exercise discipline over their children. These will be given force by a law making clear that parents have an absolute right to the custody of and authority over their children, unless the parents can be shown to be engaging in serious criminal acts against their children.
- Marriage to be encouraged by generous tax breaks and enhanced child allowances for children born in wedlock.
- Defence forces designed solely to defend Britain and not the New World Order.
- A Parliament for England to square the Devolution circle. The English comprise around 80 per cent of the population of the UK, yet they alone of all the historic peoples are Britain are denied the right to govern themselves. This is both unreasonable and politically unsustainable in the long-run.
- A reduction to the English level of treasury funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will save approximately £17 billion pa because the Celts receive overall approximately £1,600 per head per annum more than the English.
- An end to foreign aid. This will save approximately £11 billion.
- A written constitution to ensure that future governments cannot abuse their power. This will be predicated on (1) the fact that we are a free people, (2) the belief that in a free and democratic society the individual can be trusted to take responsibility for his or her actions and to behave responsibly and (3) that politicians are the servants not the masters of those who elect them. It will guarantee those things necessary to a free society, including an absolute right to free expression, jury trial for any offence carrying a sentence of more than one year, place citizens in a privileged position over foreigners and set the interests and safety of the country and its citizens above the interests and safety of any other country or people.
- Citizen-initiated referenda shall be held when 10 per cent of the population have signed a petition asking for a referendum.
Those are the things which I think most of the electorate could embrace, at least in large part. At worst most people would be able to find one or two big issues they could support.
There are also other issues which the public might well be brought to support if there was proper public debate and a serious political party supporting them such as the ownership and bearing of weapons and the legalisation of drugs.
The positive thing about such an agenda is that either Labour or the Tories could comfortably support it within the context of their history.
Until Blair perverted its purpose, the Labour Party had been in practice (and often in theory – think Ernie Bevin) staunchly nationalist, not least because the unions were staunchly protective of their members’ interests and resistant to both mass immigration (because it reduced wages) and free trade (because it exported jobs and reduced wages).
For the Tories, the Thatcherite philosophy is as much an aberration as the Blairite de-socialisation of Labour. The true Tory creed in a representative democracy is that of the one nation nationalist. It cannot be repeated too often that the free market internationalist creed is the antithesis of conservatism.
The manifesto described above would not appeal in every respect to ever member of the “disenfranchised majority”. But its general political slant would be palatable to that majority and there would be sufficient within the detail to allow any individual who is currently disenchanted with politics to feel that there were a decent number of important policies for which he or she could happily vote. That is the best any voter can expect in a representative democracy. People could again believe that voting might actually change things.
Never has so much cleverness, money, time, energy and committment been applied to manage and direct the people of Britain (and the West in general) towards a progressive liberal agenda designed and promoted by big government, big business, big academia, big charity sector and big media.
Can anyone expect to survive let alone prosper who openly challenges this prevailing authordoxy of our times that has permeated every household, community and workplace in the land? In reality it is career suicide to do so.
The State payment of university fees and expenses should be reserved for those studying vital subjects like medecine and science. Recipients should also make a firm commitment to remain in this country, for an extended time to repay their debt to the nation. Personal enrichment is not a responsibility of the taxpayer. It is also time to dispense with the House of Lords, we could use their chamber for the English Parliament, which would not need nearly as many members and could surely be run cheaper.
The only thing I would suggest is that with regards to devolution, I would actually abolish the Welsh and Scottish parliaments (I am welsh) as they are both a huge waste of money and certainly in Wales, are completely pointless
Yes Lisa, especially as England is subsidising the devolved states to the tune of £17billion, a sum quite comparable to what we pay the EU right now plus all the fines and customs duties on trade with outside the EU27. Perhaps with the withdrawal of our subsidies from Scotland, its leader would be more careful with her fierce language of independence from the United Kingdom, whilst still hankering to be subjugated by the EU rules and regulations.
The SDP might tick many of these boxes. Their manifesto will be along these lines, I am sure. Whether they get any publicity though, is another matter.
I would disagree with items 25 and 28. We definitely do not need a separate English Parliament simply because the other nations have one. Are there not enough political fleas on the national dog already? Having an extra layer of administration would act like a fatberg in a sewer. I would also object to a written constitution, because our unwritten constitution has served us well for centuries and can be easily adapted as things change. Try reading the old European constitution if you want to see what a real dog’s breakfast looks like.
Top Man, Phillip. A new constitution would be a statute to be argued over then chopped and changed to suit the order of the day. The Americans and their amendments are a case in point. Not forgetting that the Acts of one administration cannot bind any future administration. There is NOTHING wrong with our existing Constitution which was written for perpetuity. The wrongness lies in the fact that we allow politicians not to use it.
Once I was told the British Constitution does exist – in a written form. Problem is, the various sections are scattered and spread all over the database (law books and so on). The Constitution is not findable in one sole place.
Should this be correct, it may be the task of locating, finding, checking and collating all the component parts would be overwhelming and “a bit expensive”. But it would be worthwhile, even as a start, Non ?
A word from a wise lawyer would be sooo useful here.
Not an expert (in anything) but I believe it has already been done I think in the 19 century by Erkine May who collated the the written and unwritten constitution into Parliamentary tradition, and I don’t know if it has another name other than Erkine May. Trouble is little sh***s like Bercow can walk all over it with impunity. Who will ensure that the constitution is adhered to? Should be the monarchy but they are useless as has now been proved.
With a totally written constitution it then comes down to the courts/ judges to rule on the matters of constitutional dispute, so a non elected body, the Supreme Court becomes the ruler?
Yes Phillip Smith, and I would also add to No. 23, Polygamy is against British Law so a dozen or so children by a man with several wives is unlawful, therefore cannot be supported by the nation’s child benefit allowance, especially as some families have been able to buy their own home just by having multiple child benefits over a decade or two, without paying a penny toward UK taxation and the National Health Insurance contribution. When China was experiencing population explosion, they limited married couples to one child, for any subsequent children, they had to pay the government for the privilege.
Our NHS, A&E, schools and housing have been facing a losing battle since the influx of unskilled, non-Engish-speaking EU citizens crammed through our open-borders from 18 ex-Communist, ex-Soviet EU-nation-states, as well as extended families of non-Christian immigrants with a custom of several wives to produce dozens of children legitimate or not, is totally unacceptable to the British constitution and the law-abiding indigenous population, and must be addressed before these outsiders are granted voting rights to defeat the genuine electorate in the next few decades.
To prevent a repeat of the Windrush fiasco, all newcomers to the British Isles must apply in writing to become British citizens, so that deportation of those over-staying their visa, can be carried out in a methodical way, at the same time ensuring the citizens’ rights can be upheld appropriately. I am an immigrant arriving in England with a work permit, enclosed with information that I could apply for British citizenship after five years’ of taxable work, which I duly did on completion of my five years employment.