 |
|
|
"THE PARTY FOR ENGLISH DEMOCRACY"
Manifesto Policies In Alphabetical Order The ENP welcomes the generosity of the people of England. There is a continuing role for charity wherever individuals wish to apply their generosity without State intervention.. The ENP however takes the view that there are limits to the matters that are proper for the expenditure of taxpayer’s money. The current British State’s establishment and elite seems to have lost sight of England’s traditions in this area, as in so many others. In these traditions far more importance was placed on maintaining order than in nit-picking prosecutions for minor infractions of the law. The basis for the maintenance of law and order in England had rested, before the British State became so over-weaning and politically correct, on a firm foundation of active participation by the law abiding citizenry. It shows how far the British State has fallen from this ideal, that it used to be said that a police constable was merely a responsible citizen in uniform and generally had no more powers than any other powers of arrest than any other citizen. The retreat of the police and state from this ideal, was closely paralleled by the decline in respect for our increasingly paramilitary police force. The police seem to see their role increasingly as that of the enforcers of State rules and less as responsible citizens maintaining the delicate balance between Order and Liberty. The ENP considers that there is far too much ill thought out, and complicated legislation and that there should be a drastic reduction in the extent to which the State interferes with the Liberties of its citizens. The ENP is the enemy of the post imperial bureaucratic British state which, despite almost universal recognition of its gross inefficiency, nevertheless the current constitutional arrangements seem not merely unable, but also unwilling, to rein in its encroachments into the private lives and affairs of all those subject to its misrule. The legislative hyper-inflation which we in England have been subjected to for many years by the British state has led to an unacceptable situation, where contrary to the philosophical basis of "the rule of law", the Law is no longer capable of being known by any one individual, as a result of its sheer volume. In any case the legislative process is so woefully inadequate that its products are often incapable of being unambiguously understood even by lawyers and the courts. Even where the law can be understood, the sheer volume of it means that it could not be properly enforced even if there was an adequate organisational structure to enforce the law. In fact, the organisational structure of the British state, is so inefficient that there are numerous, often under-funded, enforcement agencies, whose efforts at enforcement of the laws within their remit often seem to be solely directed towards doing only enough to justify the continuance of their officials’ employment and careers. Woe betide the otherwise law abiding citizen who inadvertently breaks one of these rules, however absurd it may be, and then is foolhardy enough to co-operate with the "authorities", little realising that he has thereby made himself an easy target to enable them to add to their statistics of "successful" actions taken. The wilful and unco-operative law breaker on the other hand will be unlucky if he suffers any significant sanction if he makes himself seem a sufficiently, difficult and wearisome target. Often it seems that the principal purpose of enforcement of the rules, whose creation was of course justified on other grounds, is simply to raise revenue for the bureaucracy. Our preference is for a return to a comprehensible and moral rule of law. Given its current outrageously chaotic state, the law should be codified. Except in an emergency there should only be a single annual implementation date for new law. This is as opposed to the current absurd chaos where no one can be sure, without considerable effort or expense, whether a clause of a new Act has been brought into force or not. Also some rules, for example the Civil Procedure Rules, are being rewritten so frequently that new editions are being published more than once a month! This leads, not surprisingly, to the shameful situation where no-one, not even the judiciary, can be sure without having to make unreasonable efforts to research the point, what is the current rule in force. The ENP are also of the view that all the quangos, Agencies, Office of Supervision of This and of That should be abolished except where a clear case can be made to show that the status quo is more efficient than the alternatives. Instead of such bureaucratic arrangements the citizens of England should have rights which are enforceable through a court system which, contrary to the current system, does not raise any unnecessary bureaucratic impediments to cases being brought before it. Many of the Judiciary have been complicit in creating the current maze of procedural complexity. Also, by their often high professional competence, they have with the assistance of legal professions, which also have generally very high standards, have enabled the state to continue to function even after its own legislative verbal diarrhoea would have otherwise made it impossible to continue. In order to avoid such excessive complexity developing again, it should be a basic constitutional rule that no change in the law can be made unless it can be shown to be necessary and that the proposed amended rule will be unambiguously comprehensible and properly and efficiently enforceable. In order to ensure that rules cannot again become excessively complex and incomprehensible to informed laymen, the general rule should be that the trial will take place before a reformed jury system unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary; especially in any case relating to the exercise of State power, so that there is an immediate democratic check. The gross inefficiency of the "modern" British state is shown by the fact that it now employs significantly more people (despite the fact that the Armed Forces have been reduced to a size only a little greater than the Metropolitan Police), than was employed by the State, in the days of Britain’s imperial glory, to run the greatest empire in the history of mankind. The ENP considers that there are far too many matters currently covered by the criminal law and there should be a drastic reduction and rationalisation of the number and extent of criminal offences. It is the ENP’s view that criminal sanctions should only be applied where there are issues of behaviour which may injure other people, their property rights, or the national interest. Once the criminal law has been properly codified, the ENP would ensure that the criminal law was vigorously policed and enforced. The ENP believes that every victim of a criminal offence should have the right to address the court on the question of sentence and for the court to be required to bear the victim’s views in mind when passing sentence. As regards the severity of sanctions available to the court, the ENP is of the view that the majority of the English Nation should have the right to decide in a referendum what are the appropriate sanctions for a court to be able to impose and in what circumstances. It is not acceptable for the Home Secretary to have to admit that 100,000 "hardened" criminals commit over half of all crime in the U.K. Once a criminal is identified as beyond effective rehabilitation he/she must be kept out of the community until no longer a risk. The ENP respects the right of victims of crime to defend themselves and their property against criminals. The ENP would seek the English peoples’ view in a referendum as to the extent of such self help. The ENP’s view is that the essential core of defence policy is that it should be conducted according to the requirements of defending the English national interest, but that that interest should be defended, where applicable, actively. The ENP supports continued membership of NATO as a defensive alliance. It is unacceptable for a national government to misuse the commitment of our volunteer armed forces, whose personnel have volunteered for service in the Forces to protect the national interest, by ordering them to take part in actions which have no bearing on the national interest. If parts of the former United Kingdom become independent it is the ENP’s hope that such independence would be "independence under the crown". The ENP would welcome continued support by the members of the former United Kingdom in pan-British armed forces. The ENP believes that not only is there a democratic deficit in the representation of the people of England at Westminster, but also local government has been largely emasculated by the unacceptable growth of central government. The ENP is a firm supporter of traditional English civil liberties and would wish to see the "liberties of the subject" supported and entrenched and the over-weaning power of the state in this country drastically pruned. The ENP believes in far ranging freedom of access to information by English nationals to Government information, except where secrecy is necessary in the national interest. It is the ENP’s view that wherever reasonably practicable, public appointments should be chosen by direct election and major policy decisions should be referred to the electorate in referenda. We also believe that politicians should be restricted in their policies in office to those specified in their manifestos, except where specifically authorised by referendum. Politicians should only be allowed to use public power for policies outside of their manifesto commitments in an emergency for which they would be required to seek approval by referendum within one year afterwards. The ENP supports the rights of the disabled and would wish to provide state guaranteed jobs wherever in demand and possible. If an English national was too disabled to work, the ENP supports the provision of guaranteed minimum wage on a non-means tested basis, together with, if necessary, Income Support on a means tested basis. It is clear that the current policy in dealing with problems of addiction are not working adequately and there is an ever rising tide of criminality arising from, in particular, drug abuse. The ENP’s basic libertarian position is that for as long as the use of alcohol and soft drugs does not impinge on other peoples rights, that such use is a matter for individual conscience. It is clear that such problems are very difficult to solve and require careful analysis, but the ENP tentatively suggests that if a criminal offence is committed under the influence of such substances, then there should be no excuse for the individual to plead intoxication. To this end, the ENP suggests that there should be far greater provision for all addicts to be subject to compulsory treatment in secure care. Such care should be on an indefinite basis until the individual concerned is cured of their addiction and no longer poses a risk to society. It is further suggested all those committed whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be subject to compulsive assessment and if found to be addicted should immediately be taken into such care. Furthermore the most important aspect of the fight against drug dealing criminals is that any policy should seek to destroy their market and protect the public as well as to punish. The ENP is a party of liberal fair trade economics underpinned by "social provision" and would wish to reduce the role of Government regulation and quangos in the economic life of the country. We would wish to see more action to protect English Industry from unfair competition. The ENP would wish to increase the access of individuals to the courts to enforce their rights. Rights should strike a proper balance between the pursuit of free trade and the reasonable rights of consumers, environmental considerations and the national interest. Education - Primary & Secondary (top) The ENP supports parental choice and would wish to remove all schools from local education authority control, with a view to them being run independently by elected Governors, Head Teacher and staff. Each child should be allocated a voucher of sufficient value to provide for high quality education anywhere within England. Good schools will thereby thrive. The ENP supports the continued work of the Schools Inspectorate in the provision of independent information on the quality of education at schools. Education – Higher and Continuing Education (top) The ENP supports the continued state funding of higher education and would seek to provide greater funds for lifetime continuing education to enhance the opportunities of all the citizens of England. An Inspectorate similar to that of the Schools Inspectorate should monitor and report on the education and effectiveness of all our continuing education establishments in England. Employment & Welfare Provision (top) The ENP is a party of traditional liberal economic policy which recognises that the welfare state has become an integral and much valued fact of our National life. We would wish to adopt policies which support the free market. Instead of welfare handouts there should be full employment on a "workfare" basis for all able-bodied English nationals of working age and to this end the ENP would support the creation of state guaranteed jobs with a viable minimum wage, which would provide the "safety net" for all English Nationals. Income Support should provide a further net for those with families to provide for, or other commitments requiring additional support. Naturally we are strong supporters of the principle of National Insurance benefits, such as Unemployment Benefit, in providing short to medium term benefits. We utterly reject the view of Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto: "Those that don’t work shall not eat", but we are of the view that guaranteed employment will be of benefit to both those that are currently unemployed in maintaining their self-respect and self-discipline, but also of value to the public purse because there will be far less scope for fraud. There will also be a great reduction in the incentives for "economic migrants" and bogus refugees. This must of course be coupled with vigorous application of immigration law to prevent/expel illegal immigrants. It is the ENP’s view that the National Insurance system has been allowed by successive governments to become unacceptably open to abuse. There are currently millions more National Insurance numbers than the adult population of the whole of the United Kingdom! It is the ENP’s view that the National Insurance number scheme should be immediately overhauled to prevent fraud and duplication. Once this process has been completed, there should be vigorous application of the rule that no-one who is without a valid national insurance number should be allowed to work or to claim any sort of welfare benefit whatsoever. English National Parliament (top) It is a fundamental tenet of the ENP that, now that Tony Blair’s Government has created National assemblies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is wholly unacceptable and undemocratic for England, the most numerous and richest part of the former United Kingdom, not to have its own assembly. The ENP utterly rejects the mooted concept of devolved regional assemblies for England. England is an indivisible nation. Whilst the general sentiment of the English nation, which was not consulted over devolution, would generally have been against devolution; England has to recognise that Scotland in particular has a separate national identity and the inherent logic of national devolution implies that in due course Scotland will seek independence. Clearly on the first occasion that a separatist party gains a majority in any of the devolved assemblies, (which is of course statistically highly probable in due course) the consequence is likely to be independence. The ENP recognises the dynamic process which Tony Blair’s Government has, apparently unwittingly, unleashed, even if the Government continues to adopt a contradictory position in seeking to maintain central control over the devolved nations. Englishness – An English National identity (top) The ENP is not a racist party and does not view Englishness as being a matter of race or skin colour but rather as a matter of culture, loyalty and community. For many centuries English national culture has been relatively tolerant, and has been both welcoming and enriched by infusions of different ethnic groups. The ENP welcomes those who will contribute and integrate as fully-fledged members of the English nation. The ENP does however consider that traditional English national culture, as the host culture, should publicly have pride of place in a modern multi-ethnic England. Other cultures may live alongside English culture without let or hindrance, but will not be promoted by the state. Care will be taken that no culture, including English culture, is allowed to become oppressive to other cultures or the individuals who practice them. Just as Scottish and Welsh schools inculcate their culture and history, so English schools should promote English culture. Whereas the ENP is in principle in favour of a European trading block, nevertheless it is our view that the current European Union constitutional arrangements pose a threat to the integrity of, and democratic accountability within, the member states. It is the ENP’s view that the constitution that we, as English nationals, live under, should be far more democratic and open and therefore we do not support the current European Union structure. Furthermore, as the crisis over the French refusal to allow imports of British beef has amply demonstrated, many of even the principal nations of the European Union only obey European Union rules when it suits them. It is wholly unacceptable for English national interests to be bartered away out of sight of public scrutiny and democratic accountability and then for the resultant European laws to be vigorously applied in this country, but not in other member states. Whilst we view the English nation as being European, we do not think that it will necessarily be in the best interests of the English nation to be within the European Union, but such a decision would have to be taken after a careful analysis of the best interests of England. No such decision would be taken in any event without a referendum. The ENP does not think that there would necessarily be anything to fear from leaving the European Union and indeed there may be many advantages to weigh up. The ENP notes that both Switzerland and Norway are running very successful economies outside the European Union and sees no reason why a country as rich as England would be, could not do at least as well. A costed attempt has been made to analyse the value of the membership of the European Union to the entire United Kingdom and, having taken into account the cost of compliance with regulations, the United Kingdom’s Tax payers’ contribution to the European Unions budgets etc., it was calculated that the balance sheet was no more than about £50 million per annum in favour of membership. The English National Party considers this advantage to be insignificant and likely to be reversed if the analysis was simply concentrated upon the value to England alone of European Union Membership, given that most of the subsidy from the European Union goes to those parts of the United Kingdom outside England. Whilst some commentators also suggest that the European Union is of great importance to our trade, it should be borne in mind that trade only represents less than a third of the United Kingdom’s economy (there are no available figures specific to England). Of that third, slightly more than half is said to go to Europe. Even that balance in favour of European Union trade is questionable, as all trade (probably substantial) routed through Rotterdam with an ultimate destination outside the European Union is treated as being trade with the European Union. The ENP stands for the English national interest and believes that foreign policy should be conducted solely in accordance with the requirements of English national interest. It is not appropriate for a national government to use compulsory levies of tax money for overseas adventures. It has been a fundamental tenet of international law, stemming from at least the Peace of Westphalia (1648), that states should not interfere within the sovereign territory of other states, however much the policies of such states may be contrary to the moral sensibilities of our public opinion. The ENP supports a very strict immigration policy which should be based upon objective criteria of the ability of the proposed immigrant to benefit the nation. The ENP would seek to vigorously enforce laws for the exclusion and deportation of illegal immigrants. Also see Employment & Welfare Provision. The members of the ENP have, like so many others in Britain, gradually lost their pride in being British over the last 10 years or so. We also note that so many other nationalists within the United Kingdom wish to have independence for their nations. They are very far from being grateful for the huge subsidies paid by the taxpayers of England to the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom. National devolution, we think, will inevitably and inexorably lead to the break up of the UK regardless of the wishes of the people of England, (who have so far been wholly excluded from the debate). The ENP believes that independence for England would be of benefit to the English nation but no such decisive step would be taken without an approving referendum of the people of England by a majority of those voting. Tax raised in England should be spent in England, save for obvious common expenses, such as defence and foreign affairs if it is agreed with Wales and Scotland that these expenses should continue to be pan-British. English taxpayers should no longer be required to subsidise the other parts of the former United Kingdom. The ENP is a firm supporter of the principle of English local democracy and would wish to see it revitalised by reform. Local Government at present is often little more than a collection of statutory bodies created by Central Government with little or no discretion in its administration. It is the ENP’s view that Local Government should not be lumbered with such statutory bodies and that they should be hived off where their work is necessary and set up as autonomous statutory agencies perhaps with directly elected leadership. The ENP’s view is that care in the community as a policy has manifestly failed, not only to protect the public, but also to protect the mentally ill, partly through inadequate funding. The ENP’s view is that as long as it is considered that an individual poses a significant risk either to themselves or to the public, they should remain in secure care. The ENP views the Crown as an integral part of the traditions of English Nationhood and is loyal to the Crown of England. The ENP supports the continuing provision of medical services through the National Health Service whilst noting that there remains much room for improvement. The ENP’s view is that a N.H.S. Inspectorate, on a similar basis to the very successful schools inspectorate, should be set up with a view to raising standards of service and checking malpractice. The treatment of pensioners in England is a national disgrace which has been ignored for too long by the current political power structures. For the ENP the fair treatment of our citizens is a fundamental tenet and this includes pensioners who, more than most of us, have earned the right to a decent living standard. Fair treatment for pensioners means that they should receive not only the best pension entitlement that can be afforded but also that the tax system should reward rather than, as at present. discourage thrift. The ENP also advocates a more flexible retirement age, thus allowing people more freedom to choose the date on which they retire. Great improvements in the provision of medical services must be made to maintain the best possible quality of life for all. There must be a radical improvement in the effectiveness of the police in this country. Police numbers have risen dramatically, even making allowance for the recent decline in numbers in the last 30 years and under this Government from less than 100,000 officers in 1968 to 124,614 in September 2000, and this rise has been coupled with a huge increase in the number of civilian support staff. Due to poor management and ineffective deployment and Criminal Justice Policy, this increase has not been reflected in better protection for the public. Police career prospects must no longer be influenced merely by clearing up crimes. This approach has led to the police scaling down their role in enforcing law and order and seeking the easier option of apprehending and prosecuting the basically law abiding. Police promotion and prospects should be more focused on the prevention of crime and they must be encouraged to view each crime committed as representing a policing failure. The police should also be made far more democratically accountable. We suggest that Chief Constables should be directly elected. The Criminal Justice courts must also be made to play their part by being both more effective in convicting and punishing the guilty and also acquitting the innocent. Private Clubs/Field Sports (top) The ENP considers it not the proper business of the State to infringe the Liberty of the Individual to associate, to assemble or to use their property to pursue traditional past times and sports or to choose with whom they may associate socially. The ENP is not a racist party and does not support or condone any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or creed. Whilst the ENP is not a racist party we are unashamedly and proudly patriotic about the English nation. English Nationalism is not a question of race, it is a question of being proud of our way of life (ethnicity), our heritage and our culture and about loyalty and a sense of community. All races are welcome as members. It is a fundamental tenet of the ENP that the current system of Government has become debased to the point where Governments for whom only a minority of the electorate have voted, nevertheless insist upon carrying through dubious "manifesto commitments" without further reference to the democratic process. The ENP believes that all significant policy decisions, wherever reasonably practical, should be subject to a national referendum and that the Government should be bound to legislate in accordance with the result. The ENP’s view is that England should be able to celebrate its national day as a Bank Holiday. Until the Nations of the former United Kingdom become independent it is the ENP’s view that all over subsidisation of other parts of the United Kingdom by the English taxpayer should cease as soon as possible and that subsidy should only be paid on the basis of absolutely equal treatment with England. The current system is especially discriminatory to the Northern parts of England which are affected by the heavy over-subsidisation of Scotland. The current English taxpayer’s subsidy to the Scottish Exchequer is some £20 billion per year and growing, which approximately equates to over £1,000 per English taxpayer. Public spending in Scotland is now 23%, (Government spending of £5,271 per head in Scotland), above the English average. In Northern Ireland the figure is 39%, (£5,939 per head), and 18%, (£5,052 per head), in Wales. This compares with a figure of £4,283 for England. The ENP believes that if the subsidies to all parts of the United Kingdom were taken into account it is likely that each English taxpayer is paying £3,000 each year to subsidise the other parts of the former United Kingdom. This has especially bad consequences in the North East of England which loses approximately £1 billion a year as against what it would receive if the basis of subsidy was fair. If the subsidy to the European Union was taken into account, that figure would rise to over £4000 every year. Accordingly if such monies were spent wholly within England, not only could English taxpayers have a very substantial reduction in the tax burden, but also a very substantial increase in public spending. The 1998 public expenditure statistical analysis showed that in 1996/7 total expenditure per head of the population on services in Scotland compared with England was 24% higher. Spending on health and personal social services was 22% higher in Scotland; education was 31% higher; on transport was 31% higher; on trade, industry, energy and employment was 55% higher; on housing was 87% higher; on agriculture was 123% higher. This situation has become ever more inequitable as the Scottish Parliament has voted for greater State expenditure year on year with all the extra money coming from England. It is the ENP’s view that there should be an equalisation of subsidy between England and Scotland and all other parts of the United Kingdom as soon as possible. The English National Party has no objection in principle to the independence of Scotland, provided that the people of Scotland have democratically voted for independence by a simple a majority of voters in a Scottish National Referendum. The English National Party would hope that such independence would be "independence under the Crown", thus maintaining our historical association with the people of Scotland. We believe that the nation state is one of the most important bulwarks against anarchy and chaos. The sense of belonging that it gives promotes civilised values of selfless co-operation. We do not believe without the force of vibrant national sentiment that a purely secular state can sufficiently attract the loyalty of its citizens to survive. We believe in the right of national self-determination. Now that British national sentiment is moribund, having been fatally weakened by devolution, the only valid patriotic sentiment for the people of England is that of English nationalism. We are English patriots. The "West-Lothian" question (top) Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for West-Lothian asked ‘Why should the representative from West Lothian (or any other Scottish constituency, for that matter) be able to sit in the Westminster Parliament and vote on parochial matters affecting the English, when the English members who sat in the same parliament (are) entirely unable to vote on parochial matters affecting the Scots, for those matters (are) now to be considered by Scotland’s own parliament?’ The House of Commons currently has 659 members with only 529 parliamentary seats allocated to England. While England does not have a national assembly, on really democratic principles, England should have greater representation than the devolved nations, but should certainly at worst should not have lesser representation. In fact the system discriminates heavily against England and although England represents c. 86.3% of the population of the former United Kingdom and accordingly England should therefore have 569 seats in the House of Commons, while in reality, it is 40 seats short of its minimum proper representation. At present nearly 20% of the seats in the House of Commons have been allocated to c. 13.8% of the population of the former United Kingdom. This means that the devolved parts of the United Kingdom, in addition to having their own assembly, are nearly 50% over represented in Westminster. Whereas on any fair answer to the West-Lothian question they should be substantially under-represented at Westminster. The ENP’s view is that pending independence of any part of the United Kingdom, the devolved parts of the United Kingdom should have their representation cut by 50% and accordingly on the ENP’s view the devolved parties of the United Kingdom currently have nearly double the representation that they should have for there to be fair treatment between England and the other nations of the former United Kingdom. The current Government’s overwhelming majority in Westminster is to a substantial extent dependent on the under representation of England. This is wholly unacceptable democratically now that there are devolved assemblies for the other parts of the former United Kingdom. The ENP notes that in the interests of cynical political expediency the Government proposes not to rectify this democratic deficiency for England until after the next General Election. Any Government that had any real commitment to democracy would not take this stance. Although the Welsh National Assembly achieved a very dubious mandate (c 25%) from a tiny majority of voters in a poorly attended referendum, the English National Party nevertheless recognises the right of the Welsh nation to independence, if the majority of the voters in a Welsh National Referendum so desire. The English National Party would hope that such independence was "independence under the Crown", thus maintaining our historical association with the people of Wales. The English National Party considers that the position of Monmouthshire in this context is anomalous, as historically it had been part of England until recent boundary re-organisation. Accordingly, we would wish to see a county referendum in Monmouthshire as to whether Monmouthshire would wish to be treated as being part of Wales or part of England. Historically, since Medieval times, Wales has been an integral part of England and the English National Party would hope that the result of any such referendum would be that Wales should remain part of England. However it can only do so on the basis that the Welsh National Assembly is dissolved and Wales is represented in parliament and subsidised on a principle of absolute equality with England. |