Latest from UKIP Daily

Back to Roots, Forward to a Blossoming Future – Proposals for a Manifesto – Part I

This article is the first of four, laying out some thoughts and suggestions – with Brexit looming – for an eventual renaissance of ideas and shared culture, a reformist agenda and positive thinking for the people of Britain as the nation resumes independence.

I’ve already written some articles about elaborate propagandising from unfriendly Liberal/Left tendencies, also present in the Tory party and reinforcing the grip of the Establishment; I believe that the real argument is not between anything called Left and Right, since historically-speaking the extreme right was in fact a form of State socialism, as seen in Germany and Italy in the fascist years. This was literally “3rd-way” socialist corporatism, defined as such by both Blair and Mussolini, opposed to individual sovereignty. By usurping the narrative in our public life and instilling contradictory ideas in the educational system, there has been a common intention in the interests of external and transnational unelected bodies, to disempower the people,  disallow them their birthright, namely of designing and choosing their own laws and therefore destiny as a nation.

Essentially, globalism (as witnessed in the EU project and others) is the “brainchild” of the elites and directed towards a further feudalising of society, with increased regulation and control. I see no hint of this changing with Mrs May’s Brexit plans as she promises to “build” on existing EU arrangements and without asking the people if we even want that (Brexit presumably meant that the majority do not). Throughout the Reformation, Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, these competing forces have been at play; this does not mean that the only road is change dictated by an establishment wanting to cajole us into their “technocratic” plans. People-power through greater direct democracy is surely the way forward.

 

Brexit:

Thinking of which popular policies beyond Brexit should occupy people’s thoughts, we may rightly fear that the wider “globalist agenda” will continue unremittingly despite it (since it is so entrenched) with Mrs May’s Brexit. How can the combined forces of collectivisation and globalism be resisted by returning more sovereignty to the people in their day-today lives and businesses?
In the light of Mrs May’s vague plan – which says nothing about popular sovereignty (the main stumbling block with the EU from day one!) and “what next?” we need to extend the debate around people power and address the apathy of yet more of the status quo. Let’s negotiate a mutually beneficial exit from the EU Single Market quickly and have a decisive and positive vision for all areas, not just Brexit. Since the EU will probably stagnate further under the imbalance of an area divided along consumer/producer economy lines, these terms can be revised later on as it morphs.

 

Education:

Let’s have a more classical and technical base that emphases practical skills of numeracy and critical analysis, knowledge of Western achievements, and the origins of science, philosophy and law.

Bring forward and encourage critical debate and self-reliance, the study of science and technology, and forms of competitive sport; where awareness of overseas cultures is helpful, explained in a non-ideological way free of religious or political bias, perhaps through the study of comparative world philosophies and history of British and European ones.

Let’s do more to promote business/commercial awareness as well as on the arts and music.

Make Headteachers responsible for overseeing content in dialogue with parents, not the LEAs, which will merely provide funding.

The national Curriculum is a guide and not to be followed to the letter; exam boards should seek to raise their standards of excellence and further encourage and reward critical thinking and independent research/activity.

Allow schools to define their own aims and make these public – and within the Law.

Where social/political issues are presented from an ideological (religious/marxist/green/globalist etc) perspective, this bias must be declared.

Choice in education, including private education of all kinds, is surely good. Should schools therefore be able to define their own aims and succeed or fail on their merits? Regarding the demographics of choice, arguably if a school is good and has a strong, sensible ethic, the neighbourhood around it will become successful and ethical also, benefitting both.

 

Health:

A popular idea might be to re-introduce a matron system in the wards where one person has full control of movement and activity and making this person responsible for a rolling budget; re-channelling funding for the NHS from other areas until the NHS again has a clean bill of health, making the ward system responsible for overseeing spending under the finance director.

Since the NHS is responsible for health, once it has fulfilled its mission to the people that fund it (taxpayers in the community) it could then be involved in helping others from abroad.  People are surely better served and helped in their own countries, and perhaps the NHS could have a humanitarian/charitable side, too, and this could involve fund-raising and missions for a number of causes both in (first and foremost) and out of the country?

 

Movement of people and foreign affairs:

Stricter border controls make sense, unless someone has something to hide. Foreign migrants are welcome if they provide a service not already fulfilled by a local person/native resident, but why shouldn’t immigrants keep their original nationality anyway? (my grandfather did and was never naturalised, so what? what is the problem? My father still fought as a Desert Rat during WW2 and I am proud of his defence of England as I am proud of having a Danish-Icelandic ancestor; my children have Italian cousins etc.. but one has to earn the right to be accepted within a culture, this right cannot just be “taken”.) It is in the nature of work in multinational business, to travel and even work and live abroad, obtaining a long term work visa if one is in employment, what is wrong with using Interpol intelligence? Countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia and Israel employ strict controls without criticism.

No-one should expect a house, healthcare or education, until they are in work and then adapt to the system that is in place for the rest of the society. Prioritising unskilled migration encourages exploitation and their efforts to break the rules to get in.

We should help the needy in their own lands where possible – and only the needy (ie those with health needs or who are in danger of death under persecution – the Yazidis are a good example).

Armed intervention must be agreed by both Houses (reformed HoL) and decisions to go to war, put before the people as a Referendum or a General Election. Common sense first.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About ipz (17 Articles)
I am a qualified coach/teacher and NLP specialist, as well as a writer, and work with high level business clients around the world, especially with presentation skills and problem-solving.

13 Comments on Back to Roots, Forward to a Blossoming Future – Proposals for a Manifesto – Part I

  1. Keynes got it right in many respects and Roosevelt applied Keynesianism to the effect that he got elected four times.

    It doesn’t mean that fiscal deficits are desirable at all times and in all places. The context and outcome are what matters.

    And indeed there are inherent abuses associated with fiscal deficits such as the promotion of crony capitalism as in the case of Malaysia.

    In the UK, devolution is a powerful settlement that should serve to fragment and diffuse the scope and extent of crony capitalism. The other is Parliament’s infinite legislative capacity in the context of a ‘2-party (or multi-party) system.’

    And the political culture is not as ‘familiar’ with crony capitalism as in Malaysia and other such countries. In other words, crony capitalism in the UK is not as well developed as elsewhere.

    Another plus point is that the political culture in the UK is that of a liberal democracy open to political reforms (e.g. proportional representation (PR) could well happen in the future) and not least political or better still popular pressure which reduces incentives for the establishment of strong crony capitalist links.

    • One would have to query whether the constitutional system here in fact any longer allows the Crown to defend the People and to ask whether the Crown has moved the nation towards the kind of crony capitalism (globalism) that you mention. In my mind the missing ingredient is a House that defends the People in ways that the Commons was meant to but cannot be relied on to do, any more (viz accessing the Common Market in full knowledge of its federal aims towards union); I believe the HoLords needs to become a PR People’s House.
      If a direct vote to this (HoL) reformed assembly meant a 52% majority (as per the Brexit vote) this would immediately confer power to the people, the Commons has too often misled the people since WWII – and perhaps even since the Liberal reforms of 1911. In fact it was almost entirely Liberal reformist leaders (who gained new powers in so doing) that took the world into war in 1914, if you look at it.

      • Hayek of course believed that people are rational and act in their best interests and that government interference to bolster failure is not good in the long run – though it may protect or stimulate jobs in the short. If boom-and-bust is a State-produced phenomenon, and an economy gravitates towards settled growth, then allowing the free activity of individuals and enlightened and philanthropic capitalism through the defence of good civic values, rather than stimulus through war, aggressive expansion, dominant corporatism or malign opposition by religious tendencies etc., to me seems preferable.

  2. All with you on people power, Peter, it’s how we get it which is the task in hand, which is of course a matter of opinion. No matter how sensible a policy might be, it’s also got to have impact if we are to get anywhere. It’s got to take the fight to the opposition and make the MSM respond to our agenda. It can be done!

  3. Ideological purity is not ‘a good thing’ if it results in the compromise of the public good …..

    The problem with ideological purity in economics, for example, is that the economy is conceived to be a ***closed system** that conveniently leaves out the government and treats the central bank and its monetary policy out of proportion to real-world attitudes of real people as if we are all rational actors with expert knowledge of cost-benefit analysis and of the future. This is no different than Communism.

    • Yes, I see this closed system as a kind of “virtual reality” that makes sense to insiders, and would defend the idea that we “know best” as experts in our OWN field and own lives, and that government is there to enable our potential as contributors to the common good, to be released, that we are rational; but where closed beliefs (such as religious dogma) take supremacy, or where freedoms are exercised in a way that damages others, government is there to step in.
      Nowadays – and seeing the totally irrational behaviour of anti-Trump protestors – one can wonder if people who have been wholly brainwashed, will wake up at all, without some kind of “reformation earthquake” once again.

  4. A (rather) weak analogy would be Parliamentary Sovereignty — Parliament can make or unmake any laws (according to Diceyan orthodoxy subject to or qualified by the current constraints of EU membership).

    *And* ultimately Parliamentary Sovereignty is it itself subjected to political sovereignty of the people ….. the constitutional flexibility in Parliament’s untrammeled power to make laws is to be for the good of the people.

    That is to say, there’s nothing final or ultimate to statute law (notwithstanding the monstrous construct that is the supremacy of EU law) ….. implied repeal is everywhere and always and altogether an inherent principle in legislation — so that if a law had outlived its usefulness, the solution is to amend or repeal it altogether ….. for the public good which could vary from time to time …..

  5. Since Peter mentioned the Reformation, I’m obliged to share a bit somewhat about that disruptive, unprecedented, earth-shaking, transformative, momentous event and a period as a whole …..

    The secular is as important as the religious.The other is never/ not to be elevated over the other.

    Both have their proper place in society. And both have their own proper limits.

    This entails the distinction (in thought, attitude, worldview) and neither separation nor confusion (as in Islam) between religion and politics, between that which belongs to God/ Christ and that which belongs to Caesar. Separation between church and state is an concrete and institutional and contextual outcome of the distinction.

    Lastly but not least, the Reformation taught us the distinction between what is absolute/ ultimate and what is relative/ penultimate. And all ideologies belong to the latter. That is they should be subject to change, modification, adaptation — all in the name of serving the neighbour …..

    • Thank you Jason, hello
      I try to address the thorny problem of civil rights and responsibilities and also Law – how t make it more flexible and respondent to the people and our common values – and other areas, in the later articles (four in all, all quite brief of course)
      Rather than have brainwashing (a la LibDems etc) it strikes me that the identity of the nation and a new kind of political arrangement – as I think originally intended in the English Constitution – is in the secular forms as you rightly say the enlightened views of the Reformation brought us and we can as people force a repeal of laws not suited to us.
      Trump is repealing laws that only Obama’s and the Neo Cons powers given to the President, make possible, avoiding the Senate. We do not have a President that can deliver that (maybe France will have!) but a system that has removed people power, I would imagine UKIP can gain votes on this premise – returning sovereign power to the people, and I don’t see the other parties wanting to trust the people to that degree.

  6. Hello,
    I feel sure that the debate will continue and am glad if anything I say may stimulate discussion too.
    I have voted UKIP in the past and feel so many others would do so again if the manifesto inspires them. As a former teacher I know that schools do have space for these areas in the curriculum but clearly there will be always be choice. As for communities with religious majorities there is the element of teaching under the law and inspection to ensure that our laws are not contravened.
    I know I do not have all the answers andI understand that UKIP needs ideas but – as an average member of the public – I have not seen them being made visible other than in the matter of Brexit. I liked the manifesto put together for the 2015 election, but was the 18bm in tax cuts the vote-winner, or repeal of the climate change act (which I would support personallY) or scrapping of fees – or just Brexit? I voted for that manifesto for a number of reasons, not just Brexit. Naturally I am hopeful that UKIP will have a truly exciting manifesto for the next elections too… and this is my contribution to what may make votable/electable policies that would put UKIP in power and ensure that neither Labour or the Tories are.
    If these are not electable policies (and they may not be in some cases) please tell me what are, and I for one would be excited to hear them. My main premise is the notion of people power and sovereignty- nothing else at present – feeling as i do that people are tired of the arrogance of the Establishment – and I do not mean to criticise UKIP’s attempts to change the status quo, far from it.

  7. Peter
    Thank you for this. It is good to have ideas but we need to be focussed and rigorous in thinking them through. You sound a bit Corbynesque in wanting ‘debates’ – this is the debate!
    An example of apple pie and motherhood – classical and technical education, law, business? How much time do you think they’ve got?
    An example of practicality – schools discussing content with parents. Apart from the fact that LEAs control many fewer schools now and don’t have power over the national curriculum, what do you think would happen in Muslim areas?
    An example of reality – is it conceivable the NHS will ever be able to fulfill its mission to our own population, considering constantly rising demand?

    • Hello,
      I feel sure that the debate will continue and am glad if anything I say may stimulate discussion too.
      I have voted UKIP in the past and feel so many others would do so again if the manifesto inspires them. As a former teacher I know that schools do have space for these areas in the curriculum but clearly there will be always be choice. As for communities with religious majorities there is the element of teaching under the law and inspection to ensure that our laws are not contravened.
      I know I do not have all the answers andI understand that UKIP needs ideas but – as an average member of the public – I have not seen them being made visible other than in the matter of Brexit. I liked the manifesto put together for the 2015 election, but was the 18bm in tax cuts the vote-winner, or repeal of the climate change act (which I would support personallY) or scrapping of fees – or just Brexit? I voted for that manifesto for a number of reasons, not just Brexit. Naturally I am hopeful that UKIP will have a truly exciting manifesto for the next elections too… and this is my contribution to what may make votable/electable policies that would put UKIP in power and ensure that neither Labour or the Tories are.
      If these are not electable policies (and they may not be in some cases) please tell me what are, and I for one would be excited to hear them. My main premise is the notion of people power and sovereignty- nothing else at present – feeling as i do that people are tired of the arrogance of the Establishment – and I do not mean to criticise UKIP’s attempts to change the status quo, far from it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*