Bannerman's Big Mistake

Anthony Butcher · 26-07-2006, 12:42 PM

http://www.richard4leader.co.uk/bann...g-mistake.html

Quote:

I have been asked by a few members why I haven’t released a manifesto like David Campbell Bannerman, so I thought that I would use this opportunity to expand on my thoughts about policy development and to demonstrate why I think that David has made a huge mistake.

Three of my supporters have put together an article detailing why I, and they, believe that David Campbell Bannerman has made a poor choice by issuing a manifesto at this stage. I have allowed them to author this article in order to demonstrate that I am a genuine consultative team leader, and will always try to involve clever and skilled people wherever possible.

- Richard Suchorzewski

Political Philosophy must come first
Before we even venture near specific policies we need to define who we are as a party. What do we stand for? What kind of people are we? What kind of Britain do we want?

These are the questions that Richard will seek to answer quickly as Leader. Rather than simply impose his own vision on the party, he will organise an ‘open thinking’ conference to allow the members to have their say and contribute their ideas.

Get the branding right
If our brand is strong enough, the public don’t even need to see our specific policies because they will already have an idea of what they will be. Conversely, every policy must follow a consistent philosophy and thus reinforce the brand image in the public mind. Every marketing or communications professional should be able to tell you this.

Consistent Brand and Proper Research
The key to strong policies is proper research combined with a consistent philosophy. There is no point making up policies on the fly and hoping that they stand up to scrutiny. Every policy we release must be bullet proof and consistent with everything else we say. Anything less than this absolute professionalism is irresponsible and damaging to the party’s image as a credible political party.

David Campbell Bannerman’s policy document illustrates precisely why one man cannot make party policy. While it is evident from the document that this is not the finished item, in terms of a party manifesto, the flaws in the document highlight the futility of this kind of exercise. Here are a few specific examples of why this kind of manifesto is potentially damaging:

Example 1 – where is the research?
“Supermarkets and out of town stores should pay realistic business rates based on the environmental impact they have in generating huge car traffic flows, while high street rates should reflect their convenience and the more environmental alternatives they make possible.”

David makes a claim about the ‘environmental impact’ of out of town shopping, but what is this based on, other than populist thinking? Out-of-town centres considerably reduce traffic congestion inside towns, and thus urban pollution. Is there any significant environmental difference between people driving into town and driving to a mall?

Presumably the purpose of increasing the business rates for such centres is to discourage them and close some down. Yet such centres are popular because they tend to be much larger and offer more choice and easier parking. Is UKIP’s policy to undo what the free market has created – massive popular shopping areas? What would the economic impact of this be? Does David have any idea, or is he just proposing this to win the votes of environmentalists and small shop owners?

Inconsistency as well
Later in the manifesto, David says: “local councils should be given control of business rates”, directly contradicting his above statement that government should set the business rates based on spurious environmental concerns. It is this kind of inconsistency that results from one person making up policy without proper research.

Example 2 – Consistency is Paramount
David states that “PC quotas, social engineering and other related Marxist dogma all have to go” and requires “all public bodies, broadcasters and councils to drop diversity and equality personnel and practices.” These broad commitments sit rather uneasily with his proposed reform of the House of Lords which creates “50 multi-faith peers” who will be selected seemingly on the basis of their faith rather than the “clear guidelines based on fairness, merit and balance” that Mr. Campbell-Bannerman wants to introduce to wider society.

Again we see the nonsense of just sticking together populist policies without a consistent political framework in place first; he is actually promoting two absolutely contradictory policies. A strong underpinning philosophy would have prevented this situation.

This kind of inconsistency causes confusion in people’s minds. On the one hand UKIP, under David’s leadership, would be supporting meritocracy and on the other promoting positive discrimination in favour of religious minorities. The result is that we appear not to stand for anything in particular at all. For a growing party trying to create a public awareness this is disastrous.

Example 3 – Check your facts!
David’s ‘manifesto’ makes some basic factual errors. For example “defence spending should be increased by 50% - extra £10 billion.” A simple search of both the Treasury and Ministry of Defence websites reveals that expenditure for 2005/6 was £30.1 billion. £10 billion does not equal fifty percent of this figure by anyone’s calculations. What is a member of the public, or worse a journalist, to think when seeing a £10 billion spending increase promised on the basis of wildly wrong information?

It is this kind of mistake that embarrasses the party and leaves us all looking amateur. If UKIP is ever to break through into mainstream politics we have to leave the amateur politics and one-man-manifestos behind.

Another similar mistake is made in the section regarding welfare. The passage states that welfare has a “budget of £120 billion,” yet the treasury website account of the 2006 budget claims that the figure is in fact £151 billion. In the last General Election one of the most controversial issues for the major parties was whether ‘their sums add up.’ Policies based on dodgy sums destroy any credibility for what might otherwise be a sensible policy.

Example 4 – Choose an ideology and stick to it
David also appears confused about the kind of ideology he desires to impose. In many places the document appears to take a fairly radical free market approach, promising to reduce taxation and red-tape and proposing that the government might ‘franchise out’ schools and hospitals to the private sector. However this theme is contradicted at times by a restrictive, protectionist attitude in specific areas.

For example, “a list of around 300 essential British companies and brands” should be protected from foreign ownership and any takeover proceedings relating to them should governed by a committee of the House of Commons. Allowing this much political involvement in the economy is a fairly radical protectionist measure which ideologically contradicts the idea of a low regulation, low tax economy. Along similar lines David intends that there will be new farmers’ markets which “supermarkets must buy from alongside individuals rather than through direct supply contracts.” So which is it? Does he believe in a free market or protectionist policies and direct interference in supply contracts for supermarkets?

None of this is to say that the policies are wrong in themselves or that UKIP should never adopt them. The problem is that they do nothing to present a clear philosophy for the party and are embarrassingly inconsistent.

Summary: A professional party
It is Richard’s ambition to leave behind all the amateur politics that have plagued UKIP in its early years. As tempting as it may be to string a dozen populist policies together to form a people’s manifesto, the party needs a far stronger intellectual basis. We must look to the long term picture and how we can gain the trust of the public and the media; that requires professionalism, consistency and proper research.

Thanks to:
Jan Guest (Oxford University student & UKIP Member)
Anthony Butcher (UKIP NEC Member)
John Page (UKIP Member Welwyn Hatfield)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of the three authors. They are presented as opinion only. The authors will be supporting Richard Suchozewski in the leadership election.

harryaldridge · 26-07-2006, 01:09 PM

Well done!

I completely agree. UKIP needs to first establish a philosophy/ideology and then construct consistent policies around this frame.

We must be consistent, we must get our facts straight, and we must be realistic.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in DCB's manifesto. I did not pick up on them straight away when i first read his site.

Whay spend an extra £10bn on defence? Spend on what and why? Spending is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is all very well saying we will spend more, but before saying this we must know what we would spend it on. (more equipment, people, research etc????)

UKIP needs a proper debate. We need to set a course. Those that disagree need to leave. We cannot continue to try and please all of the people all of the time. We need to shake the tree and see who falls out and who stays.

And we need to do all this in time for the next elections!!!

GAriss · 26-07-2006, 05:01 PM

I agree that we desperately need to open the party to debate and the most effective way of doing this is elect Richard as the new party leader.

I believe that the UKIP party needs to be dedicated to delivering and maintaining for the British people Personal Liberty and Responsibility. A key component of this is that we should seek to reform the Government and the State Sector so that we minimise its role in society.

Mr Campbell Bannerman is, as with many long serving politicians, having difficulty reconciling this with a politician natural desire to control and manage society.

Thanks to Mr Blair and his Governments, peoples trust in Politicians and the State appears to have dissolved and as a result a real opportunity must exist for a political party that can promote a deliverable plan to role back the state from whole areas of peoples lives. However Mr Cameron has decided to firmly move the Conservative party into the “Big Government” camp, if we as a party succeed in moving UK political opinion to “Small Government”, we may find ourselves fighting with a Brown led Labour party out flanking a dieing Conservative party which has alienated its core supporters in many constituencies.

Tom Wilde · 26-07-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

http://www.richard4leader.co.uk/bannermans-big-mistake.html

Quote:

Political Philosophy must come first
Before we even venture near specific policies we need to define who we are as a party. What do we stand for? What kind of people are we? What kind of Britain do we want?

Absolutely right, and expressed with admirable clarity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Quote:

These are the questions that Richard will seek to answer quickly as Leader. Rather than simply impose his own vision on the party, he will organise an ‘open thinking’ conference to allow the members to have their say and contribute their ideas.

Alternatively the different candidates could outline their political philosophies now - in whatever degree of detail they prefer - and UKIP members could choose between the visions on offer by casting their votes in this election. Surely that is a more democratic and sensible way of determining the broad ideological approach of the party than electing a candidate on other grounds who then holds an 'open thinking' conference?

I have nothing against conferences but the proposal raises so many supplementary questions. Who would attend the conference? Would each attendee have an equal vote? Would there be a grand vote at the end of the conference to choose between several competing ideological approaches? If not, would it be a question of the most articulate attendees (or those with the loudest voices) pressing for the insertion of their particular concerns into a single document which the attendees were invited to ratify as a whole at the end of the conference?

Clearer and better and fairer, surely, for every candidate including Richard to outline their political philosophy now, so the UKIP electors can choose?

Anthony Butcher · 26-07-2006, 06:10 PM

To be fair, I think that Richard has done this to some extent. What he hasn't done is provide a concrete 'this is who we are' document. I agree with Richard that there has to be some input from the members on this. His theme is very much about involving the party in its own future, rather than a top down dictatorial approach.

John Page · 26-07-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harryaldridge

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in DCB's manifesto. I did not pick up on them straight away when i first read his site.

I think that's just a selection, Harry.

There's more discussion of his policies here, though you may already have seen it.

26-07-2006, 05:01 PM	#3 (permalink)
GAriss Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 24	Time to open the debate I agree that we desperately need to open the party to debate and the most effective way of doing this is elect Richard as the new party leader. I believe that the UKIP party needs to be dedicated to delivering and maintaining for the British people Personal Liberty and Responsibility. A key component of this is that we should seek to reform the Government and the State Sector so that we minimise its role in society. Mr Campbell Bannerman is, as with many long serving politicians, having difficulty reconciling this with a politician natural desire to control and manage society. Thanks to Mr Blair and his Governments, peoples trust in Politicians and the State appears to have dissolved and as a result a real opportunity must exist for a political party that can promote a deliverable plan to role back the state from whole areas of peoples lives. However Mr Cameron has decided to firmly move the Conservative party into the “Big Government” camp, if we as a party succeed in moving UK political opinion to “Small Government”, we may find ourselves fighting with a Brown led Labour party out flanking a dieing Conservative party which has alienated its core supporters in many constituencies.

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

26-07-2006, 01:09 PM	#2 (permalink)
harryaldridge Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: West Sussex Posts: 1,912	Well done! I completely agree. UKIP needs to first establish a philosophy/ideology and then construct consistent policies around this frame. We must be consistent, we must get our facts straight, and we must be realistic. Thanks for pointing out the flaws in DCB's manifesto. I did not pick up on them straight away when i first read his site. Whay spend an extra £10bn on defence? Spend on what and why? Spending is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is all very well saying we will spend more, but before saying this we must know what we would spend it on. (more equipment, people, research etc????) UKIP needs a proper debate. We need to set a course. Those that disagree need to leave. We cannot continue to try and please all of the people all of the time. We need to shake the tree and see who falls out and who stays. And we need to do all this in time for the next elections!!!

26-07-2006, 06:10 PM	#5 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,186 Party: None	To be fair, I think that Richard has done this to some extent. What he hasn't done is provide a concrete 'this is who we are' document. I agree with Richard that there has to be some input from the members on this. His theme is very much about involving the party in its own future, rather than a top down dictatorial approach.