Last Night's NEC Meeting

Julian Morrison · 09-12-2004, 08:41 AM

Ok, like some don't like some.

Quote:

UK Resumption of Sovereignty
National independence for Britain only requires (at the moment) the repeal of the European Communities Act, 1972 by a British Parliament. On the day (Independence Day) of such an event Britain becomes, immediately, a free, self-governing nation. There would, however, still be a number of important issues to be resolved. For that purpose a period of 24 months will be designated the ‘transition period’ so that those issues can be addressed.

Seems sensible, except for appropriating the USA term "independence day". Because nowadays, that's the name of a cheesy movie about aliens.

Quote:

Law and order in Britain today increasingly is failing to protect the citizenry. Policing appears non-existent with little if any public presence. Crime is rising, especially crimes of violence and public disorder. The detection rate is low. The traditional relationship between the police and public built on trust, support and confidence, unique to these islands, has vanished. The law appears no longer to protect the weak, the young or the elderly.

Nor the middle aged and strong muscled. The whole "reasonable force" debacle if anything biases the law against those with the natural means to defend themselves.

Quote:

The courts and the administration of justice are similarly viewed with cynicism. Sentencing bears little resemblance to public expectation and appears more a device to keep the prison population low rather than as a deterrent.

Actually it's as politically damaging to "keep the prison population high" like Michael Howard was prone to in his previouis incarnation. The goal should be justice, not outcomes. That's the only way to retake credibility.

Quote:

There is an urgent need to re-establish both the traditional physical and cultural link between the people and the law. It is the core of a democratic, free nation.

Infinitely agreed.

First step, return the following powers to the ordinary guy: self defence, citizen's arrest. Second step, strip nearly all special powers from the police (delete them entirely eg: stop-and-search or make them general across the population, eg: forced entry with a warrant). Having a paramilitary caste with special priveliges is a huge danger to society, and it was never what police were intended to be. they were supposed to be "civilians protecting civilians".

Quote:

British law has always allowed a householder or a person under attack the right to protect life and property. Recently, there has been a steady erosion of that right in favour of the assailant or the trespasser. Increasingly this has led to court action against the victim and in favour of the wrong-doer. This is patently against natural justice.

UKIP considers that a person who is subject to unlawful attack or intrusion should have the right to use whatever force they consider necessary to prevent the continuance of that unlawful conduct.

This needs extending. Citizens should not just have the recognised right to beat back the criminal, but to chase, knock down, arrest and forcibly detain them until they can be booked INTO phpbb_a police station.

Quote:

(1) Any move to reduce the number of police forces in England and Wales, either by regionalising or nationalising the Service, is opposed.

Agreed, the more local the better.

Consider creating a role for amateur local police? Meaning not halfassed CSOs, but full police who have other jobs but volunteer as part time police. For example in rural areas.

Quote:

(2) Local Police Authorities should be wholly elected by the community and have greater powers in the selection and appointment of senior officers (ACPO) and in holding to account those officers in the discharge of their duties including the disposition of resources and the performance of the force.

(3) Local Consultative groups should be elected to represent their communities and have more power to identify and influence, through consultative meetings and through the Police Authority, the disposition of resources and the performance of the force.

Why both of them elected? Bad idea. Strike point 3, it's redundant given point 2.

Quote:

(4) The Police Service should be excluded from the Equal Opportunities legislation.

Everyone should be, or at least the legislation should be changed to mean what it says "equal opportunities", not "equal outcomes".

Quote:

(5) There should be established a Police Complaints Department that is separate and independent of the Police Service.

Waste of time. A government oversight department always falls INTO phpbb_one of two traps: either it becomes a toothless talking shop, or it gets captured by the interests of those whom it is meant to be overseeing.

Forget oversight, strip special privileges from police, and problems will decrease.

Quote:

(6) The decision to charge and to prosecute should be returned to the Police Service.

It should be up to the victim, with police veto restricted to there being too weak a case.

If the victim says don't prosecute, don't. With retroactive permission, there wasn't a crime.

Quote:

(7) The training of Police officers should be reviewed and the need for a fast-track career structure questioned.

Why?

Quote:

(11) The Lay Magistrates system will be encouraged and their powers of sentencing strengthened. (No) Petrina’s view is that they are not competent anyway!

Make them electable. All judges should be elected, or hirable/fireable by someone elected.

Quote:

(12) Judges will retain their independence but should be aware of the views of the local communities in which they sit.

Blergh, meaningless PCism to the max! "I'm aware, I just don't give a damn". Elections, not weak assertions of "listening"!

Quote:

(13) The Home Office shall, apart from legislation passed in Parliament, be advisory and responsible for common services including the provision of training.(?) Expand

No sh*t "expand". This is not a suggestion, it's barely a brainstorm note. Advisory of what?

Quote:

(14) If required, more prisons will be built.

The presence of tons of prisons is an indicator of a self-destructing society! A properly implemented legal system will reduce the prison population. Start with pardoning all the victimless crimes!

Quote:

(15) Sentencing will be strengthened and the introduction of minimum-maximum sentences considered. “Life means life” Remission (good behaviour) looked into.

BAD BAD BAD! Minmax sentences are used to ram through unpopular anti-freedom laws. Rip away all minmax sentencing, replace it with judicial accountability (elections).

Quote:

(16) The re-introduction of the death penalty will be debated and a referendum on it offered to the public.

Agreed.

Quote:

(17) Where a person is subject to an unlawful assault or intrusion INTO phpbb_their dwelling

Or place of business! Commerce has a right to defend itself too.

Quote:

then that person may use such force as they consider necessary in order to defend themselves or their property.

...and to arrest the criminals (see above).

Quote:

Whilst UKIP deplores the thousands of millions of pounds so recklessly squandered on rail privatisation, we do not believe it would be realistic to return to the original status quo, nationalisation.

Cut the companies loose with the train lines. The mistake with rail privatization was splitting it down INTO phpbb_too many pieces and leasing rather than selling the lines.

Quote:

All rail services should remain under one co-ordinating authority with a robust remit and targets and strict monitoring. Financial support should be considered for certain areas funded, in part, from savings made on discontinued excessive regime ‘safety’ regulations imposed by the EU.

No! Cut the government loose from trains ASAP! They are the proverbial tar-baby. Let the private sector save them, if it can.

Quote:

Public investment in the railfreight infrastructure of routes to UK ports should be increased as appropriate.

No. If they are worth it public subsidy won't be needed. If they aren't, it would be wasted. Consider organizing a coalition with the private sector to finance any useful changes?

Quote:

UKIP recognises the indispensable role played by the motor car in everyday life. It deplores the policies of successive governments and their efforts to oppress and criminalize motorists and to extract revenue from them.

So remove the petrol tax.

Quote:

· Reducing existing traffic lights at roundabouts to flashing orange operation.

Eh, what does that mean?

If it's a roundabout it doesn't need lights. If it needs lights it's not a roundabout. And half-lights? Confusion!

Quote:

· Replacing traffic lights-controlled junctions with roundabouts.

And replace crossroads with double-tee-junctions, but that's way to much micro-management to be in a manifesto.

Quote:

· Wider use of smart traffic lights and orange flashing signals.

...as is this.

Quote:

· Conversion of traffic calming INTO phpbb_traffic flow without compromising safety.

Rip out the damn "calming". If speed is a problem there should be a local limit and cameras. (This being a real use for the damn things, not the usual revenue gathering.)

Quote:

· Introduction of higher, staged speed limits on motorways.

Erase speed limits entirely on motorways. Replace with agressive prosecution of dangerous driving.

Quote:

· Prohibiting overtaking by lorries on motorways.

Why? Micromanagement much?

Quote:

· Downgrading bus lanes from ‘no entry’ to ‘no obstruction’ status.

Tear the damn things up. Buses can use the regular road.

Quote:

UKIP does not advocate the abandonment of the Road Fund Licence in favour of higher fuel duty, on account of the unfair burden this would impose on the less well off.

I'd like to see maintencance of the motorways privatized to some company which can set tolls and license roadside facilities. This should allow road tax to be cut back a lot.

mkpdavies · 09-12-2004, 09:01 AM

There is good and bad in this, and don't forget it is not the full finished document.

a) It is a draft version, it was never meant to be seen by all and sundry.
b) The main focus at this point, was to see how the ideas sat with the NEC.

If I ever wrote a draft document on anything, I would be surprised if I managed perfection, or even half perfection at my first go!

While I really do question the motives of anyone who would leak this, from the NEC side (I don't blame Cole for putting it on his site!). It may actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Now, not only will the NEC scrutanise it, but all of us too. How often do parties memberships get to give real feedback on a manifesto before it is launched? I'd like to think that is the reason the NEC member leaked it, but I fear there were other reasons.

I am not going to comment on it in public, but I will send my thoughts to the leadership. It will be hard to please all, as we are made up of a very diverse membership now.

The other good news is the other parties would be foolish to attack anything in it at this stage, as it could well change a lot with all the feedback they are going to receive.

As someone said, back to the drawing board, which at this late stage is kind of disapointing. Has any of the other parties released their manifestos for the election yet?

Nigel Garage · 09-12-2004, 11:42 AM

Intbel wrote -

Quote:

Suggest you check that.

As I said, it's just what I was told, and if you have any info which contradicts it, please let us all know.

Quote:

For the second time here is the number: 01233 631133

Terry is still awaiting your call ...

It's actually the first time you've given me the number. I've asked a friend to call on my behalf.

MKPDavies wrote -

Quote:

a) It is a draft version, it was never meant to be seen by all and sundry.
b) The main focus at this point, was to see how the ideas sat with the NEC

MKPD, let me make a few points -
1. The party should have asked members for their suggestions.
2. Committees of qualified, professional, experienced people should have been set up (long ago) to write a draft.
3. The draft should have been shown to the NEC long before the NEC meeting, to give them time to read and digest. Not 24 hours before!
4. As Cole pointed out, the manifesto was originally promised in September, then October, then November, then this week, now... "maybe some time in January". That's the manifesto, not the draft manifesto!
5. The draft was leaked to show members how badly things are being run.

Kilroy-Silk has his faults, as we all know, but he's a serious player. He would never have allowed this trash to be produced.

We need a leadership election now!

Anthony Butcher · 09-12-2004, 11:50 AM

Quote:

The party should have asked members for their suggestions.

They did. I sent in a fair number of suggestions. Part of the reason it took so long to put the manifesto together was because they had so many suggestions to go through. As I understand it, Trevor Coleman had to put most of it together on his own.

Quote:

We need a leadership election now!

Don't go there!

EP Employee · 09-12-2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Quote:

We need a leadership election now!

Don't go there!

I have to say, to the outsider, UKIP seem more split than ever the Tories or Labour were / are. Doesn't bode well...

mkpdavies · 09-12-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

I have to say, to the outsider, UKIP seem more split than ever the Tories or Labour were / are. Doesn't bode well...

It is annoying as hell, but the good news is we are not split on policy.

Things will settle down sooner or later, and the vast bulk of the membership will get behind whoever is in charge when it matters! We know we can chuck them out if they do mess up!

Nigel Garage · 09-12-2004, 12:01 PM

AB, I agree they did ask for suggestions in a vague 'send us your ideas' kind of way. I was thinking more along the lines of 'if you have specialist knowledge or experience in the field of pensions, education, whatever, call Joe Bloggs, who is writing the relevant section for the draft manifesto, or send your thoughts on one side of A4 paper.' You know - professional.

EP Employee · 09-12-2004, 12:10 PM

That said, it isn't the easiest task in the world to extrapolate a full manifesto from the initial premise of "the UK leaving the EU". People want Out for a variety of reasons, be it nationalism, a concern for Third World trade inequalities, etc etc, and that doesn't necessarily posit a coherent political consensus on domestic issues. Hell, Farage and RKS come from polar opposites, domestically.

I pity the poor ****** who's writing the UKIP manifesto - I suspect someone is always going to object to whatever they come out with.

Nigel Garage · 09-12-2004, 12:19 PM

EP Employee, we fought the 2001 election under a manifesto that united the whole party. It's true we're a disparate bunch, but it can be done! We know we won't be the next government, so people don't make too much fuss about it. It was done fine in 2001, so why not now?

Karen · 09-12-2004, 01:45 PM

Who was it that told Nigel Garage of the supposed contents of the NECs manifesto meeting. They are supposed to be confidential aren't they? All these childish leaks play INTO phpbb_the hands of the Labour party. Or is Mr Garage making it up?

09-12-2004, 09:01 AM	#22 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,843 Party: Libertarian Party	There is good and bad in this, and don't forget it is not the full finished document. a) It is a draft version, it was never meant to be seen by all and sundry. b) The main focus at this point, was to see how the ideas sat with the NEC. If I ever wrote a draft document on anything, I would be surprised if I managed perfection, or even half perfection at my first go! While I really do question the motives of anyone who would leak this, from the NEC side (I don't blame Cole for putting it on his site!). It may actually turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Now, not only will the NEC scrutanise it, but all of us too. How often do parties memberships get to give real feedback on a manifesto before it is launched? I'd like to think that is the reason the NEC member leaked it, but I fear there were other reasons. I am not going to comment on it in public, but I will send my thoughts to the leadership. It will be hard to please all, as we are made up of a very diverse membership now. The other good news is the other parties would be foolish to attack anything in it at this stage, as it could well change a lot with all the feedback they are going to receive. As someone said, back to the drawing board, which at this late stage is kind of disapointing. Has any of the other parties released their manifestos for the election yet? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-12-2004, 12:01 PM	#27 (permalink)
Nigel Garage Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ashford Posts: 557	AB, I agree they did ask for suggestions in a vague 'send us your ideas' kind of way. I was thinking more along the lines of 'if you have specialist knowledge or experience in the field of pensions, education, whatever, call Joe Bloggs, who is writing the relevant section for the draft manifesto, or send your thoughts on one side of A4 paper.' You know - professional.

09-12-2004, 12:10 PM	#28 (permalink)
EP Employee Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 55	That said, it isn't the easiest task in the world to extrapolate a full manifesto from the initial premise of "the UK leaving the EU". People want Out for a variety of reasons, be it nationalism, a concern for Third World trade inequalities, etc etc, and that doesn't necessarily posit a coherent political consensus on domestic issues. Hell, Farage and RKS come from polar opposites, domestically. I pity the poor ****** who's writing the UKIP manifesto - I suspect someone is always going to object to whatever they come out with.

09-12-2004, 12:19 PM	#29 (permalink)
Nigel Garage Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ashford Posts: 557	EP Employee, we fought the 2001 election under a manifesto that united the whole party. It's true we're a disparate bunch, but it can be done! We know we won't be the next government, so people don't make too much fuss about it. It was done fine in 2001, so why not now?

09-12-2004, 01:45 PM	#30 (permalink)
Karen Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Maldon Posts: 302	Who was it that told Nigel Garage of the supposed contents of the NECs manifesto meeting. They are supposed to be confidential aren't they? All these childish leaks play INTO phpbb_the hands of the Labour party. Or is Mr Garage making it up?