This thread is for UKIP candidates or their representatives to put their case and answer questions.
Questions should be polite and non-argumentative. If you wish to argue the point please open a new thread on the subject.
Admin
The UKIP Case
The UKIP Case
Last edited by admin on 14 May 2010 14:15, edited 1 time in total.
I am Peter Staveley, your UKIP candidate for the constituency of Lewisham West and Penge.
I have lived in South London for 23 years, so I am a local candidate.
I run my own transport consultancy, which I started in 1995. For many years I have been involved in the planning of the East London Line, which will run through the Constituency from next month.
I am not a career Politian and if elected will be independently-minded and will not always follow the party line.
Obviously one of UKIP's main issues is the membership of The European Union. The EU may seem remote to Lewisham West and Penge, and not relevant to the General Election, but did you know that 75% of our laws come from the EU (not Westminster) and that the NET cost of membership is £7.6 billion per year and rapidly rising each year.
The other parties are talking about cutting public expenditure yet none of them are talking about reducing the cost of membership of the EU. Of course the EU will not let us reduce that cost, so the only option is to start talking about whether we want to continue with membership of the EU and, ultimately, to have a referendum on membership of the EU.
UKIP is not a single-issue party. We have 17 policy themes including: Taxation, Immigration, Law & Order, Defence, Transport and Planning. See our website for details. www.ukip.org.
A vote for UKIP is a vote for:
- No Taxes on Minimum Wage earners.
- Common sense politics, not Politically Correct politics.
- An end to Uncontrolled Immigration.
- Zero tolerance on crime—Sentences to mean what they say. 'Life to mean Life'.
- Cut MoD bureaucracy; provide the best equipment to our forces.
- Uphold NHS principles: No cuts to frontline services.
- Local and National referenda on any issue where there is a petition from more than 5% of the electorate.
- An English Parliament for English MPs at Westminster.
I also have my own local policies, including:
- Campaigning to ensure that there are sufficient and long enough from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge/Charing Cross.
- Campaigning for an extension of Tramlink to Crystal Palace.
- Campaigning for the removal of unnecessary road humps, to be replaced with other (more effective) traffic calming measures. Subject to the consent of local residents.
None of the LibLabCon will provide a proper opposition, their policies are virtually identical. We need to show that there is a groundswell of opinion that we want a proper opposition in Westminster to the Government and an end to the hidden rule by Brussels.
Norway and Switzerland seem to manage the economies well without being members of the EU, so why not the UK?
I have lived in South London for 23 years, so I am a local candidate.
I run my own transport consultancy, which I started in 1995. For many years I have been involved in the planning of the East London Line, which will run through the Constituency from next month.
I am not a career Politian and if elected will be independently-minded and will not always follow the party line.
Obviously one of UKIP's main issues is the membership of The European Union. The EU may seem remote to Lewisham West and Penge, and not relevant to the General Election, but did you know that 75% of our laws come from the EU (not Westminster) and that the NET cost of membership is £7.6 billion per year and rapidly rising each year.
The other parties are talking about cutting public expenditure yet none of them are talking about reducing the cost of membership of the EU. Of course the EU will not let us reduce that cost, so the only option is to start talking about whether we want to continue with membership of the EU and, ultimately, to have a referendum on membership of the EU.
UKIP is not a single-issue party. We have 17 policy themes including: Taxation, Immigration, Law & Order, Defence, Transport and Planning. See our website for details. www.ukip.org.
A vote for UKIP is a vote for:
- No Taxes on Minimum Wage earners.
- Common sense politics, not Politically Correct politics.
- An end to Uncontrolled Immigration.
- Zero tolerance on crime—Sentences to mean what they say. 'Life to mean Life'.
- Cut MoD bureaucracy; provide the best equipment to our forces.
- Uphold NHS principles: No cuts to frontline services.
- Local and National referenda on any issue where there is a petition from more than 5% of the electorate.
- An English Parliament for English MPs at Westminster.
I also have my own local policies, including:
- Campaigning to ensure that there are sufficient and long enough from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge/Charing Cross.
- Campaigning for an extension of Tramlink to Crystal Palace.
- Campaigning for the removal of unnecessary road humps, to be replaced with other (more effective) traffic calming measures. Subject to the consent of local residents.
None of the LibLabCon will provide a proper opposition, their policies are virtually identical. We need to show that there is a groundswell of opinion that we want a proper opposition in Westminster to the Government and an end to the hidden rule by Brussels.
Norway and Switzerland seem to manage the economies well without being members of the EU, so why not the UK?
Pstaveley wrote:
UKIP is not a single-issue party. We have 17 policy themes including: Taxation, Immigration, Law & Order, Defence, Transport and Planning. See our website for details. www.ukip.org.
A vote for UKIP is a vote for:
- No Taxes on Minimum Wage earners.
- Common sense politics, not Politically Correct politics.
- An end to Uncontrolled Immigration.
- Zero tolerance on crime—Sentences to mean what they say. 'Life to mean Life'.
- Cut MoD bureaucracy; provide the best equipment to our forces.
- Uphold NHS principles: No cuts to frontline services.
- Local and National referenda on any issue where there is a petition from more than 5% of the electorate.
- An English Parliament for English MPs at Westminster.
I also have my own local policies, including:
- Campaigning to ensure that there are sufficient and long enough from Sydenham and Forest Hill to London Bridge/Charing Cross.
- Campaigning for an extension of Tramlink to Crystal Palace.
- Campaigning for the removal of unnecessary road humps, to be replaced with other (more effective) traffic calming measures. Subject to the consent of local residents.
None of the LibLabCon will provide a proper opposition, their policies are virtually identical. We need to show that there is a groundswell of opinion that we want a proper opposition in Westminster to the Government and an end to the hidden rule by Brussels.
Norway and Switzerland seem to manage the economies well without being members of the EU, so why not the UK?
I don't really understand UKIP. If being members of the EU costs so much surely there must be a good reason to be in it?!?
Pstaveley – so you say UKIP isn't a single-issue party, but you seem to have a 'single issue' of your own – you seem to have a major preoccupation with transport. You do realise all three of the things you mentioned that you are campaigning on locally are about transport?!?
And your party's general policies consist of some VERY sweeping statements.
For example:
'No Taxes on Minimum Wage earners.'
Wow, that sounds great! But how are UKIP going to raise enough money to pay for things that cost quite alot of money, like the NHS, education, policing, prisons? Surely you can't save all that purely from leaving the EU?
'Common sense politics, not Politically Correct politics.'
Whose common sense? Yours? Mine? what if we can't agree on what common sense is? This sounds very vague.
'An end to Uncontrolled Immigration'
Are UKIP suggesting that Immigration is currently completely uncontrolled?
How are UKIP going to magically make it so easy to control? How will they prevent the UK from becoming an uncompetitive place for business due to high labour costs and shortages?
'Zero tolerance on crime—Sentences to mean what they say. 'Life to mean Life'.'
So UKIP are planning on having ALOT of people in prison from the sounds of things. It costs plenty of money to keep people in prison - how are UKIP going to pay for the prisons if you're not taxing anyone?
'Cut MoD bureaucracy; provide the best equipment to our forces.'
Natch.
'Uphold NHS principles: No cuts to frontline services.'
Okay, sounds good.
' Local and National referenda on any issue where there is a petition from more than 5% of the electorate.'
I'm just guessing but I think that could cost a great deal to do?, could very likely be unworkable. (And I suppose you'll be bringing back hanging then - but then I suppose that'll sort out your prison costs!).
- An English Parliament for English MPs at Westminster.
?
Where are you party's policies about education? environment?
You will probably say 'visit the UKIP website' but I don't feel like it from how you've presented your party, so I'm just letting you know.
Last edited by Juwlz on 7 Apr 2010 23:49, edited 2 times in total.
Hi Peter,
Many thanks for providing links to the UKIP website and policies. I have a few questions:
Why do you think that nuclear power is a better energy source than wind, and why do you wish to oppose all wind farms?
How many Nuclear reactors will be required for 50% of our energy and can we expect to see one in Lewisham?
You also want to safeguard British weights and measures, does this mean I am going to have to learn how many feet in a mile and shillings in a gallon?
'UKIP will deport radical preachers calling for violence' would this include radical Christian preachers (I'm thinking Northern Ireland) or just Muslims? And to where are you planning to deport these UK citizens? Are there not already laws against incitement to violence that do not require deportation?
Finally, when the manifesto states: "UKIP opposes multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions." can you explain how we can have a uniculture and embrass all religions? Will I be required to celebrate Diwali or banned from celebrating Eid?
Many thanks for providing links to the UKIP website and policies. I have a few questions:
Why do you think that nuclear power is a better energy source than wind, and why do you wish to oppose all wind farms?
How many Nuclear reactors will be required for 50% of our energy and can we expect to see one in Lewisham?
You also want to safeguard British weights and measures, does this mean I am going to have to learn how many feet in a mile and shillings in a gallon?
'UKIP will deport radical preachers calling for violence' would this include radical Christian preachers (I'm thinking Northern Ireland) or just Muslims? And to where are you planning to deport these UK citizens? Are there not already laws against incitement to violence that do not require deportation?
Finally, when the manifesto states: "UKIP opposes multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions." can you explain how we can have a uniculture and embrass all religions? Will I be required to celebrate Diwali or banned from celebrating Eid?
With respect that seems very much an operational decision, albeit at a very high level.Bram wrote:Does the I in 'UKIP' also mean we would quit intelligence sharing agreements with the USA and various (white) Commonwealth countries dating back to the Cold War?
We need a defence force that is fully funded for the tasks that it is required to do. If the defence chiefs feel that they benefit from having intelligence sharing agreements then so be it. I do not see the politicians' role as meddling in detailed agreements.
The UKIP Defence Policy is at http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-polici ... kip-policy
Juwlz
I would be interested in hearing what the good reason to be in the EU is, I have not heard one yet. What is really bad is that all EU legislation is created by 27 Commissioners who are appointed not elected. Those laws that they create can only be slowed down by the EU Parliament and the National Parliaments, they cannot be stopped. To me it seems worrying that we have yielded so much power to a group of unelected politicians.
If you could provide me with a list of the advantages of being in the EU (that would be barred to us if we were not an EU member) then I would be happy to deal with those points.
The NET cash saving from not being in the EU is £7.6 billion per year. That would pay for a bit more of the NHS, education, policing, prisons etc. However, the real savings from not being in the EU are much higher.
Firstly, the cash that we receive back has to be spent on projects that the EU wants, not what we want. If we had a total say in how that money was spent then more projects that are useful to us could be done.
Secondly, there are the hidden costs of the EU. The Tax Payers Alliance have stated that the total cost of the EU on the UK is around £2,000 per person per year (i.e. £120 billion per year). Those costs include all the additional costs that businesses suffer through the various regulations.
I am sorry if the statements were sweeping, I wanted to keep the introductory email as short as possible. Obviously we have pages and pages of detailed policy. For example the Manifesto has 17 policy areas.
Immigration
Most immigration is uncontrolled. Any person who has citizenship in any EU country can come and live in our country. Currently around 5,000 people per week are settling in this country and because we are members of the EU we cannot stop them.
UKIP is not planning on stopping all immigration. We will be issuing Work Permits to those that would benefit the UK economy.
Referenda
How do you feel it would be unworkable? Currently there are Number 10 petitions. I would expect that a similar system would be developed. When 5% of the electorate sign that petition (within 3 or 6 months of the start of the petition) then there will be a national or local referendum.
The Swiss currently have that system. We would adopt the same system. The main benefits are that the level of democracy would increase and all the major policy items would be decided by this method, as is done in Switzerland.
Education
It is difficult to summarise 15 paragraphs on education in our Manifesto or 26 pages in our Education Policy Document. However, some highlights I would like to mention would be:
- Increase parental choice in school education.
- Retain all existing grammar schools and encourage the creation of new grammar schools and specialist schools.
- Return to a student grant system, as opposed to student loans which leave many graduates in heavy debt.
Environment
Again highlights I would like to mention are:
- Immediately repeal disastrous EU Directives such as the Large Combustion Plant Directive. The Directive threatens to put the lights out by closing a quarter of the UK’s domestic coal and energy plants by 2015 without providing any realistic, working alternatives.
- Establish a Royal Commission under a High Court Judge that will allow scientists to reach a conclusion about the facts and economic implications of global warming.
- Incentivise and support electric road vehicles, the comprehensive electrification of rail lines and accompanying infrastructure.
Local Policies
Yes, I fully admit that my local policies are transport based. Before accepting my candidacy I undertook some research as to what the local issues were. I wanted to ensure that any policies I proposed were achievable by an MP and were not already included in the UKIP list of policies. The conclusions I reached were that transport projects were the most important areas for the local community.
I would be interested to hear what local policies you think I should have adopted.
I would be interested in hearing what the good reason to be in the EU is, I have not heard one yet. What is really bad is that all EU legislation is created by 27 Commissioners who are appointed not elected. Those laws that they create can only be slowed down by the EU Parliament and the National Parliaments, they cannot be stopped. To me it seems worrying that we have yielded so much power to a group of unelected politicians.
If you could provide me with a list of the advantages of being in the EU (that would be barred to us if we were not an EU member) then I would be happy to deal with those points.
The NET cash saving from not being in the EU is £7.6 billion per year. That would pay for a bit more of the NHS, education, policing, prisons etc. However, the real savings from not being in the EU are much higher.
Firstly, the cash that we receive back has to be spent on projects that the EU wants, not what we want. If we had a total say in how that money was spent then more projects that are useful to us could be done.
Secondly, there are the hidden costs of the EU. The Tax Payers Alliance have stated that the total cost of the EU on the UK is around £2,000 per person per year (i.e. £120 billion per year). Those costs include all the additional costs that businesses suffer through the various regulations.
I am sorry if the statements were sweeping, I wanted to keep the introductory email as short as possible. Obviously we have pages and pages of detailed policy. For example the Manifesto has 17 policy areas.
Immigration
Most immigration is uncontrolled. Any person who has citizenship in any EU country can come and live in our country. Currently around 5,000 people per week are settling in this country and because we are members of the EU we cannot stop them.
UKIP is not planning on stopping all immigration. We will be issuing Work Permits to those that would benefit the UK economy.
Referenda
How do you feel it would be unworkable? Currently there are Number 10 petitions. I would expect that a similar system would be developed. When 5% of the electorate sign that petition (within 3 or 6 months of the start of the petition) then there will be a national or local referendum.
The Swiss currently have that system. We would adopt the same system. The main benefits are that the level of democracy would increase and all the major policy items would be decided by this method, as is done in Switzerland.
Education
It is difficult to summarise 15 paragraphs on education in our Manifesto or 26 pages in our Education Policy Document. However, some highlights I would like to mention would be:
- Increase parental choice in school education.
- Retain all existing grammar schools and encourage the creation of new grammar schools and specialist schools.
- Return to a student grant system, as opposed to student loans which leave many graduates in heavy debt.
Environment
Again highlights I would like to mention are:
- Immediately repeal disastrous EU Directives such as the Large Combustion Plant Directive. The Directive threatens to put the lights out by closing a quarter of the UK’s domestic coal and energy plants by 2015 without providing any realistic, working alternatives.
- Establish a Royal Commission under a High Court Judge that will allow scientists to reach a conclusion about the facts and economic implications of global warming.
- Incentivise and support electric road vehicles, the comprehensive electrification of rail lines and accompanying infrastructure.
Local Policies
Yes, I fully admit that my local policies are transport based. Before accepting my candidacy I undertook some research as to what the local issues were. I wanted to ensure that any policies I proposed were achievable by an MP and were not already included in the UKIP list of policies. The conclusions I reached were that transport projects were the most important areas for the local community.
I would be interested to hear what local policies you think I should have adopted.
Michael
I cannot say that nuclear power is better than wind power. Each has their major problems. In fact I am personally very uncomfortable with nuclear power purely on the grounds that we are inflicting the legacy of safely storing the spent nuclear fuel for thousands of years.
However, we are rapidly reaching the point where nuclear power will (reluctantly) be the only option for this country in order to ensure that there will be enough electrical power to supply the Country's needs.
The problem with wind power is two-fold. Firstly, generally high pressure weather conditions give the highest and lowest temperatures. Obviously those periods have the greatest power consumption. My understanding is that unfortunately high pressure weather also produces the lowest level of wind. So we have the situation of the highest demand with the lowest supply from wind power. Obviously that means that we have to keep other forms of power generation available to cover for the lack of wind power. My understanding is that the National Grid is required to accept all power offered by wind power. That leads to inefficiencies in the power generation because the National Grid then has to stand-down the other power generators when there is plenty of wind power available.
Secondly, I have seen studies that have shown that on a true life cost a wind farm actually produces more carbon than it saves. Carbon is used for: building the turbine components; transporting it there (normally to a remote site which itself requires carbon to build access roads or to use helicopters); maintaining it (often in a remote location, meaning carbon used for transporting the manpower and machinery to that remote site); and the carbon used by the other power generators while they are on standby during periods of high wind power.
I am against carbon-saving electricity consumption. In fact I want more hydro schemes and a lot more development of tidal and wave power. The problem is that we have largely forgotten that there are other forms of environmental electricity production than wind.
Britishness
I presume that you are joking about shillings in a gallon.
The main point is that belonging to the EU is removing our unique culture. We are now in the United States of Europe and I have never been asked if I wanted to be part of the United States of Europe.
Obviously you cannot deport radial preachers who are UK Citizens. However, my understanding is that is rarely the case, they often come from other countries.
My understanding is that you cannot deport people for incitement to violence.
No you will not be required to celebrate Diwali.
I cannot say that nuclear power is better than wind power. Each has their major problems. In fact I am personally very uncomfortable with nuclear power purely on the grounds that we are inflicting the legacy of safely storing the spent nuclear fuel for thousands of years.
However, we are rapidly reaching the point where nuclear power will (reluctantly) be the only option for this country in order to ensure that there will be enough electrical power to supply the Country's needs.
The problem with wind power is two-fold. Firstly, generally high pressure weather conditions give the highest and lowest temperatures. Obviously those periods have the greatest power consumption. My understanding is that unfortunately high pressure weather also produces the lowest level of wind. So we have the situation of the highest demand with the lowest supply from wind power. Obviously that means that we have to keep other forms of power generation available to cover for the lack of wind power. My understanding is that the National Grid is required to accept all power offered by wind power. That leads to inefficiencies in the power generation because the National Grid then has to stand-down the other power generators when there is plenty of wind power available.
Secondly, I have seen studies that have shown that on a true life cost a wind farm actually produces more carbon than it saves. Carbon is used for: building the turbine components; transporting it there (normally to a remote site which itself requires carbon to build access roads or to use helicopters); maintaining it (often in a remote location, meaning carbon used for transporting the manpower and machinery to that remote site); and the carbon used by the other power generators while they are on standby during periods of high wind power.
I am against carbon-saving electricity consumption. In fact I want more hydro schemes and a lot more development of tidal and wave power. The problem is that we have largely forgotten that there are other forms of environmental electricity production than wind.
Britishness
I presume that you are joking about shillings in a gallon.
The main point is that belonging to the EU is removing our unique culture. We are now in the United States of Europe and I have never been asked if I wanted to be part of the United States of Europe.
Obviously you cannot deport radial preachers who are UK Citizens. However, my understanding is that is rarely the case, they often come from other countries.
My understanding is that you cannot deport people for incitement to violence.
No you will not be required to celebrate Diwali.
Since Admin says:
I have just done so - see Should we decide if people can be tortured for us? http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4642If you wish to argue the point please open a new thread on the subject.
Peter,
Thanks for your response. It is good to know that you are very uncomfortable with your party's plan for 50% nuclear power. As you point out their are better methods of energy production. Denmark is already up to 20% wind power, whilst we are only at 5%. Hydro-electric is ideal, not only for production but also for storage of energy to meet peak demand - you really can't do this safely with nuclear power.
The argument about carbon cost of building and installing wind turbines is a complete red herring when you consider the hundreds of thousand years of costs of decontamination from nuclear fission.
I would still like more information about this uniculture that you wish to make Britain and I note that you did not rule out banning me celebrating Eid. My suspicion is that for non-WASPs your uniculture will not be particularly welcoming and this combined with the inevitable falling out with all our closest neighbours, would lead to a massive brain drain in this country.
Thanks for your response. It is good to know that you are very uncomfortable with your party's plan for 50% nuclear power. As you point out their are better methods of energy production. Denmark is already up to 20% wind power, whilst we are only at 5%. Hydro-electric is ideal, not only for production but also for storage of energy to meet peak demand - you really can't do this safely with nuclear power.
The argument about carbon cost of building and installing wind turbines is a complete red herring when you consider the hundreds of thousand years of costs of decontamination from nuclear fission.
I would still like more information about this uniculture that you wish to make Britain and I note that you did not rule out banning me celebrating Eid. My suspicion is that for non-WASPs your uniculture will not be particularly welcoming and this combined with the inevitable falling out with all our closest neighbours, would lead to a massive brain drain in this country.
Pstaveley,
Thanks for clarifying some of your policies in more detail.
I am still confused about Europe as it seems all or nothing. I am not a politician and I don't know what the advantages of being in the EU are.
There must be disadvantages if you're not int the EU. Presumably we wouldn't be able just move around Europe at will if we weren't in it and then I wouldn't be able to up and go and live in Spain if the Tories got in? Perhaps someone can tell me.
I am not against UKIP by the way. The other day I was listening to Any Questions on Radio 4 and Nigel Farage was the only one who had anything sensible to say on drugs policy, it is a disgrace how Labour have ignored all their advisers and tried to push through what they naively assume to be the most 'popular' action before a General Election.
I just feel that some of the UKIP policies sound like wishful thinking and might be what people want to hear but might prove hard to put into practice.
Education - giving parents parental choice on schools sounds fine and I'm sure all the parties say that, but naturally people all want their kids to go to the best schools and that creates an imbalance, which then creates schools considered good and schools that are considered bad, so how is what you are suggesting any different from what happens already?
Britishness?, well to me it's tolerence, diversity and those very things that come from being a nation of immigrants ourselves, so it seems a bit anti-British to me to restrict immigration massively.
Referenda - sounds great in theory. I just guessed that it might be unworkable because I imagine a lot of lynch-mobs and mass hysteria influencing policy, which is maybe a cynical way to see it and possibly completely wrong, I will have to check how its going for the Swiss.
Environment and energy – so we need more nuclear power or the lights go out, but trouble is no-one wants it –so we need many different sources, doesn't sound much different from the current government's policies as far as I know. What about a policy of building all new houses having to be built with solar panels on the roofs? Solar power is much underused, and, unlike wind farms, doesn't have any negative environmental impact.
Locally transport is a very big issue and probably is the most important so I, but I think its wrong to focus just on one thing.
I can't think of any big 'issues' as such but there are smaller issues such as preventing too many aeroplanes flying overhead, providing better sports and leisure facillites, sorting out Crystal Palace park, campaigining for a cinema locally, finding a good use for Louise House, planting more trees in our streets, encouraging businesses to come to our high street, crime prevention, local renewable energy projects etc, etc.
Its generally a great place to live so not many problems, mostly everyone just trying to make the place even better than it is.
Good luck with your campaign.
Thanks for clarifying some of your policies in more detail.
I am still confused about Europe as it seems all or nothing. I am not a politician and I don't know what the advantages of being in the EU are.
There must be disadvantages if you're not int the EU. Presumably we wouldn't be able just move around Europe at will if we weren't in it and then I wouldn't be able to up and go and live in Spain if the Tories got in? Perhaps someone can tell me.
I am not against UKIP by the way. The other day I was listening to Any Questions on Radio 4 and Nigel Farage was the only one who had anything sensible to say on drugs policy, it is a disgrace how Labour have ignored all their advisers and tried to push through what they naively assume to be the most 'popular' action before a General Election.
I just feel that some of the UKIP policies sound like wishful thinking and might be what people want to hear but might prove hard to put into practice.
Education - giving parents parental choice on schools sounds fine and I'm sure all the parties say that, but naturally people all want their kids to go to the best schools and that creates an imbalance, which then creates schools considered good and schools that are considered bad, so how is what you are suggesting any different from what happens already?
Britishness?, well to me it's tolerence, diversity and those very things that come from being a nation of immigrants ourselves, so it seems a bit anti-British to me to restrict immigration massively.
Referenda - sounds great in theory. I just guessed that it might be unworkable because I imagine a lot of lynch-mobs and mass hysteria influencing policy, which is maybe a cynical way to see it and possibly completely wrong, I will have to check how its going for the Swiss.
Environment and energy – so we need more nuclear power or the lights go out, but trouble is no-one wants it –so we need many different sources, doesn't sound much different from the current government's policies as far as I know. What about a policy of building all new houses having to be built with solar panels on the roofs? Solar power is much underused, and, unlike wind farms, doesn't have any negative environmental impact.
Locally transport is a very big issue and probably is the most important so I, but I think its wrong to focus just on one thing.
I can't think of any big 'issues' as such but there are smaller issues such as preventing too many aeroplanes flying overhead, providing better sports and leisure facillites, sorting out Crystal Palace park, campaigining for a cinema locally, finding a good use for Louise House, planting more trees in our streets, encouraging businesses to come to our high street, crime prevention, local renewable energy projects etc, etc.
Its generally a great place to live so not many problems, mostly everyone just trying to make the place even better than it is.
Good luck with your campaign.
You might remember that we entered the last General Election with the promise that we would have a referendum on the EU Constitution. Because there was a good chance that the Government would lose that referendum they renamed the Constitution to being the Lisbon Treaty, decided that because it is a treaty you do not need to hold a referendum and passed the legislation in Parliament. Therefore, they reneged on that manifesto promise. Subsequently the other two big parties have withdrawn their commitment to have a referendum.
The ratification of the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty means that we now have no other option but to decide on in or out of the EU. We have passed all powers especially our power of veto to Brussels. What is worse is that the Lisbon Treaty is a self-amending piece of legislation, in other words the EU can change it again just by a simple vote.
If we were to not be members of the EU then we would, in effect, have the same status as Switzerland and Norway. You will continue to be able to move around Europe and we will continue to trade with the EU. In fact it will also be easier to trade with the rest of the World including countries such as New Zealand and USA.
The settlement of people would then be governed by whatever bi-lateral agreements will be made between the EU countries and the UK. I know that people emigrant to live in Switzerland from the UK, so I would expect that similar arrangements would be made for those wishing to move to Spain.
Education - I agree that there will be an imbalance of school standards. One of the many points in our manifesto that I did not mention was that we would be offering all parents ‘School Vouchers’. The vouchers will be equivalent to the average cost of State schooling and follow the child to the school of the family’s choice, transferable to State, private or faith schools. Obviously this system will allow more children to attend private schemes (with the parents paying the difference).
The state schools would be run by directly elected County Education Boards made up of educational professionals and councillors. These will replace Local Education Authorities and ensure an adequate number of schools are provided and that they are kept up to a good standard.
Britishness - We have to put a temporary freeze on non-economic migration because the infrastructure and services of this Country cannot cope with a bigger population. Before the Labour Government we had 60 million, we are now close to 65 million and we will soon hit 70 million. Surely you are not suggesting that protecting our services for the existing population and the existing migrants is anti-British?
Environment and Energy - We would also encourage research and development activity to exploit diverse renewable energy sources. Whilst we recognise that it is not yet possible to identify those technologies certain to be of long-term benefit, some examples of potentially important
new or established technologies that we would wish to encourage are: solar heating; electricity generation using solar or thermophotovoltaic (TPV) cells; tidal power; power-generating buoys to harness wave energy; hydro-electric power; geothermal energy; extracting methane from sewage and landfill; the conversion of coal into methane underground; crops that can be converted directly into diesel, alcohol, or new high energy fuels such as 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF), used for space heating or fuelling electricity generation; solid state lighting technology; production of ‘bioplastics’ from plant material; production of fuels from bio-waste; ‘microgeneration’ and the development of local distributed power and heat schemes.
Local issues - Thank you for your ideas of local issues. Some of those ideas are really the province of the local authorities rather than an MP.
You mention planes flying overhead (which is really another transport issue!). Those planes are obviously flying into Heathrow. One UKIP policy (which I do not happen to agree with) is to close Heathrow and to build a new airport on the Thames shoreline in North Kent. This airport would be linked by a high speed line (or probably to the existing high speed line) in order to provide fast transport into London and to France. A big reason for proposing to move to this location is so that most planes then fly over the sea rather than over London.
Thank you for your best wishes in the campaign. I hope that I have persuaded you to vote for UKIP.
The ratification of the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty means that we now have no other option but to decide on in or out of the EU. We have passed all powers especially our power of veto to Brussels. What is worse is that the Lisbon Treaty is a self-amending piece of legislation, in other words the EU can change it again just by a simple vote.
If we were to not be members of the EU then we would, in effect, have the same status as Switzerland and Norway. You will continue to be able to move around Europe and we will continue to trade with the EU. In fact it will also be easier to trade with the rest of the World including countries such as New Zealand and USA.
The settlement of people would then be governed by whatever bi-lateral agreements will be made between the EU countries and the UK. I know that people emigrant to live in Switzerland from the UK, so I would expect that similar arrangements would be made for those wishing to move to Spain.
Education - I agree that there will be an imbalance of school standards. One of the many points in our manifesto that I did not mention was that we would be offering all parents ‘School Vouchers’. The vouchers will be equivalent to the average cost of State schooling and follow the child to the school of the family’s choice, transferable to State, private or faith schools. Obviously this system will allow more children to attend private schemes (with the parents paying the difference).
The state schools would be run by directly elected County Education Boards made up of educational professionals and councillors. These will replace Local Education Authorities and ensure an adequate number of schools are provided and that they are kept up to a good standard.
Britishness - We have to put a temporary freeze on non-economic migration because the infrastructure and services of this Country cannot cope with a bigger population. Before the Labour Government we had 60 million, we are now close to 65 million and we will soon hit 70 million. Surely you are not suggesting that protecting our services for the existing population and the existing migrants is anti-British?
Environment and Energy - We would also encourage research and development activity to exploit diverse renewable energy sources. Whilst we recognise that it is not yet possible to identify those technologies certain to be of long-term benefit, some examples of potentially important
new or established technologies that we would wish to encourage are: solar heating; electricity generation using solar or thermophotovoltaic (TPV) cells; tidal power; power-generating buoys to harness wave energy; hydro-electric power; geothermal energy; extracting methane from sewage and landfill; the conversion of coal into methane underground; crops that can be converted directly into diesel, alcohol, or new high energy fuels such as 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF), used for space heating or fuelling electricity generation; solid state lighting technology; production of ‘bioplastics’ from plant material; production of fuels from bio-waste; ‘microgeneration’ and the development of local distributed power and heat schemes.
Local issues - Thank you for your ideas of local issues. Some of those ideas are really the province of the local authorities rather than an MP.
You mention planes flying overhead (which is really another transport issue!). Those planes are obviously flying into Heathrow. One UKIP policy (which I do not happen to agree with) is to close Heathrow and to build a new airport on the Thames shoreline in North Kent. This airport would be linked by a high speed line (or probably to the existing high speed line) in order to provide fast transport into London and to France. A big reason for proposing to move to this location is so that most planes then fly over the sea rather than over London.
Thank you for your best wishes in the campaign. I hope that I have persuaded you to vote for UKIP.
To be honest I won't be voting UKIP, I do still find them overall rather extremist, though its interesting to hear a bit of clarification of your policies. I read a bit of the full manifesto but alot of it means nothing to me.Pstaveley wrote:
Thank you for your best wishes in the campaign. I hope that I have persuaded you to vote for UKIP.
Locally I think the Labour politicians do really well, are hard working, listen to people and are trying to make some great improvements to the area.
Nationally I think Labour are doing okay overall and I think a change now would be very damaging to the country.
That's my non-expert view, but thanks for putting your points across, as I say, it's interesting to hear.
Emma
We would change VAT into a local sales tax, half the money raised from it would go to the local council, to spend on improvements to the area.
For tourism that means that improvements could be made to the area, to make it more attractive to potential tourists.
Pubs and clubs could opt to have a smoking room.
Flood protection and coastal defence spending would be increased to £30bn over 10 years.
We would take all minimum wage earners out of the tax system by increasing the Income Tax threshold and abolish National Iinsurance, which is effectively an employment tax. These measures would benefit tourism employers and employees by making it easier to create and maintain jobs.
We would invest £3bn per year in the UK's transport infrastructure. Invest in 3 new 200mph rail lines, expand the rail network by re-opening rail lines where needed, and demand higher standards from rail franchisees.
All of the above measures would greatly benefit the British Tourism industry.
We would change VAT into a local sales tax, half the money raised from it would go to the local council, to spend on improvements to the area.
For tourism that means that improvements could be made to the area, to make it more attractive to potential tourists.
Pubs and clubs could opt to have a smoking room.
Flood protection and coastal defence spending would be increased to £30bn over 10 years.
We would take all minimum wage earners out of the tax system by increasing the Income Tax threshold and abolish National Iinsurance, which is effectively an employment tax. These measures would benefit tourism employers and employees by making it easier to create and maintain jobs.
We would invest £3bn per year in the UK's transport infrastructure. Invest in 3 new 200mph rail lines, expand the rail network by re-opening rail lines where needed, and demand higher standards from rail franchisees.
All of the above measures would greatly benefit the British Tourism industry.
Lord Pearson on Straight Talk
Lord Pearson (Leader of UKIP) is appearing on Straight Talk with Andrew Neil on the BBC News Channel.
It can be seen live at the following times:
Saturday 10th April 2010 @ 22:30hrs
Sunday 11th April 2010 @ 01:30hrs and 23:30hrs
Tuesday 13th April 2010 @ 03:30hrs
It was broadcast earlier today and so is available on BBCi Player now at www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/..._Leader_of_the ... ence_Party
Lord Pearson makes some very useful points about the myth of needing to remain in the EU for trade and jobs.
Peter Staveley
It can be seen live at the following times:
Saturday 10th April 2010 @ 22:30hrs
Sunday 11th April 2010 @ 01:30hrs and 23:30hrs
Tuesday 13th April 2010 @ 03:30hrs
It was broadcast earlier today and so is available on BBCi Player now at www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/..._Leader_of_the ... ence_Party
Lord Pearson makes some very useful points about the myth of needing to remain in the EU for trade and jobs.
Peter Staveley
Peter,
The Common Agricultural Policy is part of the EU (according to Wikipedia, it accounts for 48% of the EU budget!). CAP pays farmers grants and subsidies, for planting certain crops, for leaving land set aside, for having larger field boundaries to allow diverse wildlife, and lots of other things besides. Now I know that not everyone is for the CAP, but I do know for a fact that they pay a vast sum of money to UK farmers every single year. I also know that large numbers of farmers of small holdings are working at very tight margins, and farming has one of the largest suicide rates. Vast numbers of farmers rely on the subsidies of Arable Area Payments not just as a top up of their earnings, but as a means to actually get by from one year to the next.
Where exactly would you find money to fund farming subsidies if we were not part of the EU?
The repercusions of UK farmers not being funded by CAP could mean hundreds out of work, and food shortages, or huge food price rises.
This in my opinion is one good reason to be in the EU.
The Common Agricultural Policy is part of the EU (according to Wikipedia, it accounts for 48% of the EU budget!). CAP pays farmers grants and subsidies, for planting certain crops, for leaving land set aside, for having larger field boundaries to allow diverse wildlife, and lots of other things besides. Now I know that not everyone is for the CAP, but I do know for a fact that they pay a vast sum of money to UK farmers every single year. I also know that large numbers of farmers of small holdings are working at very tight margins, and farming has one of the largest suicide rates. Vast numbers of farmers rely on the subsidies of Arable Area Payments not just as a top up of their earnings, but as a means to actually get by from one year to the next.
Where exactly would you find money to fund farming subsidies if we were not part of the EU?
The repercusions of UK farmers not being funded by CAP could mean hundreds out of work, and food shortages, or huge food price rises.
This in my opinion is one good reason to be in the EU.
The UK is a large net contributor to the CAP to the tune of several billions of pounds per annum. In other words, the UK pays not only for the cost of the CAP in the UK, but for part of the cost in other member states. Indeed, it is this inequity which provides the essential justification for the UK rebate. It must be remembered the rebate only returns less than two thirds of the UK net contribution, and that the UK pays a heavy price in other objectives foregone in order to secure agreement that the rebate is continued. Thus much of the UK’s unsatisfactory position in the EU is due, in reality, to the wasteful and discriminatory nature of the CAP.
CAP is heavily biased in favour of France. CAP is also wide open to abuse, and official corruption. UKIP fails to see why the UK taxpayer should continue to fund a scheme which clearly discriminates against British farmers and taxpayers in such a blatant way.
Though recent changes to the CAP have reduced these defects somewhat it is still a fundamentally flawed policy and the UK will be well rid of it. However, UKIP is conscious that the process of UK disengagement will need care, and must be done responsibly. There will not be a
‘Big Bang’ on leaving the EU, but a steady reform over time - where EU subsidies are gradually replaced by fair pricing and greater market share. In some cases, there is already UK legislation on the statute book which could replace EU measures without difficulty, but this is by no means always so. Hence as a general rule, EU measures would continue in force even after withdrawal, until explicitly repealed as part of a wider process of deregulating Britain from EU laws.
In general, UKIP policy would be to move towards the reduction of subsidies over time.
The Single Farm Payment is one of the very few ways of legitimately supporting Agriculture. We are aware that the abrupt withdrawal of the
scheme would be highly unpopular with British farmers. The costly and frustrating experience that was suffered by the industry waiting for the Government to eventually deliver it in this country should not be wasted.
UKIP considers that in the medium-term, the Single Farm Payment would need to continue in something like its present form to avoid
disruption. However, like other subsidies, we would expect its level to diminish over time, the rate of change dependent in part on the state of world markets. We intend to retain the SFP, but with qualifications: its size will not increase above existing ‘modulated’ rates, it will never exceed EU payments to their own farmers, and it will be subject to downward review on lowland farms in the presence
of increasing world commodity prices.
So, to answer your question, since the UK is a net contributor to CAP withdrawing from it will save money not cost money and UKIP will ensure that farmers are not unduly affected by the withdrawal of the CAP.
CAP is heavily biased in favour of France. CAP is also wide open to abuse, and official corruption. UKIP fails to see why the UK taxpayer should continue to fund a scheme which clearly discriminates against British farmers and taxpayers in such a blatant way.
Though recent changes to the CAP have reduced these defects somewhat it is still a fundamentally flawed policy and the UK will be well rid of it. However, UKIP is conscious that the process of UK disengagement will need care, and must be done responsibly. There will not be a
‘Big Bang’ on leaving the EU, but a steady reform over time - where EU subsidies are gradually replaced by fair pricing and greater market share. In some cases, there is already UK legislation on the statute book which could replace EU measures without difficulty, but this is by no means always so. Hence as a general rule, EU measures would continue in force even after withdrawal, until explicitly repealed as part of a wider process of deregulating Britain from EU laws.
In general, UKIP policy would be to move towards the reduction of subsidies over time.
The Single Farm Payment is one of the very few ways of legitimately supporting Agriculture. We are aware that the abrupt withdrawal of the
scheme would be highly unpopular with British farmers. The costly and frustrating experience that was suffered by the industry waiting for the Government to eventually deliver it in this country should not be wasted.
UKIP considers that in the medium-term, the Single Farm Payment would need to continue in something like its present form to avoid
disruption. However, like other subsidies, we would expect its level to diminish over time, the rate of change dependent in part on the state of world markets. We intend to retain the SFP, but with qualifications: its size will not increase above existing ‘modulated’ rates, it will never exceed EU payments to their own farmers, and it will be subject to downward review on lowland farms in the presence
of increasing world commodity prices.
So, to answer your question, since the UK is a net contributor to CAP withdrawing from it will save money not cost money and UKIP will ensure that farmers are not unduly affected by the withdrawal of the CAP.
that's a good reply - so what you're saying is that if we were to pull out of the EU, we could pay farmers what they currently get from CAP, and still have money left over. Would you then give some of that 'spare' money to farmers? Most farmers work such long hours, 7 days a week, that they are in fact payed under the minimum hourly wage (as they're mostly classed as self employed, there is no legal minimum wage requirement).
Also, not being part of the EU would affect our position in the Common Market, and we would be at a disadvantage against other European countries - we would have little say in pricing policy (not that we have much now anyway).
so to follow a thread on another candidates bit - what are you going to do about council housing? recycling? and abusive behaviour?
and why are electric vehicles suddenly so good - you still have to produce the electricity somewhere - and all these electric vehicles will just mean that we have to have more power plants to produce enough electricity to power all the cars/trains etc.
If more people understood that more electric vehicles actually means eventually more power plants (which are mostly coal, gas or nuclear) they'd be less likely to find it so appealing (in my opinion)
Also, not being part of the EU would affect our position in the Common Market, and we would be at a disadvantage against other European countries - we would have little say in pricing policy (not that we have much now anyway).
so to follow a thread on another candidates bit - what are you going to do about council housing? recycling? and abusive behaviour?
and why are electric vehicles suddenly so good - you still have to produce the electricity somewhere - and all these electric vehicles will just mean that we have to have more power plants to produce enough electricity to power all the cars/trains etc.
If more people understood that more electric vehicles actually means eventually more power plants (which are mostly coal, gas or nuclear) they'd be less likely to find it so appealing (in my opinion)
Yes, because we are a net contributor to CAP we would initially be able to pay farmers the amount they would have obtained from CAP. However, over time we would like to reduce both subsidies and the Single Farm Payment. They will not be eliminated but we feel that as the World food markets develop the need for subsidies will reduce. Of course, non-membership of the EU would allow us to eliminate expensive and unnecessary regulations which in turn would reduce costs to the farmers.
Regarding pricing, I think you have answered your own comment. We do not have control of CAP or food prices generally inside the EU. Outside of the EU then we can determine our own price. I should mention that if the electorate wish to see food subsidies from taxation (or perhaps the local sales tax which will replace VAT) then they will be able to insist on a referendum to decide that policy. The Swiss run these sorts of referenda so why not have them in the UK?
Electric vehicles. The problem with the whole environmental issue is that there have been all sorts of 'knee jerk' reactions without any sort of full debate. The only real advantage of electric vehicles is that they do not have an LOCAL emissions. As you quite rightly say the fuel (electricity) has to be produce somehow. Due to the Government's (lack of) Energy Policy we are in danger of having to build new nuclear power stations just to meet the expected electricity requirements. If we have to meet a sizeable additional demand for road transport then we will definitely have to build new nuclear power stations.
In addition in batteries there are some not very environmentally-friendly metals. These have to be manufactured (which costs carbon) and properly disposed of at the end of their useful lives (which again costs carbon). I suspect that on a whole-life basis it is questionable whether electric (road) vehicles have any environmental benefit.
Of course, UKIP's policy is to encourage more travel by public transport and in particular more railway electrification. Railways have the advantage that they do not need batteries for their traction needs and can take the power directly from the National Grid (like we do in our homes).
Regarding Council Housing, UKIP would encourage local councils to build more social housing by designating areas for such housing and allowing bond issues to fund construction. UKIP would also scrap hidden development taxes such as Section 106 ‘community bribes’ and requirements for social housing in bigger developments. All development proposals should stand or fall on their own merits.
Recycling: UKIP would encourage the reduction of waste and promote effective methods of recycling.
Abusive Behaviour: UKIP believes that too many young offenders are given the protection of anonymity where it is not deserved, and the phrase ‘who cannot be named for legal reasons’ has practically entered everyday language. UKIP believes in ‘naming and shaming’ young offenders. It has been shown that these ‘social costs’ of shame and embarrassment are powerful motivating forces that mediate human behaviour, and are possibly more effective than legal sanctions. UKIP understands that sometimes creative frontline policing can greatly reduce instances of young offending.
UKIP believes that frontline officers should, in the case of petty crimes, accompany the accused youngster and a relevant parent/guardian to meet the persons affected by their crime. The youngster would be expected to apologise unreservedly, and the parent/guardian
would be expected to understand the gravity of the situation and act accordingly. However, if the attitude of the child was questionable, then it would be clear that harsher penalties were needed, possibly including arrest and charge.
Regarding pricing, I think you have answered your own comment. We do not have control of CAP or food prices generally inside the EU. Outside of the EU then we can determine our own price. I should mention that if the electorate wish to see food subsidies from taxation (or perhaps the local sales tax which will replace VAT) then they will be able to insist on a referendum to decide that policy. The Swiss run these sorts of referenda so why not have them in the UK?
Electric vehicles. The problem with the whole environmental issue is that there have been all sorts of 'knee jerk' reactions without any sort of full debate. The only real advantage of electric vehicles is that they do not have an LOCAL emissions. As you quite rightly say the fuel (electricity) has to be produce somehow. Due to the Government's (lack of) Energy Policy we are in danger of having to build new nuclear power stations just to meet the expected electricity requirements. If we have to meet a sizeable additional demand for road transport then we will definitely have to build new nuclear power stations.
In addition in batteries there are some not very environmentally-friendly metals. These have to be manufactured (which costs carbon) and properly disposed of at the end of their useful lives (which again costs carbon). I suspect that on a whole-life basis it is questionable whether electric (road) vehicles have any environmental benefit.
Of course, UKIP's policy is to encourage more travel by public transport and in particular more railway electrification. Railways have the advantage that they do not need batteries for their traction needs and can take the power directly from the National Grid (like we do in our homes).
Regarding Council Housing, UKIP would encourage local councils to build more social housing by designating areas for such housing and allowing bond issues to fund construction. UKIP would also scrap hidden development taxes such as Section 106 ‘community bribes’ and requirements for social housing in bigger developments. All development proposals should stand or fall on their own merits.
Recycling: UKIP would encourage the reduction of waste and promote effective methods of recycling.
Abusive Behaviour: UKIP believes that too many young offenders are given the protection of anonymity where it is not deserved, and the phrase ‘who cannot be named for legal reasons’ has practically entered everyday language. UKIP believes in ‘naming and shaming’ young offenders. It has been shown that these ‘social costs’ of shame and embarrassment are powerful motivating forces that mediate human behaviour, and are possibly more effective than legal sanctions. UKIP understands that sometimes creative frontline policing can greatly reduce instances of young offending.
UKIP believes that frontline officers should, in the case of petty crimes, accompany the accused youngster and a relevant parent/guardian to meet the persons affected by their crime. The youngster would be expected to apologise unreservedly, and the parent/guardian
would be expected to understand the gravity of the situation and act accordingly. However, if the attitude of the child was questionable, then it would be clear that harsher penalties were needed, possibly including arrest and charge.