Thanks to Tom for his excellent list of questions for candidates in this election. I have put his questions into italics. My personal answers are in normal font.

By the way, I am not a candidate, but a mere campaign manager. And while I am supporting the Reform party, I am definitely on its radical wing!

QUESTIONS TO CANDIDATES

1. Which of these five do you believe a Member of Parliament should put first: moral conscience, nation, country, constituency or party? You can only select one (there is no absolutely right or wrong answer).

This is an excellent question, because it shows up the muddled (and muddied) thinking in many people’s minds over issues surrounding nation, culture, race, and politics. However, I think that there are at least three more options to add to the list of five. At the beginning, I’d add “Humanity” or “Human civilization.” And at the end, I’d add “the state” and “globalism.”

My answer to the question as given, however, is None of the above. For in my opinion, it is the survival and flourishing of human civilization, and the world-wide prosperous economy which must mediate that civilization, that everyone, including parliamentary candidates, should put first. Implying, peace, honesty, justice and maximum freedom for all, consistent with living in a community of civilized human beings.

Moral conscience (also known as honesty) is also important, as it contributes very strongly to the quality of life for all.

2. Please explain your answer to 1.

I already explained my position on human civilization and moral conscience, above. The essence of my viewpoint could be thought of as an updated form of humanism – with its roots in Renaissance humanism, in the values of the Enlightenment, and in the values of the Industrial Revolution. In summary, my view is pro-human, whether as individuals, as families or in the context of the voluntary societies to which they choose to belong.

As to nation and country, many people do not seem able to see the difference. For me, it is quite clear cut. Nation is a cultural thing, while country is a geographical thing. Britain is, in my definition, “an island in the western North Sea,” which contains three nations, England, Scotland and Wales. I regard and identify myself as English rather than British, and I know I am not at all alone in that. I celebrate the English language, the English breakfast, English cricket, the English common law (before it got corrupted) and the English sense of fair play. Though I am campaign manager for a Reform party candidate, I am still not quite certain exactly what the party means by the “Britain” it wants to “save.”

As to constituency, this is probably the third most important, after civilization and conscience. By this word, I mean the people of the constituency, whom the candidate must undertake to represent, and to defend from their political enemies. This includes even those with legitimate views, with which the candidate or party disagrees. I hope this also makes my views plain with regard to party. (I am supporting Reform, not so much because I agree with its policies, but for its disruptive potential. The Tories, for one, are already feeling the heat.)

As to the state, it is my view that the current political system, the “Westphalian” nation state with a sovereign who has moral privileges and is unaccountable, and subjects who are ruled over by the sovereign, has passed its last-use-by date. The existence of a sovereign is incompatible with moral equality of all people, and so incompatible with the rule of law, too. It is also incompatible with democracy. “The people” as a collective are not of one mind, so could never be effective as a sovereign; and there is no other candidate for sovereign that can allow a full and fair say to every individual.

As to globalism and multi-national politics, they are anathema to me. I want a world-wide free market economy, not a global or regional super-state. Nor do I want a system whereby people are “allowed” to elect those who will govern them in name, but have no say at all in what policies will be forced on them by undemocratic globalist organizations, such as the UN and its WHO, the WEF, the World Bank, the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) and multi-national corporations.

3. Do you believe in God?

No. I have no evidence that such a thing even exists. But equally, I have no proof that such a thing does not exist. So, I really don’t care. If you let me have my religion, or lack of it, I’ll let you have yours.

4. Do you support the British Monarchy?

No. As I said above, monarchy – the prototype for sovereign and subjects – is inconsistent with the rule of law, the idea that everyone must obey the same rules. And Charlie is a hypocrite. He could be the king of England, for all I care. But travelling by helicopter to give a lecture on reducing CO2 emissions is beyond the bounds of my moral compass.

5. Overall, do you accept that the state too big and too interfering in people’s private lives?

Absolutely. The state is out of date, and has got to go.

6. Should the D-Day veterans regret their actions?

No, for two reasons. One, they were conscripts, so not responsible for their actions, because they were not willed. Two, by their actions they helped to get rid of the political pox of Nazism. In some unusual circumstances – and this was one – the ends can justify the means.

7. Who matters most – engineers, medical doctors or entrepreneurs?

All of them. If they do their jobs honestly and well, bless them all.

8. If you don’t live or work in the constituency, why are you standing here? If you do live or work in the constituency, why didn’t you stand before now?

This question is a bit unfair as posed, since constituency boundaries change. And except for career politicians, people only feel impelled to stand for office when they feel they, or their families and friends, are threatened if they do not. In such a case, there may already be a friendly local candidate, and they must look further afield.

9. In your view, what should be the Number One local priority for our new Member of Parliament?

To represent the people of their constituency. In particular, to resist policies that are a disbenefit to the constituents, and to help individual constituents fight injustices against them,

10. What arrangements will you make for constituency surgeries? How often will surgeries be held in the constituency and where? Will you hold open surgeries?

An interesting question, but it will depend on the situation in the individual constituency.

11. Rail fares are now expensive. What do you propose should be done to improve the situation for passengers?

Rail transport has both advantages and disadvantages. It works well to and from places of high population density, such as city centres. But far less well outside those.

But ultimately, the users of one means of transport should not be impacted, either positively or negatively, by those who want to use different means. Each group should have to pay their own way to satisfy their particular requirements.

12. In my opinion, cycling infrastructure in the constituency is poor. I appreciate this is a local competency, but as the Member of Parliament, would you support improvements, and if so, what would you do to encourage action by the local authority?

I am all in favour of separating cyclists from cars where they cause mutual problems. (I once bicycled coast-to-coast across North America!) But cycling infrastructure should be paid for by cyclists, just as driving infrastructure is paid for by car, van and lorry drivers.

13. In your assessment, how has Brexit affected the constituency and the region? Please include both positive and negative consequences/ramifications.

The benefits of Brexit are not being seen at all. We may be formally away from the EU and its ECJ, but the local élites have perpetuated the EU’s culture of ever tightening collective limits on what people may do, for example in emissions controls. That culture must go. There is also a culture of “safety at any cost,” which imposes on people utterly ridiculous controls with which they cannot afford to comply (e.g. all flat owners required to install new door closers). That culture must go, too.

14. If a realistic proposal were put forward to reverse Brexit in some way, would you support or oppose it?

I would oppose it with every ounce of strength I have.

15. Please explain your answer to 14.

I answered above under 2. I am opposed to all global or regional super-states, including the EU. The EU should be dismantled.

16. If I want to get high, why should the law stop me?

It shouldn’t. Not unless you are causing actual and provable damage, or an unreasonable risk of damage, to other individuals.

17. Does Britain still need a strategic nuclear deterrent?

Yes, unfortunately. While there still exist Westphalian states in the world, a means will still be necessary to dissuade them from attacking the people of these islands.

18. In what ways do you think Britain has benefitted from the domestication of the European Convention on Human Rights into our laws in 1998?

Well, I’m not sure what you mean here by “Britain.” I’ll assume you mean “the people who live in the island called Britain.” There have been some small benefits, for example in the British Airways cross case, which was correctly decided. And the ECHR (Convention, not Court) confers a certain degree of protection of human rights. But not enough, in my opinion. For example, the ULEZ cameras represent for me a serious violation of the right to privacy, even before they collect a single penny of loot.

I put to the Reform Party the idea that they should put forward a proper “British Bill of Rights.” They accepted that suggestion. Not anything like the Tories’ “bill of no rights bill,” though. More like Magna Carta, the 1689 bill of rights, the US bill of rights, and the UN declaration, all rolled into one. With spurious rights like “social security” identified and taken out, and important rights like property, privacy and freedom of speech strengthened.

19. Do you think 16-year-olds should have the vote?

No. They don’t have the critical faculties yet. Even I only began to grow my critical faculties around my 16^th birthday!

20. Which should come first: that the police reflect the community they serve or are effective in impartially policing the community they serve?

Police, like all other parts of government, must be impartial and objective at all times. It doesn’t matter who people are, only how they behave.

21. Should schools base their curricula on the needs and requirements of employers?

Schools should be free to teach whatever they consider to be best for their pupils, and to compete in a free market to attract the choice of parents. Some will have an emphasis on vocational education, others on high academic prowess, yet others on specialist areas like music. It is not for government to say what schools should teach.

22. In the long run, is it better for young people to pass or fail their school exams?

Another interesting question, but hard to generalize about. It depends on the individual concerned, on their talents and disabilities, and on their demonstrated level of expertise in the subjects they (or, for young children, their parents) have chosen to take. The only general points I can make are that examinations must be fair, and they must test ability and understanding, rather than rote learning.

23. Do you think prisons should be abolished? If ‘Yes’, what would you replace them with?

No. Some individuals are criminally dangerous to those around them, and they must be held away from the people to whom they are dangerous. But too many people are in prisons, who shouldn’t be. Julian Assange, for one.

24. Should the death penalty be permitted for murder?

I do not support the death penalty for common crimes which cause death. But my reasons are practical, not moral. The risk of false conviction is too great. That said, the death penalty is appropriate for state actors whose policies cause deaths, particularly on a large scale.

25. Do you think it is better in general for NHS management to be lay or clinically qualified?

You need a mix. And they need to be able to talk to each other with mutual intelligibility.

26. Do you support the local devolution proposals?

As far as I know, there are no such things in my area. I would support “Londependence,” however, as I regard the London élites as having far too much influence on those of us who live outside London. Let them govern themselves, instead of trying to govern us.

27. Irrespective of your answer to 26, if the proposed devolution scheme is approved, what plans do you have to contribute to the new arrangements as a Member of Parliament?

Not applicable.

28. If you are elected to Parliament, will you vote in favour of continued British support for the Ukraine in its armed conflict with Russia?

Yes, under current circumstances.

29. If your answer to 28 is Yes, could you explain how intervention in this conflict is in the national interest.

As I have said elsewhere: “The Ukrainians are the innocent party in this war, and we would be seriously threatened if they succumbed. Therefore, we must provide defensive support to them. Whether or not the USA pressured the Russians into starting this war, and how much certain UK politicians did to support that pressure, are separate questions.”

30. Do you believe that the white British people have a right to their own country?

I believe that everyone has the right to, as I said earlier, “peace, honesty, justice and maximum freedom for all, consistent with living in a community of civilized human beings.” It should not depend on their birthplace, residence or the colour of their skins.

31. Do you support an end to mass immigration?

I support an end to the planned mass immigration, which has been carried out by successive governments over the last 20 or so years. This immigration, if I am not mistaken, has been planned with the intention of providing a tax base for the future, in the context of an aging population. This immigration has benefited and even bloated the state. And it has been at the expense of the people, as the housing crisis now shows.

32. If your answer to 31 is No, could you explain how mass immigration benefits the country?

It depends what you mean by “country.” But, as I said above, mass immigration has benefited the state, while being a disbenefit the people government is supposed to serve.

33. Did you support the lockdown and mandatory wearing of masks against Covid-19?

No. I wrote against it in many places, including this website.

34. Were you vaccinated against Covid-19?

No. Way back when I was 13, I was given a “flu jab” which, instead of providing protection against flu, actually caused a flu epidemic in the school at which I was a boarder. I have refused all vaccinations since, except for those necessary for specific purposes (such as hepatitis B vaccine for working in Indonesia). Having caught COVID before it was officially in the UK, and fully recovered from it five weeks before the first lockdown, I was never going to accept a COVID vaccine. Particularly in view of its untried technology.

35. I usually spoil my ballot paper as it’s rare that any candidate is electorally suitable. What can you say to change my mind this time?

I have never spoiled a ballot paper. I have simply not bothered to vote. I have not voted in a UK general or local election since 1987. I simply did not feel part of any political grouping, and had contempt for all the mainstream parties and everyone in them. In 2019, I was ready to vote for the Brexit party, but my candidate was withdrawn.

What I will say is that the four main parties – Tories, Labour, “Liberal Democrats” (neither liberal nor democratic, as one of their former MPs told me) and Greens – are really all one party. The Tyranny Party. The Statist Party. Your only real options are Reform UK or an Independent. Or the Monster Raving Loonies, if you are lucky enough to have a candidate where you live.

But I think there are some – indeed, many – questions missing. Here’s a first-cut list of just seven.

36. Do you think that “net zero” is necessary, feasible, cost-justified from the point of view of the people who are expected to pay for it, and achievable within the lifetime of anyone alive today?
37. Please give, with Internet links where appropriate, the evidence behind your answer to 36.
38. The Tories have said they want to cut taxes. Labour have said they don’t want to increase taxes. But given both their past records, people aren’t believing them. How are you any different?
39. Will you commit to restoring our freedom of speech, not only generally, but also in the context of “hate crimes,” and on-line? If so, how do you propose to do it?
40. Farming is perhaps the most important of all industries, and it is under political threat from green regulations. What are you going to do to ensure that farmers can continue to farm the way they know how to?
41. What are you proposing to do to improve the complex, convoluted systems for pensions and social care?
42. How do you plan to improve the culture in, and drastically reduce the costs of, the civil service?