What should be the priority for UKIP right now?

cassie · 03-06-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Cassie, etc: I am not interested in giving advantage to any individual country or particular part of the United Kingdom. I am also English, and have family documentation, wills, etc. continuous and chronological since the 15c. However, that forms no part of the debate: that must depend on the evidence and merits of our proposition.

We have a Parliament with 645 seats, of which 528 seats represent English constituencies. The remaining 117 seats comprise Scotland (59 seats), Wales (40) and Northern Ireland (18). Should any issue be of particular importance to the English, and it was widely supported among the electorate, it could become law if all other parts of the Union opposed us or not. It was to correct this imbalance, that consideration for the interests of of Scotland, Wales and N.I. (albeit a different history there), was successful.

To some extent, the political imbalance within the UK was mitigated by the two dominant political parties, being significantly represented in constituencies from Lands End to John O'Groats. That was the case until Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979, and possible one or two elections subsequently. When John Major was defeated by Blair, a new political landscape appeared. The Conservatives had no political base either in Wales or Scotland. (We will ignore NI, as not to complicate the issue). Devolution gave Scotland and Wales some autonomy over domestic and social issues, but little else.
Those two countries chose to take certain decisions which annoy many people in England. One relates to prescription charges and the other educational grants. Should the English want the same treatment, a HoC with 528 English seats, could achieve it for them. Should every other part of the UK oppose us, - all other 117 seats- the will of the English representatives would prevail. What do the English want to bring into legislation, that cannot be achieved by the extant constitutional arrangement? Quote an example which supports your case.

I would support ending subscription charges. Only about 6% of patients actually pay for them. The other 90+% are either too old, too young, unemployed, in receipt of social security etc. (check the facts). It is unlikely that any 'new money for the NHS'
is derived from prescrition charges. Indeed so few pay, pharmicists were giving the
patients the medication and pocketing the money. A new regulatory authority was then
established to monitor chemists. Encourage the English MPs' to abolish prescription charges and bring us into line with Scotlan and Wales using those means which already exist. If that is what you want; what do you identify as an imediment?

Education loans are a similar issue to prescription charges. When Education grants were provided, a small staff in the L.E.A. was sufficient to administer them. When they were replaced with loans, each loan has to be monitored individually- over the recipients working life - to ensure their collection. Now grants have ended, local authorities are obliged to increase their staff, to supervise the annually increasing number of approved loans. Again, we have the parliamentery numbers necessary to change these things if we wish. Our numerical advantage in the Commons renders opposition from other parts of the Union largely irrelevant.

Should the Conservative win the next G.E. and all the evidence seems to suggest that they will, are you content that we should legislate for all other parts of the UK? Should your answer be no, a total separation will be necessary. You cannot impose upon them constraints in terms of military contribution, foreign policy, fiscal policy, etc. under a constitution which has abandoned national partnership in favour of national self-determination.

At a time when we are in uncharted waters, in respect of our relationship with the EU;
in addition to world governments and bankers. not to mention experienced veteran financiers, (Geogre Soros, Warren Buffett, Ben Bernanke, and a million other) saying that we are about to experience the worst economic crisis for eighty years, you want to destabilise the country further with a constitution experiment. Against that background, what compelling reasons can you identify?

Geoffrey, I neither want nor need a history lesson, or one about the constitution. All I want is for the people of England to be accorded parity of treatment with those elsewhere in the UK whilst we remain part of the UK.

If the price of remaining within the UK as presently constituted is to be denied equity and to be treated disadvantageously as fourth class citizens, then I do not wish England to remain within it! I believe that increasing numbers of voters in England are coming to that opinion.

If the peoples of Scotland and Wales can be allocated their own budgets with which to organise their own Health, Housing, Education, Transport Services and systems, then so should the much more numerous people of England, enabling them to do so without the malign interference of MPs elected to represent Scotland and Wales.

It's as simple as that!

___________________________________

Bob FM · 03-06-2008, 05:36 AM

The statistical argument put forward by GC is a red herring, given that most MP's vote along party lines, and little thought is given to the effect it has on individual countries, which is where the inequality comes in, given the 'extra' powers the other 3 have.

chikrodah · 03-06-2008, 06:22 AM

When did the UK Independence Party become the England Independence Party?

Bob FM · 03-06-2008, 07:58 AM

BUt part of UKIP's manifesto is to recognise that a return to the status 'Q' of all decisions being taken in Westminster simply would not be possible without alienating albeit a small minority of the UK. In the interests of fairness, and something the vast majority believe is fair, is that English Constituency MP's sit for 4 days a month, and likewise in the other Parliaments. This would then remove another huge cost burden, because there would be no need for MSP's or AM's, as there is now. Surely a equitable system. And of course abolish the Barnet formulae that according to Barnet himself was only surposed to be in place a couple of years, not a permanent fixture.

cassie · 03-06-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikrodah

When did the UK Independence Party become the England Independence Party?

Dunno . . . you tell us!

Personally, I'm suggesting that UKIP policy should be changed to support the establishment of a separate parliament & executive for the people of England within the UK. The failure, refusal to pursue this possibility emphasises how much England is expected to support the minor nations whilst being subject to political interference from them which they do not tolerate from us!

Either we are all 'British' and our separate national identities are subsumed - which is the process the Nu Labour Government is imposing solely on England - or we retain our individual national identities. Obviously, the Scots and Welsh are retaining their respective national identities, and the English must be permitted to retain theirs!

Both Scotland and Wales have direct links with the EU to promote THEIR respective interests, England does not. Both Scotland and Wales are represented individually on the British-Irish Council, England is not!

It is pointless commenting on the number of MPs returned to represent England when: (A) the Cabinet and Government is vastly over represented with Scots; and (B) the 'party system' results in the likes of Nigel Evans, Kate Hoey, Liam Fox, Michael Ancram, Ian McCartney, Brigit & Gordon Prentice, Jim Fitzpatrick, Ian Gibson, Charles Gray, Anne McIntosh, Steve McCabe etc etc all purporting to represent England!

Many English have already lost their identity, and know not who they are, but the Scots and the Welsh do, and THEY are extremely conscious of THEIR separate identities! Indeed, Scots and Welsh in England often play on their nationality - as provided for in Section 3 of the Race Relations Act 1976 - but, as nations, they are party to wholesale discrimination against English nationality!

I suppose some touchy Brits will misrepresent the above as some kind of claim for independence, but if the Scots and Welsh can retain THEIR identities within the framework of the UK, so can the English. This is why a separate parliament for England is needed, but NONE of this spatchcock four days a week nonsense. The much more numerous English are entitled to no less than the others!

________________________

Geoffrey Collier · 03-06-2008, 10:44 AM

Cassie: Cassie, with respect, you do need lessons about the constitution, because you don't appear to know anything about it. Are you in the business of dealing with actual political problems or merely theoretical ones? Can you give me an example of how England is disadvantaged by the existing contitutional arrangement? What do you want to achieve, which cannot be achieved in a HoC where English constituencies provide 528 of the 645 representatives? That majority provided the means, wisely or unwisely, to privatise public assets and other utilities in Scotland, Wales and NI. Can you provide a comparable example of where the Scots, or indeeed Wales and NI, combined, and armed with their 117 votes, have ever possessed that ability to impose their political will over England? This is central to the issues being discussed.

You stated, Cassis, as an implied threat, if you can't get your own way, you would prefer an independent England. What happens if the Scots inform you that Noway, with a smaller population than Scotland, (4.7 milllion to 5.3million) are independent, have their own seat on the UN, embassies world-wide, the third highest GDP per capita in the world and also a good Welfare State. In addition, they have control over their own oil and armed forces, while being members of NATO.

Scotland is a valued member of the UK. For reasons which you cannot justify or explain, you and other EDs', want a constitutional showdown within the UK. If you want to partake in the dismantling of the nation state; well carry on. The EU must be delighted with you political ambitions: and when you have destroyed everything which is good around you, presumably you will then deem your life's work done. Complex things constitutions; creating one which actually works for generations, is something which few nations have achieved. Give thanks for how fortunate you are.

John Connor · 03-06-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YI MEMBER

We must overcome the perception problem associated with this party.

You can't undo the perception problem. UKIP didn't put it there (the lefties did), so they can't remove it.

Legin · 03-06-2008, 11:35 AM

The party is losing support hand over fist because of these kind of issues and will certainly not gain any more. If anyone disagrees with these ideas then I would seriously question whether their interests lie in the future growth of the party.[/quote]

Try talking to the Young Independence leader and her live in lover, when they start to support their own Region things will greatly improve!!

cassie · 03-06-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Cassie: Cassie, with respect, you do need lessons about the constitution, because you don't appear to know anything about it. Are you in the business of dealing with actual political problems or merely theoretical ones?

Geoffrey, you are yet another Englishman dumping on England and the English! your assessment of the constitutional situation is somewhat simplistic and superficial as far as it goes. You have yet to demonstrate that my disagreement with you amounts to ignorance about the British Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Can you give me an example of how England is disadvantaged by the existing constitutional arrangement?

Yes, England as a nation in its own right does not have its identity maintained. [Also, see below - under 'comparable examples'.] You obviously did not read my earlier post properly! Can you give me an example of how Scotland and Wales are disadvantaged by the existing constitutional arrangement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

What do you want to achieve, which cannot be achieved in a HoC where English constituencies provide 528 of the 645 representatives? That majority provided the means, wisely or unwisely, to privatise public assets and other utilities in Scotland, Wales and NI.

Nothing! All the changes I seek MUST be made via the British Parliament, unless there is serious civil unrest or external military intervention which are the only alternatives!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Can you provide a comparable example of where the Scots, or indeed Wales and NI, combined, and armed with their 117 votes, have ever possessed that ability to impose their political will over England? This is central to the issues being discussed.

Yes, in 1997 they conducted referenda in Scotland and Wales which excluded any participation in those processes by the 85% of the UK's voters in England. They have refused to allow a similar referendum for England as a nation in its own right. Don't you take any interest in news of current affairs! There are numerous other examples of how the English have been discriminated against eg in Health - prescriptions charges, PFI, denial of prescription drugs, Education - imposition of top-up tuition fees whereby the English pay more than other categories such as EU students, asylum seekers, Scots studying without fees in England, Transport - rejection of a tram scheme for Leeds [pop 725,000] by Alistair Darling, MP for Edinburgh South but subsequent approval of a similar scheme for Edinburgh [pop 450,000] . . do I really need to go on?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

You stated, Cassis, as an implied threat, if you can't get your own way, you would prefer an independent England. What happens if the Scots inform you that Norway, with a smaller population than Scotland, (4.7 milllion to 5.3million) are independent, have their own seat on the UN, embassies world-wide, the third highest GDP per capita in the world and also a good Welfare State. In addition, they have control over their own oil and armed forces, while being members of NATO.

. . . and your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Scotland is a valued member of the UK. For reasons which you cannot justify or explain, you and other EDs', want a constitutional showdown within the UK.

I want a constitutional settlement for England. Kindly do not misrepresent my position in order to make spurious points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

If you want to partake in the dismantling of the nation state; well carry on.

Britain is NOT a nation! How can it be with so many citizens who were neither born here and are not of British (English) stock? Britain is a state comprising four nations. Do you feel better having got that off your chest? Were I to respond in kind, I might say: if you want to continue having England and the English penalised, carry on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

The EU must be delighted with your political ambitions: and when you have destroyed everything which is good around you, presumably you will then deem your life's work done. Complex things constitutions; creating one which actually works for generations, is something which few nations have achieved. Give thanks for how fortunate you are.

I am well ware the there is a school of thought within UKIP circles which believes that separate parliaments/assemblies for each nation - especially England - will play into the EU's hands; but I do not share that opinion. I do not regard creating a separate parliament in England within the UK as destructive and, for you to say so, begs the question and is illustrative of how weak are your arguments that you present a conclusion in substitution for rational argument!

_____________________________

Geoffrey Collier · 03-06-2008, 03:32 PM

Cassie: You are going around in circles. I am not aware, personally, of any sense in which my national identity has been diminished. The things that are important to me still exist; peace, tolerance and generosity of spirit. They are equally important to most other people who comprise the UK. I want them to continue for generations yet unborn, by the maintenance of our own institutions and an independent United Kingdom.

The creation of the UK was, to no small extent, the result of wars and the need to have a central foreign policy. Scotland (1707). Were we concerned about possible European alliances posing a military threat to our northern borders? Yes. Do you feel that
the Irish Act of Union (1800), and the abolition of the Irish Parliament, was unrelated to our concern about Irish military alliances with Continental powers? Unified, and enjoying the full security of being an Island, was to be the reward for all. This security increased further after Trafalgar in 1805. We hadn't created Heaven on earth, but we had avoided the worst excesses of Hell.

You want a separate English Parliament and Executive, but on a dark night, that could be mistaken for independence. If, in fact, you are talking about an EP with limited powers, de-facto that already exists. If you want identical, 'privileges' to the Wales and Scotland, we could have them. Should this governemnt, or a subsequent one, want free prescriptions, education grants, etc, etc, there is no legislative impediment why that shouldn't be realised.

It is absurd to argue that the 'poor old English' are not having a fair crack of the whip.
Mineral extraction, oil, coal, gas, etc, are subject to the ownership and discretion of the Crown. In reality, that means the English dominated Parliament at Westminster. If your, Constitution Summit, fails and we go our separate ways, are those things going to be equally divided? Water could be another problem; the reservoirs of central Wales supply Birmingham and much of the Midlands.

Making a list of grievances against the Welsh, Scots and Irish, is not wise. It merely provokes them to do the same. People, in the main, are satisfied with agreements which are broadly fair: a feeling of justice, is healthier than an egalitarian equality won by fighting over the final crumb. It doesn't worry me in the slightest, if Scots get free educational grants, or the Welsh free prescriptions: all quite peripheral to the important things in life. Don't meddle with the Constitution, that is dangerous and should be your
major objection to the EU. For more than 250 years, mainland Britain has not known civil war, violent revolution or occupation. No other major world power can make a similar boast. The USA, China, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain: the list is endless. Do you see why sound constitutions and good political judgement is important?

03-06-2008, 05:36 AM	#22 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,125	Re Herring The statistical argument put forward by GC is a red herring, given that most MP's vote along party lines, and little thought is given to the effect it has on individual countries, which is where the inequality comes in, given the 'extra' powers the other 3 have.

03-06-2008, 07:58 AM	#24 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,125	We Aren't BUt part of UKIP's manifesto is to recognise that a return to the status 'Q' of all decisions being taken in Westminster simply would not be possible without alienating albeit a small minority of the UK. In the interests of fairness, and something the vast majority believe is fair, is that English Constituency MP's sit for 4 days a month, and likewise in the other Parliaments. This would then remove another huge cost burden, because there would be no need for MSP's or AM's, as there is now. Surely a equitable system. And of course abolish the Barnet formulae that according to Barnet himself was only surposed to be in place a couple of years, not a permanent fixture.

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

03-06-2008, 06:22 AM	#23 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,525	When did the UK Independence Party become the England Independence Party?

03-06-2008, 10:44 AM	#26 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,002	Cassie: Cassie, with respect, you do need lessons about the constitution, because you don't appear to know anything about it. Are you in the business of dealing with actual political problems or merely theoretical ones? Can you give me an example of how England is disadvantaged by the existing contitutional arrangement? What do you want to achieve, which cannot be achieved in a HoC where English constituencies provide 528 of the 645 representatives? That majority provided the means, wisely or unwisely, to privatise public assets and other utilities in Scotland, Wales and NI. Can you provide a comparable example of where the Scots, or indeeed Wales and NI, combined, and armed with their 117 votes, have ever possessed that ability to impose their political will over England? This is central to the issues being discussed. You stated, Cassis, as an implied threat, if you can't get your own way, you would prefer an independent England. What happens if the Scots inform you that Noway, with a smaller population than Scotland, (4.7 milllion to 5.3million) are independent, have their own seat on the UN, embassies world-wide, the third highest GDP per capita in the world and also a good Welfare State. In addition, they have control over their own oil and armed forces, while being members of NATO. Scotland is a valued member of the UK. For reasons which you cannot justify or explain, you and other EDs', want a constitutional showdown within the UK. If you want to partake in the dismantling of the nation state; well carry on. The EU must be delighted with you political ambitions: and when you have destroyed everything which is good around you, presumably you will then deem your life's work done. Complex things constitutions; creating one which actually works for generations, is something which few nations have achieved. Give thanks for how fortunate you are.

03-06-2008, 11:35 AM	#28 (permalink)
Legin Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 160	The party is losing support hand over fist because of these kind of issues and will certainly not gain any more. If anyone disagrees with these ideas then I would seriously question whether their interests lie in the future growth of the party.[/quote] Try talking to the Young Independence leader and her live in lover, when they start to support their own Region things will greatly improve!!

03-06-2008, 03:32 PM	#30 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,002	Cassie: You are going around in circles. I am not aware, personally, of any sense in which my national identity has been diminished. The things that are important to me still exist; peace, tolerance and generosity of spirit. They are equally important to most other people who comprise the UK. I want them to continue for generations yet unborn, by the maintenance of our own institutions and an independent United Kingdom. The creation of the UK was, to no small extent, the result of wars and the need to have a central foreign policy. Scotland (1707). Were we concerned about possible European alliances posing a military threat to our northern borders? Yes. Do you feel that the Irish Act of Union (1800), and the abolition of the Irish Parliament, was unrelated to our concern about Irish military alliances with Continental powers? Unified, and enjoying the full security of being an Island, was to be the reward for all. This security increased further after Trafalgar in 1805. We hadn't created Heaven on earth, but we had avoided the worst excesses of Hell. You want a separate English Parliament and Executive, but on a dark night, that could be mistaken for independence. If, in fact, you are talking about an EP with limited powers, de-facto that already exists. If you want identical, 'privileges' to the Wales and Scotland, we could have them. Should this governemnt, or a subsequent one, want free prescriptions, education grants, etc, etc, there is no legislative impediment why that shouldn't be realised. It is absurd to argue that the 'poor old English' are not having a fair crack of the whip. Mineral extraction, oil, coal, gas, etc, are subject to the ownership and discretion of the Crown. In reality, that means the English dominated Parliament at Westminster. If your, Constitution Summit, fails and we go our separate ways, are those things going to be equally divided? Water could be another problem; the reservoirs of central Wales supply Birmingham and much of the Midlands. Making a list of grievances against the Welsh, Scots and Irish, is not wise. It merely provokes them to do the same. People, in the main, are satisfied with agreements which are broadly fair: a feeling of justice, is healthier than an egalitarian equality won by fighting over the final crumb. It doesn't worry me in the slightest, if Scots get free educational grants, or the Welsh free prescriptions: all quite peripheral to the important things in life. Don't meddle with the Constitution, that is dangerous and should be your major objection to the EU. For more than 250 years, mainland Britain has not known civil war, violent revolution or occupation. No other major world power can make a similar boast. The USA, China, Japan, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain: the list is endless. Do you see why sound constitutions and good political judgement is important?