Latest from UKIP Daily

Aidan Powlesland’s Statement for the Leadership Election

To recreate the buccaneering spirit of the first Elizabethan age and the dynamism of the early Victorian era vote for me. I will make us the party of wealth creation.

We would use free markets to do this not because of their greater creativity and productivity but because we love freedom. The freedom of voluntary relationships, from which you can walk away, is a better model for society than any despotism of the few or the many.

If you want to reform tax to create wealth you should vote for me.

My UKIP would simplify tax and reduce the burden of it on British industry by 25% (£82bn) per annum more than any other candidate would do.

If you want to see bureaucracy rolled back you ought to vote for me. A UKIP led by me would advocate, for example, repeal of 80% of the 21 clusters of employment regulations passed since 1963 thereby boosting the economy by £60 billion per year.

UKIP should stand for sweeping aside all tariffs and restrictions unilaterally so British industry will be able to buy whatever it needs at the best possible value for money and thereby become the most productive in the world. If you want free trade from UKIP you must vote for me.

By contrast to the other candidates I have a programme of 36 steps by which I would restore the government to surplus. If you want fiscal responsibility from UKIP, not David’s soft promise of it, you have to vote for me.

If you want to shift our society from doing nothing to earning its way in the world, if you want more individuals to stand on their own feet we must reform welfare. 63% of households receive a welfare benefit. If you want a reduction in spending on welfare, by 43%, to return it to the level it was at in real terms in 1999 and thereby free £114 billion p.a. for productive use so as to power a tide of wealth creation then vote for me.

Vote for me if you want to see UKIP reform housing. Mine is the programme that will revolutionize the over-managed housing market.

If you want a well judged implementation of direct democracy that preserves leadership vote for me.

Of all the candidates it is I who would most improve defence. Not just by increasing spending on it by 78%, £25 billion, to put us on a par with Russia, but also by re-focusing on next-generation doctrine and technology. If you care most of all about defence I am the candidate to vote for. Every increase in expenditure advocated in my manifesto would be paid for by greater offsetting cuts elsewhere as you can see below. This is not true of any other candidate.

If you want to see us protect the UK citizens living in the EU from having to choose between their adopted and native countries you will vote for me. I will shame Conservatives, Labour and the EU to get those 1.2 million people a dual passport.

If you want to see domestic security strengthened then you will vote for me because I want UKIP to increase MI5 officers by 70%, MI6 officers by 30%, armed police officers by 100% and spending on counter-terrorist police by 100% too.

A WEALTH CREATION BUDGET
Proposals favouring the poor are red and proposals favouring the wealthy blue.
BILLIONS OF £’sSPENDING

REDUCTIONS

From welfare 145bn.End (tapered) state pensions for the 40% with gross incomes of £35,000+.
From welfare 227bn.Abolish tax credits.
From welfare 315bn.Cap benefit at 75% (£11,250 p.a.) of earnings on the minimum wage.
From welfare 413bn.End fuel allowance and sickness and disability pension for the 30% with gross incomes of £43,000+.
From welfare 514bn.End child, maternity and paternity benefits
From administration30bn.Make two Ministries (Sport, Tourism and Heritage plus Overseas Aid) redundant (£14nb). Shrink Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plus Business, Innovation and Employment (£15bn). Scrap the Barnett formula (£1bn).
From infrastructure14bn.Scrap HS2 & Housing (£8bn). Shrink the BBC budget 50% (£2bn). Scrap rail subsidies (£4bn).
REVENUE INCREASES
From ending tax exemptions16bn.On sale of residences.
From GP visits2bn.£15 per visit.
Knock-on-gains11bn.Reduced Interest (£2 billion). Increased Investment (£9bn).
REVENUE REDUCTIONS & SPENDING INCREASES
Tax reductions101bn.Reduce Rates by 80% (£21bn), Stamp Duty 50% (£6bn), Fuel Duty 30% (£8bn) and corporation tax (£56bn). End green (£4bn) and inheritance taxes (£4bn). Reduce TV Licenses 50% (£2bn)
Defence+25bn.+9,000 new infantry to eastern Europe. An underwater underground SSBN pen in the Falklands (see acupblog.wordpress.com)
Security+2bn.Including 70% more MI5 officers
Venture capital prizes, to kick-start innovation and profits for tax payers. +5bnA VASIMR asteroid belt mining rocket (£2bn) to generate 0.15% of UK GDP from the belt by 2027. A crewed interstellar ship design (£0.1bn). An unmanned interstellar probe prototype (£0.09bn), a flying aircraft carrier (£0.35bn) other (£2.46bn)
NET IMPROVEMENT54bn.

A reviewer of one of my inventions once wrote that I had avoided all the mistakes of the past in order to make bigger ones in the future. As a history graduate of the University of Cambridge I know that it is not what happened in the past but what you learn from it that matters. My rivals think that only a change of clothes is needed to save UKIP or, even less realistically, that we hardly need saving at all.

Of all the candidates I am the most painful candidate to vote for because I am the one who will change us most.

In my forties I quickly grew a company from 500 crew to 2,000. It was not by being a gentleman. I am the candidate who will do what is necessary to distill the best in us to win.

I will change us most because I love liberty rigorously and radically and because I am the only candidate committed to our reaching, literally, for the stars.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Aidan Powlesland
About Aidan Powlesland (7 Articles)
I am an entrepreneur. I stood for parliament for UKIP in the general election in Harrow East in 2015 the year in which I became funding Officer for the Suffolk South constituency.

33 Comments on Aidan Powlesland’s Statement for the Leadership Election

  1. Would you object. It doesn’t matter, you’re going to be called ” Q “.

  2. i know.

    Good though. Innee.

  3. From what i’ve seen of Aidan I cannot doubt his sincerity. Unfortunately I can’t see him getting the public’s attention and for that reason will not be voting for him. Sorry if this seems harsh. I wish him well and hope he has a future within the party, whoever the leader is.

    • Dear Nick,

      If you are a non UKIP member who cares most of all about controlling immigration you will vote for UKIP. If you are a non UKIP member who cares most of all about ending Islam in the UK you will vote for UKIP.

      Peter Whittle says we need to own the issue of immigration. Anne-Marie says we need not only to own the issue of Islam but we need to do so much more than we have been doing about it.

      Anyone who agrees with Anne-Marie (or to a lesser extent John) or Peter (or to a lesser extent David Kurten), anyone for whom the primary issue is immigration or Islam or both will vote for UKIP anyway and would have done so in June 2017. Nonetheless, in June 2017, our party was eviscerated in the election.

      We already own these two issues and any voter who puts them first is already bound to vote for us. In June 2017, shorn for the first time of the vote catching policy of Brexit, these two issues, the ones we most own, led us to our worst ever defeat. If it is the votes we want (never mind attention) then one thing is sure – you can’t do much worse, because with our vote as low as it is there is not much more room for it to fall further, than carry on ahead owning the issues of immigration and Islam with Anne-Marie, John, Peter or David.

      If it is votes we want (instead of just feeling our own heroism) it is not enough to not be carrying on ahead with Peter, David, Anne-Marie (even more so) or John (who declared at a hustings yesterday where I was too his support for Anne-Marie’s ideas and the prominence he would give her, and them, within his team a statement that understandably prompted her to mention John’s deputy’s, Bill Etheridge’s, description of her as a fascist).

      To capture the voter’s attention it was in June proven that you need something different to add to our already owned issues of immigration and Islam.

      The economy is the something that I would fight for, and the protection of it by a strong defence) because everything else that is not feel-good depends on it.

      There are very few voters beyond UKIP, I submit, whose vote would not be drawn to a politics that would make the Kingdom rich.

  4. Poundland,
    I agree with most of your approaches and aims, and I like your beliefs. However.
    I spent 50 years fghting to save companies from liquidation. With varying degrees of success. Although banks always appeared to be the problem, and they certainly didn’t always help. The only institution which really drove a co., into that position was tax. Some blamed Banks others Blamed competition and so on. But tax sucked the lifeblood from businesses. 80% of everything is tax.

    Anyway what I’m getting to is
    1. I’ve been trying to explain this to people for 50 years. The number who can be bothered to follow it or even beleieve it, is almost zero.

    2.Your chances of using it to get leadership are zero

    3. This is for the future. After we’ve got back some
    credibility, lost by the party in the last year.

    4 For credibility we need a (a la Nigel )a simple, simple, simple, message. backed by simple obvious answers. Your agend provides the basis for : AFTER WE LEAVE. Which is on everyones mind but kept unclear by remainers to generate fears for the future. We ‘ve got to stop them and that’s where you come in.

    as usual , I’m full of good ideas
    1. Someone to generate interest , belief, and trust for leader.
    2 Limited simple resonating slogans. Max three. The important ones
    3.1 WE want our country back. Bloody well get on with it.
    3’2 Stop P.C. …….This for AMW and includes Islam in a more indirect way. Everyone hates what they think is PC
    3.3 Post Brexit is good Etc your job.

  5. Pound land, your the man!

  6. Looks like poundland has shut up shop for the night.
    He really ought to call it a day as his leadership vote will be derisory.
    Despite having some good ideas ( and a lot of the usual faux sinclair type economics which are a washout).

  7. Aidan, preventing the worst types of criminals from entering Britain would be hugely cost effective i.e less money spent on police; fewer translation services when they are arrested; NH savings when cases of assault are lessened; less money spent on court costs (the bloody judiciary) when charged and tried (inter alia translations again); less money spent on prison provision; less money spent on their mental health issues; less money spent on lawyers when HM Gov. attempt to deport them; less money spent on their inevitable appeals; less money spent on their travel when deported. Less injured parties in both crimes against the person and property e.g. no pensioners fleeced of savings. Less traumatised children and women when subjected to sexual and bodily assault requiring lengthy on-going treatment. Less families traumatised by these offences. Miniscule amounts (but generous compared to costs saved), to be paid to British employees of the ‘Distant vetting scheme’ to achieve these results. Staff in those centres to be rotated to avoid the chance of corruption. We give the people what they say they want – they’d each like a 3 bedroom house wouldn’t they? They’re concerned about terrorism? That’s because they’re told to be by the mass of attention the MSM and Government give the subject and are not made aware of the violent deaths and severe, crippling injuries caused by accidents. Massive savings for the NHS here if the public are educated. And when did the Government give us anything that we want – except a referendum? Those in UKIP in other specialised fields could contribute much more than I’ve done here. Good luck.

  8. I read the page on housing on your blog. I noticed what looks like a typo…

    “In 2015 there were 2.6 people per house.”
    ” …2.3 per household in 2015″
    Is that a typo or different data?

    Do you have anyone who helps by reading and pointing out possible errors?

    • This was not an error. 2.3 people per household is 2.6 people per house because there are roughly 10% more households than houses.

  9. On the BBC may I suggest turning the licence payers into the owners of the BBC?

    • About your other question of 10:56 pm time does not always permit of proof reading. Indeed, I am reminded of Blaise Pascal’s remark to a friend of his in a letter apologising for not having had time to make his letter shorter. How well this applies to me.
      I think your suggestion for the BBC is intriguing.

  10. Dear Citizen Cain,

    Winter fuel allowance is £200 to £300 (for the type of pensioner I defined) but you are right it is not £400. I apologise for my error. My error was typographical not born of ignorance. I am afraid my enthusiasm to answer you promptly ran away with me and caused me to not correctly transcribe the figure I had checked before replying to you. So a slip occurred but not, perhaps, so astonishing as you supposed.

    In the matter of housing benefit it is paid out depending on circumstances to the poor (whether pensions or not) but the imaginary pensioner I described would be eligible for pension credit and pensioners on that credit (basically those with no savings, assets, other income or partner which is by no means the average state pensioner) are eligible for housing benefit just as I wrote. The amount is limited, depending on circumstances, and varies from local council to local council. Nonetheless £100 per week is a normal entitlement if you are on pension credit and have a single bedroom in rented accommodation (remember than many state pensioners living in houses that they own and those indeed would not receive any benefit which is why your statement that most do not receive £100 per week of housing benefit is compatible with my figures so that the disagreement you suppose between us on point of fact may not exist).

    I think your example of a pensioner visiting their doctor once per month is tendentious. If the first visit convinced the doctor substantial treatment was required the patient would be referred to hospital and no further cost would fall on them. Conversely if the first visit suggested a minor ailment it is likely that the cure could be effected there and then or with a single return visit. Of course pensioners tend to be ill more often but not, in the average case, 6-12 times per annum I believe.

  11. Dear Citizencain (Part II, the final part, of my reply)

    …. The industries that you mention are characteristic of a former age. The way to nurture our economy is not to pick and choose who is strategic but to let buyers decide who to spend their money on and leave industry to grow by giving customers they want.
    Nations, such as the People’s Republic of China, who take money from their own tax payers and doll it out to their friends in local industry (including steel) are draining capital from more productive parts of their economy. If, like the inward looking EU, the People’s Republic of China chooses to protect its industries with tariffs, or subsidies the PRC will become a backwater while the engine of growth bypasses them and settles in places where competition, in all its brutal and collaborative glory, is working its magic such as I would see it do in the UK.
    Change is desirable because things are never as good as they could be but it is painful (and wonderful)l too.
    If the only nations in the world were on the one hand, the UK and, on the other hand, the People’s Republic of China and the EU then your argument would have more strength. In certain exceptional cases I do support trade retaliation. But not when there are another 192 countries in the world. At least some of them will buy our stuff so long as it is the best, and from that base our stuff will get better until our stuff will be so much better that the Chinese and Germans will smuggle it in or, if they are prevented from doing so their ineffective system will come down as happened in the USSR.
    In the Napoleonic Wars France, having conquered an area rather similar to that occupied today by the EU, attempted to close all of the European lands to British trade in order to break the British economy and win the war. The result was Europe got poorer relative to the rest of the world as European industry, starved of British inputs, became relatively less productive and the dominance of British industry throughout the rest of world increased.
    My policy programme would make the Kingdom’s economy hard again, as it was 160 years ago, and this creative process is by its nature also destructive of those businesses who have lost their way.

  12. Aidan in your MasterPlan you propose sending 9,000 Infantry soldiers to Eastern Europe. Where in Eastern Europe? Why not 8,000 soldiers?
    Are you suggesting that Russia is our enemy and that we should be involved or even precipitate another major European conflict?
    What is your position on the Crimea? Who is fundamentally responsible for the corrupt government in Ukraine? What do you think of the Visegrad group? If you were Hungarian which party would you vote for?

    • Dear Citizenkain,

      1,000 of the infantry (a battle group) would be deployed to the Falkland (see my article at acupblog.wordpress.com for why).

      The balance of 8,000 (a division) would be deployed to our eastern European NATO allies (so, say, 3,000 to the Baltic States and 4,000 to Poland and 1,000 to Norway) or, if the government was bolder, say, 3,000 to the Baltic States, 2,000 to Poland, 1,000 to Norway, 1,000 to Ukraine and 1,000 to the Republic of Moldova (if either of the latter two wanted them).

      Russia has the unique privilege of being the only nation in the last decade to have invaded two independent nations. Does that make it an enemy? Well, in accordance with my interpretation of the UK’s undertakings in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances 05-Dec-1994 it certainly would have, in 2014, if the Coalition government had had the lessons of 1914 and 1939 in mind but as it did not have those lessons in mind or, if it did, was too pragmatic to act accordingly evidently not.

      I do not think of the Russian Federation as an enemy of the UK. On the contrary, I am in favour of offering it a visa free tourist regime in return for it offering one to us as a token of our good will. However, it has been conveyed to the Russian government, by the Kingdom’s inaction, that Russia can invade other nations with impunity. I am in favour of increasing our, or starting a, military commitment to those nations mentioned. I favour this not because we are Russia’s enemy but because we wish it to be deterred from invading independent nations in the future.

      Apropos the Crimea Russia invaded. No position is needed on that.

      If I had to name one source for the corruption in Ukraine (where as it happens I have lived) it would be the USSR which, by systematically dismantling civil society throughout its jurisdiction, replaced what came before 1917 with a world in which most citizens came to distrust each other and strangers even more. In a world without trust, or civil society corruption tends to follow if only to deal with the insane regulations of a tyrannous state.

      In other words I blame history for the corruption in Ukraine.

      I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the Visegrad group or which Hungarian party I would vote for.

  13. Dear citizencain,

    Our Kingdom has become soft. What I mean by this is that relative to, say, 1860, when ours was the most productive nation on earth, we have become relatively less good at paying our way in the world. Not to earn our living as a Kingdom but to make our fortune as a Kingdom what is required is that we produce goods and services that people choose to buy because they are better or less expensive or both than anybody else’s. One thing that positively militates against this goal is protecting industries that are uncompetitive. When a factory is saved by subsidy or some equivalent protective tariff what is happening is that that capital is not being put to better use elsewhere. The steel, shipbuilding and textile industries of the 1860s were not the strongest in the world because of the actions of government ministers. They were the strongest in the world because they were the best in the world. One of the things I most love about UKIP is that it is the party of free speech. I love the fact that we are free to say any old rubbish we like and think the nonsense that many of us sometimes will. In the Suffolk constituency where I stood this summer for parliament, and where I am secretary of our branch organisation, one of my assenters for this leadership election flies the Confederate battle flag in his front garden. I do not count this as an example of any old rubbish of thinking which he should be free to express. Although if it was a rubbish wrong-headedness I would fight to protect his right to express it. On the contrary, I love the fact his interest in history is so great that he knows the difference between a Confederate flag and a Confederate battle flag. I love the fact that this, as I hereby testify, good gentleman lives so vivid an imaginative life that he would transport some particular piece of history into his garden and show it to all who pass by. But I tell you sir, my pen friend Citizencain, that for myself I think the idea of government choosing which businesses deserve tax payer handouts and which do not is an example of wrong headedness and what I mean by soft. I would preserve, nurture and fuel the strategic industries of the Kingdom by freeing all industries equally in a level playing field from the chains of an artificial bubble in the price of buildings, by reducing the immense and crushing burden of tax and over-regulation, by allowing them to purchase all that they need for the best value for money from wherever and then letting them get on with it. (To be continued …..)

    • You fail to include the fraud and espionage ripe in the China model which has obtained much of its technology by patent stealing and unfair terms of trade.
      As anyone with a knowledge of steel knows much of the chinese production is third rate quality but on price it is capable of wiping out entire industries. hence we no longer have a lock making industry ( entirely developed by England – Willenhall based). We now import locks from USA and Germany ( industries protected by trade barriers) and of course China.
      Your model fails to make a country self sufficient in key sectors. By your theory we could import 100% of our food.. even you must realise that would be dangerous and unwise.
      Despite your wealth and status you have very little understanding of international trade and the necessary protection that may be correct for a nation state such as the UK.

  14. Dear Citizencain,

    Dear Citizencain,

    In reverse order leaving your first question to be answered under separate cover:

    • The ballot paper starts arriving today, tomorrow or the day after. What better time to publish than when my words might be fresh in the elector’s mind?
    • You ask what percentage should go to paying for the visit to the doctor but I believe your question is actually one of fact. I mean that the percentage will depend on what the individual pensioners circumstances are. For a state pensioner without savings, other income or assets, who is in receipt of an £8,300 per annum state pension, plus pension credit of £700, fuel allowance of £400, housing benefit of £5,200 per annum and council tax exemption of £1,200 per annum so receiving, in effect, £15,800 gross the cost of the doctor’s visit would be 0.1% of income. One of the advantages of charging £15 for a doctor’s visit is that visits for insubstantial problems would tend to cease and the benefit of this would be the doctor being able to give more time and attention to those, such as pensioners, whose problems are more likely to be substantial so in effect the charge, all other things being equal, would slightly shift the focus of doctor’s work in general toward pensioners and perhaps this element might make my proposal more palatable to your concern.

    Aidan

    • Your ignorance about pensions is astonishing.
      Winter fuel allowance is £200.Pension credit is based upon savings and requires specific application and means testing.
      Most pensioners to my knowledge do not receive any housing benefit at all and there is no fixed amount for those who are means tested. Many councils operate a partial or even a full payment of the council tax from pensioners.
      Someone visiting a doctor say 12 times a year would therefore be parting with 1.5% of their pension. I asked the question to test your competence and you failed this test.
      However I wish you well as you are a jovial soul.
      By the way what do you make of the YI Sheffield cancellation?

  15. Aidan has done us a great service in leading on the economy. It’s too libertarian and not nationalist enough, and doesn’t go far enough to appeal to working people, but at least it recognises the primacy of economic policy and all that’s attendant on it.

    If we really want to control immigration and stop Islamification, this is what we have to do – create a new unique selling point based on wealth creation and its related bread and butter issues that affect everyones’ lives, all of which require money.

    This is the indirect approach, which some of you here disdain and won’t even engage on. But it’s the only way. People will not vote directly for what will inevitably be denounced as anti one section of the population in the massive numbers we need to have any power, or even influence.

    Without this realism, so many comments here are just railing. We have to get clever to have any chance.

    • I assume your pal Aidan is an advocate of open door immigration to match his open door open house open country trade policy. Quercus you are a socialist so I find it hard to believe that the policies that would see the end of all heavy industry in the UK are attractive to you. Why on earth should we import steel high grade steel* and things that we are traditionally expert in eg train rolling stock? (*Except of course the specialist steels made still in Sweden).

  16. When I first looked at this article, there were no comments.
    I first “met” Aidan when I recently viewed the latest Hustings, quite honestly I didn`t know what to make of him, due to the format of the session, he obviously struggled to bring across his fertile visions.
    Reading this submission, I as the complete layman was pretty well foxed until I came to the bit “an underground SSBN pen on the Falkland Islands see acupblog.wordpress.com)
    Aha, I thought what`s this, sounds a good idea to me, that here is the UK moving to regaining its influence on the world stage and we must therefore think strategically about our re-entrance East of Suez, protection of shipping (increased world trade 90% outside the EU) and particularly rejoining the Commonwealth.
    I entered his blog and have been completely mesmerised for the last couple of hours, by the fertility and scope of this gentleman`s interest and vision.
    I`m not going to relate everything I saw, but not only did I read and like his ideas on defence of the Falklands, but I could see where he was going on the interconnection between defence from cyberspace and aeros aircraft carriers “hugging” the tops of the oceans and thus reducing detectability, I also liked his analysis of the housing problem.
    As I began, these were my thoughts before anybody else had posted, I was going to advise everybody to have a look at acupblog.wordpress.com
    No, I don`t see him as leader, but I do think he has put down his marker to go into the top echelon of spokesmen for the next cabinet of UKIP direction, probably specifically on defence with a mandate “to think the impossible”
    He could be the one man that provides the nugget of inspiration that UKIP lacks – he is thinking beyond Brexit – the government aren`t

  17. While I don’t intend, I’m afraid, to vote for you Aidan, I think you deserve recognition and great credit for being one of only three candidates who has not personally indulged in hysterical smearing of another candidate, or been involved with anyone who has – and one of those candidates has had more than enough justification to do so in return for what seems to have been an orchestrated campaign against her.

    I love the way you determinedly ploughing your own furrow – in many ways that is what UKIP is all about. I love the way you are determined to offer something different – I salute your individuality. Liberty is one of the things UKIP should be all about.

  18. Dear Roger,

    On the subject of traffic the cross-party infrastructure group of MPs has produced a report “We’re Jammin” (it is a surprisingly good read) which found that traffic controls are largely unhelpful costing drivers circa £500 per annum in wasted time from avoidable traffic jams as well as such monetary costs as circa £75,000 (my research) to install each traffic light. The MPs acknowledged that the removal of, say, all traffic lights would be a hard sell to the public but suggested that a measured removal of some, or many, traffic controls would yield immense economic gains. Perhaps the implementation of the recommendations of this report could free up extra money (above and beyond the money outlined as being freed up in my programme) to more than pay for that extra to the anti-terror police which I have proposed?

    £2 billion per year would be a large increase in spending on internal security and so would £633 million be a large increase on anti-terror police (this is what is being spent on them in 2017-18). I do not doubt you are correct that lives could more effectively be saved by spending the £633 million in other ways. However, the security question has risen this year, naturally, to the fore in the electorate’s mind. According to a survey I read about recently internal security is now one of the electorate’s top three concerns. The concern with security is also evident among UKIP members or at least those who attend the hustings I have been speaking at this month. For UKIP to commit to a much better resourced internal security policy is therefore in line with what the electorate’s desire. As a man whose way of thinking is sympathetic to your argument about cost-effectiveness I would not take that as sufficient reason, in itself, to increase the internal security budget (instead of some more effective way of saving lives, for instance as you suggest, on the roads) if I thought to do so was very wrong but strictly speaking my overall reduction in government spending does make funds available to increase this spending to the extent I propose and I think it is not right to determine every pound the government spends by cost-effectiveness alone. For instance another consideration that must be weighed against that is what people want.

    On the subject of the anti-terror police more specifically each police force, as you will know, has its own counter-terrorism grant. In the event UKIP were in government and I accountable for payment of that grant you may rest assured that before it was given to anybody the individual police forces would have to convince me that the money was being put to good use and if, in any particular case, they did not do so I would reassign the money to, say, reducing traffic accidents or, more likely so as to keep faith with the wider commitment in the manifesto to internal security, to MI5.

    Aidan

  19. Aidan how would you preserve the vital strategic industries of steel, shipbuilding, manmade fibres textiles, pharmaceuticals plus others? In a world where state subsidies and policies of dumping by China and other countries mean the end of those industries in the short to mid term.
    What percentage of a state pensioner’s income should go on NHS visits as you support payment for such?
    I have dozens more questions but one last one here – why on earth are you posting this statement now at the end of the hustings period instead of at the beginning?

    • You do realise that those industries are already gone? We have one integrated steel mill left in port talbot owned by Tata kept alive by green subsidies and pensions bribes. Shipbuilding is military only. Manmade fibres long gone with Courtaulds and ICI. Pharma still around thanks to its IP concentration.

      • Not entirely gone in the case of shipbuilding (and boatbuilding) and it is important to keep what we have. There is more to steel production in the UK than Tata please check your facts. Also there are still some specialist textile manufacturers in Haslingdon Lancashire and Drighlington (sic) Yorkshire to name but two. We are the second biggest centre of Pharmaceuticals in the world. We are also world leaders in Hydraulic engineering,aerospace, steel stockholding; jet engine technology; marine engineering; and very significant in the fields of domestic ceramics; hard plastics; printing and packaging; household goods inc some white goods. There is lots more indeed buckets full but I suggest you do some serious research.

  20. Melchett: I see. Is this genuinely mad?

    George: Oh, yes, sir.

    Melchett: …or has he simply put his underpants on his head and stuffed a
    couple of pencils up his nose? That’s what they all used to do in
    the Sudan. I remember I once had to shoot a whole platoon for
    trying that. Well, let’s have a look at him. (goes in, followed
    by the others)

    Darling: ‘tention!!!

    Edmund: (stands, talks to Baldrick) …and the other thing they used to do in
    the Sudan is to get dressed up like this and pretend to be mad. But
    don’t let me catch you trying that one, Baldrick, or I’ll have you
    shot, all right? Dismissed. (turns to Melchett, removes the pencils)
    Oh, hello, sir — didn’t hear you come in.

    Melchett: Well now, Blackadder, they tell me you’ve gone mad.

    Edmund: No, sir (removes the underpants), no — must be a breakdown of
    communication. Someone obviously heard I was mad with excitement,
    waiting for the off.

    Melchett: There you are, you see, Darling? I told you there’d be a perfectly
    rational explanation. Right, George, have your chaps fall in.

    George: Very good, sir. (salutes, leaves)

    Darling: Well, it’s rather odd, sir. The message was very clear: “Captain
    Blackadder gone totally tonto. Bring straightjacket for immediate
    return to Blighty.” (holds up straightjacket)

    Melchett: Don’t be ridiculous, Darling. The Hero of Mboto Gorge, mad? Well,
    you’ve only got to look at him to see he’s as sane as I am! Beeaaah!
    (leaves)

    Darling: Would that the Mboto Gorge where we massacred the peace-loving
    pygmies of the Upper Volta and stole all their fruit?

    Edmund: No — a totally different Mboto Gorge.

  21. Aidan’s intentions regarding domestic security are too expensive. It would be much cheaper and more effective to introduce “distance vetting” of those who wished to come to Britain. That is, British staff would be employed overseas to measure the suitability of folk who wish to come here. If they pass the very rigorous test they get a visa: no more convicted murders or rapists thank you. Anti-terrorist Police up by 100% is not desirable. What does an anti-terrorist officer do? He doesn’t get to know what MI5 is up to (that’s on a need-to-know basis as Henry Bolton will confirm). He doesn’t get to know what Special Branch are up to either (ditto). It really is a ‘secret service’. If there is a terrorist atrocity outside of a 15 miles radius of Westminster (everyone knows that to be the UK’s most heavily protected area – or you should do by now), who are the officers who will attend that event? Local NON-anti-terrorist officers that’s who, because it would be impossible to maintain such specialist staff in every Constabulary – there’s not the call for them nor the resources. It just might be that in London, (most likely scene of an attack) trained anti-terrorist officers are retained in an office just waiting for an outrage to happen. Much like a fire brigade. I’ve heard it can be very, very boring. I certainly hope that they’re not engaged on the faintly ridiculous “Prevent” programme which seeks to steer the weak-willed away from terrorism at great expense to the tax payer. Since 2000 there have been 127 deaths attributed to terrorism in the UK (one last year – Jo Cox). Deaths on UK roads in that time total in excess of 39,000.(Serious injuries much, much higher). Maybe we Britons will, after all, have to accept that terrorism is something we must ‘live’ with. An increase in dedicated traffic police would appear to have the greater potential for money saving and all manner of grief reduction but then that’s a situation that wouldn’t sell papers or excite the BBC.

  22. Aidan, what is your policy on non-stun religious abattoirs?

    If UKIP policy is to allow Halal and Kosher, do you think that is compatible with the aim of “one law for all”?

    In your opinion, does it make any logical sense for UKIP to be anti-Sharia but pro-Halal?
    http://www.ukipdaily.com/anti-sharia-pro-halal/

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*