David Agnew

As I have said elsewhere on this forum, I don't think that people vote on policy, I think that (after party loyalty), they they vote on image. Image is partly down to personality and publicity, but it is also down to perceived values. I think that it is much easier to inform people of UKIP's values, than explain detailed policy. Currently (even though some people still haven't heard of UKIP), most people know what the party is against, but not what it is for. A statement of values would be useful here. It would also be useful in informing policy formulation. I would suggest the following:

Primary Goal
To create in the UK the highest standard of living in the world
This is a goal that is memorable, easy to communicate and understand, and it would be very hard for our political opponents to argue against.

Secondary Goals
- To create a Britain that is politically united, prosperous, democratic and free.
- To create a 'high trust' society, where crime is low not because people fear the law, but because they don't want to be criminals in the first place.
- To create an environment where human potential is recognised and developed to the full

Beliefs
- Those who make laws should be accountable to those who are affected by them.
- The established parties have failed to deliver on the crucial quality of life issues (transport infrastructure, health service etc), and lack the ideas and political will to do so in the future.
- British traditions (freedom of speech/trial by jury/parliamentary democracy etc) should be defended. (Rather than sort out the country's problems, British politicians like to change things for the worse and call it "modernisation")
- British governments spend too much taxpayers' money on things that are of no benefit to the British people. For example - wars, local authority non-jobs, devolution, the EU, fiascos (ERM, foot & mouth) etc. Even where they do spend money in the right areas (eg Health Service) they waste money on bureaucracy.
- There is a lot of scope for simplification. The tax and benefits system are overcomplicated. Also, there are too many laws (and not enough order)

I am aware that some people will think that I have produced a string of platitudes, but the list of goals and beliefs really can be used to explain UKIP policy. For example independence from the EU can be explained in terms of Goal 1 (to create the highest standard of living in the world), because it would both free up money that is going INTO phpbb_subsidising other EU states and paying for bureaucracy. It would also improve the British economy because the regulatory burden could be lifted. It also fits with Belief 1 (That those who make laws should be accountable to those who are affected by them).

Due you think that these are the right goals and beliefs?

mkpdavies

Yep I agree with all that!

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

spaman

Certainly good enough to start with.......... I can just see some PC nutters though claiming that we are selfish to have such ideals, and what are we doing for the poor and the disabled, and the thousands of other groups that depend on Blair for handouts...and why aren't we looking to do something about poor countries.

I can just see it, but my gut feeling is that mother Britain deserves a little home loving and a lot of attention, and it's time we improved our own lot.

Tom Wilde

I agree with a lot of that too, but here (for whatever it is worth) is a simplified version. I believe that most of our policy positions stem from one underlying shared value, and that we should now make that value explicit and use it to develop futher policies in a coherent fashion.

I suggest that the one single fundamental UKIP value is:

FREEDOM!

(Freedom is a word which means different things to different people. I suggest that for us it means that individuals should have as much control over their own lives as possible.)

Applications of this fundamental UKIP value:

A] In Home Affairs:

UKIP should seek to extend individual liberty and to defend the welfare state.

B] On constitutional matters:

UKIP should support direct democracy and open government.

C] In Foreign Affairs:

UKIP should seek to lead Britain out of the EU after negotiating a free trade deal with it.


Explanations:

A] Home affairs:

Our fundamental value implies that we should agree with John Stuart Mill's position regarding individual liberty:

That the only purpose for which power can rightfully be excercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

However, in addition to this, UKIP should defend the free provision of certain basic goods (in particular education and healthcare) for the needy in society, as having those goods enhances their control over their own lives. In other words, UKIP should be for extending civil liberties, and economic liberty, but also defend the NHS and free education.


B]Constitutional matters:

The fundamental principle implies that laws should be made and implemented as close to the individual citizen as possible, and that each citizen should have as much influence on that process as is compatible with every other citizen having the same degree of influence. In other words, direct democracy and open government.


C] Foreign affairs:

The fundamental principle implies withdrawal from the EU, because the individual citizen has more influence over laws made at Westminster than over laws made in Brussels (even assuming that the EU was ever transformed INTO phpbb_a democracy!).

However, this argument can't be extended to imply that Market Drayton (say) should break away from Britain to become an independent democracy. For while this would increase the influence of citizens there over the laws made there, the Independent Republic of Market Drayton, simply wouldn't be big enough to (say) build major hospitals or universities, afford realistic defence forces or negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world. Therefore the citizens of post-independence Market Drayton would actually have fewer options in, and hence less control over, the course their own lives than previously.

However, Britain is big enough to do these things, so leaving the EU enhances rather than diminishes the freedom of the individual in the sense I have described.

*******

Sorry this is a bit sketchy. Of course, even with just one fundamental value, some things are less simple than I have indicated. For example, where exactly should we strike the balance between individual freedom and welfare provision, given that the free hospitals etc must be paid for by individual taxpayers whether they like it or not? Not too difficult to make this sort of compromise though, when we assume that both our desire to keep taxes low and our desire to provide free health care flow from the same underlying principle.

Lawrie Boxall

I like the first parts of David Agnew's core beliefs, then it goes a bit sketchy so I would say stop there. Simplicity is everything.

I would put To create an environment where human potential is recognised and developed to the full as the Primary goal in front of creating the highest living standards - and add the words - for everyone in society.

It's OK to mention the word society, no-one is going tom accuse you of being a marxist for that.

Any party seeking votes has to gain the trust of the voter. In the current economic and political climate that trust will only be given if they believe you will not impede or reverse economic growth, healthcare and education.

Except where they can be put INTO phpbb_soundbites, lofty ideals are for anoraks like us. The average voter wants to know his job is safe, her company is safe, his kids will be educated properly, her local hospital will be there when it is needed and their mortgage is safe in your hands.

You can have the most wonderully radical policies guaranteed (in your mind) to change things for the better, but if the voter perceives these to be high risk, or gimmicks, they will not support you.