Bob FM: I think that we are both labouring under an equal handicap, namely, dealing with a very complex subject within a few sentences. I am aware of a doctor in Worcestershire (Wyre Forest), who fought a single issue election concerning , 'service reductions' in the local hospital. He won, and great credit to him and the electorate. This has happened time and time again in our Parliamentary history. Tony Benn, having been elected to represent Bristol, was refused leave to take his seat, because his father had died and Benn, by succession, became the second Viscount Stansgate. His subsequent re-election to Parliament resulted in a Peerage Act 1963. A similar pattern
occurred in the 19c. when Charles Bradlaugh's right to a parliamentary seat was challenged, due to his inability to be a member of the House, because of his atheism.
He would be incapable of taking the oath. (That dispute lasted throughout the 1880s').
John Wilkes MP, in order to establish a free press, had similar experiences in the 18c.
In modern times, and right through our parliamentary history, in Reformed Parliaments
and pre-Reformed ones, these important, albeit discrete issues, have surfaced from time to time. It has been to the credit of our political system that it has proven able to accommodate changes, similar to those which I have identified, while remaining a Representative Parliamentary Democracy. Despite a million faults, over decades, generataions and centuries, our system has endured, while the populist based systems, within a few years, have withered on the vine.
The issues which occupy your mind, prohibiting the smoking in pubs for example, do not create a unique precedent, or involve issues of constitutional importance, like those issues identified previously: we are now in totally different territory. The fact that it is not to everyones liking, is neither here nor there. It is in about the same league as the compulsory wearing of seat-belts. Some may not like it, they complain; but at the end of the day, it is't a voting determinant among the electorate. That is what an issue has to be to garner votes.
I don't think that there can be any doubt, sadly, that we have lost support from among the professional classes. We have had some very unfortunate publicity almost continuously in recent time, and there is more to come. UKIP's fundamental role is to defend our historic constitution. The other policies must involve a reduction government, corporate and individual debt. We see bankers visiting No 10, for tea and sandwiches, reminiscent of trade union leaders in the 1960s' under Harold Wilson.
Allocating huge bonuses to themselves, bankers are now handing the government their losses, as collateral for more money. This cannot continue for long; what are UKIP's 21st century policies to deal with this financial situation?
We wish to leave the EU. We want to manage our own affairs, in times of crises we want to decide our own policies. These objectives can be advanced by being trustworthy; know what we are talking about, and producing a climate which is conducive to obtaining public support. It is along that road we will find a rich political harvest.
|