Published in Right Now! Magazine May 2005

What the British people want from their politicians

... and what they get

Robert Henderson

The 2005 General Election showed what our politicians think of the
electorate: precious little. All the major mainstream parties either
ignored or cynically misrepresented the most important issues -
immigration, our relationship with the EU, the English democratic
deficit, the Iraq invasion and the rapid erosion of British liberties
including ID cards. These issues were not addressed honestly because
they either clash with the prevailing internationalist agenda or
because to address them honestly would mean admitting how much
sovereignty had been given away to the EU and through other treaties.

This antidemocratic failure to engage in honest politics is an
established trait. The wilful removal from mainstream politics of
vitally important issues has been developing for more than half a
century. The upshot is that the British want their politics to be
about something which is not currently on offer from any party with
a chance of forming a government. The British public broadly seek
what these days counts as rightist action when it comes to matters
such as preserving nationhood, immigration, race and political
correctness, but traditional leftist policies on items such as social
welfare, the NHS and the economy (has anyone ever met someone in
favour of free markets and free trade who has actually lost his job
because of them?).

The electorate's difficulty is not simply their inability to find a
single party to fulfil all or even most of their political desires.
Even on a single issue basis, the electorate frequently cannot find a
party offering what they want because all the mainstream parties now
carol from the same internationalist, globalist, supranational,
pro-EU, pc songsheet. The electorate finds they may have any
economic programme provided it is laizez faire globalism, any
relationship with the EU provided it is membership, any foreign policy
provided it is internationalist and continuing public services only
if they increasingly include private capital and provision. The
only difference between the major parties is one of nuance.

Nowhere is this political uniformity seen more obviously than in the
Labour and Tory approaches to immigration. Labour has adopted a
literally mad policy of "no obvious limit to immigration". The
Tories claim to be "tough" on immigration, but then agree to accept as
legal immigrants more than 100,000 incomers a year from outside the EU
plus any number of migrants from within the EU (350 million have the
right to settle here). There is a difference, but it is simply less or
more of the same. Worse, in practice there would probably be no
meaningful difference to the numbers coming whoever is in power. The
truth is that while we remain part of the EU and tied by international
treaties on asylum and human rights, nothing meaningful can be done for
purely practical reasons. But even if something could be done, for
which serious party could the person who wants no further mass
immigration vote? None.

A manifesto to satisfy the public

All of this set me thinking: what manifesto would appeal to most
electors? I suggest this political agenda for the What the People
Want Party:

We promise:

To always put Britain's interests first. This will entail the adoption
of an unaggressive nationalist ethic in place of the currently
dominant internationalist ideology.

The reinstatement of British sovereignty by withdrawal from the EU
and the repudiation of all treaties which circumscribe the primacy of
Parliament.

That future treaties will only come into force when voted for by a
majority in both Houses of Parliament and that any treaty should be
subject to repudiation by Parliament at any time.

A reduction in the power of the government in general and the Prime
Minister in particular and an increase in the power of Parliament. This
will be achieved by abolishing the Royal Prerogative, outlawing the
party whip and removing the vast powers of patronage available to a
government.

That the country will only go to war on a vote in both Houses of
Parliament.

An end to mass immigration by any means, including asylum, work permits
and family reunion.

An end to all officially-sponsored political correctness.

The promotion of British history and culture in our schools and by all
publicly-funded bodies.

The repeal of all laws which give by intent or practice a privileged
position to any group which is less than the entire population of the
country, for example the Race Relations Act.

The repeal of all laws which attempt to interfere with the personal
life and responsibility of the individual. Citizens will not be
instructed what to eat, how to exercise, not to smoke or drink or be
banned from pursuits such as fox-hunting which harm no one else.

A formal recognition that a British citizen has rights and obligations
not available to the foreigner, for example, the benefits of the
welfare state will be made available only to born and bred Britons.

Policing which is directed towards three ends: maintaining order,
catching criminals and providing support and aid to the public in
moments of threat or distress. The police will leave their cars and
helicoptors and return to the beat and there will be an assumption that
the interests and safety of the public come before the interests and
safety of police officers.

A justice system which guards the interests of the accused by
protecting essential rights of the defendant such as jury trial and
the right to silence, whilst preventing cases collapsing through
technical procedural errors.

An absolute right to self-defence when attacked. The public will be
encouraged to defend themselves and their property.

Prison sentences that are served in full, ie, the end of remission
and other forms of early release.

A general economic policy which steers a middle way between
protectionism and free trade, with protection given to vital and
strategically important industries such as agriculture, energy, and
steel and free trade only in those things which are not necessities.

A education system which ensures that every child leaves school with
at least a firm grasp of the three Rs and a school exam system which
is based solely on a final exam. This will remove the opportunity to
cheat by pupils and teachers. The standards of the exams will be based
on those of forty years ago.

To restore credibility to our university system. The taxpayer will fund
scholarships for 20 per cent of school-leavers. These will pay for all
fees and provide a grant sufficient to live on during term time. Any
one not in receipt of a scholarship will have to pay the full fees and
support themselves or take a degree in their spare time. The
scholarships will be concentrated on the best universities. The other
universities will be closed. This will ensure that the cost is no
more than the current funding and the remaining universities can be
adequately funded.

A clear distinction in our policies between the functions of the state
and the functions of private business, charities and other
non-governmental bodies. The state will provide necessary public
services, business will be allowed to concentrate on their trade and
not be asked to be an arm of government and charities will be entirely
independent bodies which will no longer receive public money.

A repudiation of further privatisation for its own sake and a
commitment to the direct public provision of all essential
services such as medical treatment. We recognise that the electorate
overwhelmingly want the NHS, decent state pensions, good state funded
education for their children and state intervention where necessary to
ensure the necessities of life. This promise is made to both reassure
the public of continued future provision and to ensure that the extent
of any public spending is unambiguous, something which is not the
case where indirect funding channels such as PFI are used.

A commitment to putting the family first. This will include policies
which recognise that the best childcare is that given by the parents
and that parents must be allowed to exercise discipline over their
children. These will be given force by a law making clear that parents
have an absolute right to the custody of and authority over their
children, unless the parents can be shown to be engaging in serious
criminal acts against their children.

Defence forces designed solely to defend Britain and not the New
World Order.

A Parliament for England to square the Devolution circle. The English
comprise around 80 per cent of the population of the UK, yet they
alone of all the historic peoples are Britain are denied the right to
govern themselves. This is both unreasonable and politically
unsustainable in the long-run.

A reduction to the English level of Treasury funding to Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland. This will save approximately Å“10
billion
because the Celts receive overall approximately Å“1000 per head
per
annum more than the English.

An end to Foreign Aid. This will save approximately Å“5 billion.

A written constitution to ensure that future governments cannot abuse
their power. This will be predicated on (1) the fact that we are a
free people, (2) the belief that in a free and democratic society the
individual can be trusted to take responsibility for his or her
actions and to behave responsibly and (3) that politicians are the
servants not the masters of those who elect them. It will guarantee
those things necessary to a free society, including an absolute right
to free expression, jury trial for any offence carrying a sentence of
more than one year, place citizens in a privileged position over
foreigners and set the interests and safety of the country and its
citizens above the interests and safety of any other country or people.

Those are the things which I think most of the electorate could
embrace, at least in large part. There are also other issues which the
public might well be brought to support if there was proper public
debate and a serious political party supporting them such as the
ownership and bearing of weapons and the legalisation of drugs.

The positive thing about such an agenda is that either Labour or
the Tories could comfortable support it within the context of their
history.

Until Blair perverted its purpose, the Labour Party had been in
practice (and often in theory - think Ernie Bevin), staunchly
nationalist, not least because the unions were staunchly protective of
their members' interests and resistant to both mass immigration
(because it reduced wages) and free trade (because it exported jobs and
reduced wages).

For the Tories, the Thatcherite philosophy is as much an aberration as
the Blairite de-socialisation of Labour. The true Tory creed in a
representative democracy is that of the one nation nationalist. It
cannot be repeated too often that the free market internationalist
creed is the antithesis of conservatism.

The manifesto described above would not appeal in every respect to
ever member of the "disenfranchised majority". But its general
political slant would be palatable to that majority and there would be
sufficient within the detail to allow any individual who is
currently disenchanted with politics to feel that there were a decent
number of important policies for which he or she could happily vote.
That is the best any voter can expect in a representative democracy.
People could again believe that voting might actually change things.


?
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website:  http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal website:  http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk