It seems that we have a Reform UK candidate here in North Warwickshire. He is called Paul Hopkins.

His website says:

“Growing up in Castle Bromwich and moving to Coleshill Paul has forged a deep connection to North Warwickshire, making it his home since the age of 13. Now, running The Box Warehouse and with family roots firmly in Coleshill, his mother runs Blythewood Guest-house in Coleshill, he is compelled to give back to his community. As a candidate in the 2024 general election, Paul’s commitment is clear: support for our Armed Forces; alignment with Reform UK's values for a balanced immigration policy: practical climate solutions and a focus on revitalizing crucial sectors like healthcare and the benefit system."

"Paul has strong opinions, ask anyone who has met him. Becoming the MP for North Warwickshire & Bedworth would give him the platform in Westminster to make real change and get the Great back into Great Britain by taking control of immigration, dealing with failed multiculturalism and to stopping Liberal Wokeism from completely destroying our society...”


Dear Mr Hopkins

I see that you are the Reform UK candidate for the North Warwickshire and Bedworth constituency. As a fellow Coleshill resident, I would be interested in your comments on some of the election commitments listed on your web-site:


At the launch in 2019 of "the contract with the British people" by your party under its previous name “the Brexit Party”, your then leader Nigel Farage attacked our voting system. He said: "I'm astonished that nobody seems to want to reform the postal voting system, something that has been totally abused since it was opened up nearly 20 years ago. We've seen fraud, intimidation, several court cases, people going to prison and yet it seems to suit the two parties to keep the postal voting system as it is." Writing later in the Telegraph, Mr Farage called the ability to request a postal vote on demand "a major scandal".

Is this though correct? Well, the Electoral Commission tells us that police data on the allegations of electoral fraud every year since 2010 were collected and analysed by Commission in 2017. They showed that even though tens of millions of people voted, the number of allegations of voter fraud through postal ballots was in the low hundreds.

It is undeniable that postal voting is convenient - my wife and I use it ourselves when we are away. For similar reasons it is used by very many other people who would not otherwise be able to vote.

So then, does Mr Farage, and now Reform UK have access to other sources of information which tip the balance away from the convenience of postal voting for so very many people? Where does this information come from?

Or is it a reflection of the allegation by Mr Farage's friend Donald Trump of his supposed lost votes through postal voting in the USA? An allegation ruled against by every court in America which has been called upon to adjudicate on the issue.

2.   ‘Multiculturalism has led to the growth of separate communities that risk nurturing extremism and the rejection of our way of life. Christian values are under threat.’

I am a little uncertain as to which Christian values those are. Even during my lifetime, I have seen many changes in Christian values. Homosexuality, which was until recently anathema to Christianity, was actually a capital offence until the late 1800s. Indeed you may recall that in 1952 Alan Turing, the father of the computer, was required to undergo chemical castration as he had engaged in homosexual activity. He committed suicide shortly afterwards, much to our loss as a nation.

Although homosexuality became legal between consenting adults aged 21 or more in 1967, the year after you were born, the age of consent was only lowered to 16 in 2001.

As we know, both Muslims and Catholics still consider it to be a sin although the Anglicans seem to be in two minds about it. And of course, homosexuality remains an imprisonable crime in many of our former African colonies because we, as a Christian country, provided them with their constitutions upon independence in the second half of the 20th century.

Blasphemy, again originally a capital offence, was only finally abolished in 2008 in England and Wales, with Scotland following later. It is still an offence in Northern Ireland. So when Muslims complain of blasphemy in respect of representations of their prophet or damage to copies of the Quran, should we sympathise with them? Where should we stand on this as a country do you think?

And are you with the Pope and American evangelicals on abortion or do you think instead that what they view as our 'unchristian' law here in the UK is acceptable?

3.   The EU still has huge control over our borders and laws - we must leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). ‘A British Bill of Rights - Our freedoms must be codified and guaranteed. Political freedom, personal freedom, economic freedom.’

Could you be specific as to the control which the EU has over our borders and laws? Or is it that you think (incorrectly) that the EU is in control of the ECHR which, in turn, has control over our borders and laws?

Either way, you say that we should no longer be bound by the ECHR. On the other hand, you call for our freedoms to be codified. In what way would those codified rights be different to those already codified in the Human Rights Act 1988? As you will be aware, the European Convention on Human Rights was largely drafted by British lawyers. It was an attempt to prevent countries taking away citizens' rights, as had happened with Nazi Germany. I’m not quite sure what problems you see with the convention or indeed the interpretation of it by our Supreme Court. Perhaps you could let me see the draft of the new codified rights you are calling for.

4.   You wish to put ‘successful business people’ in charge of all of the various departments of the Civil Service, people who would change with each successive government.

This again appears to be borrowed from the USA, where not only the heads of government departments, but also the judiciary, are chosen along party lines. I think there may be some difficulty in finding enough ‘successful business people’ and even more difficulty in finding those prepared to take a cut in salary to take on such a role.

So then, are you proposing that they should actually be paid the same as when they were in their successful business roles, or that we should accept slightly less successful business people who would work out cheaper, such as the former top team at the Post Office? I mention this because I see that you are also calling for a reduction in government spending. You say:

‘Save £5 in every £100. We make these savings in business and at home. The public sector must be no exception. Every manager across government must find savings without touching frontline services.’

Bearing in mind the dire state of numerous of our services, I’m not quite sure that saving even 5% is going to be possible by every manager across government. You may be aware for instance that our prisons are currently full and we have far too few prison warders. You may also be aware that there is a vast shortfall in the provision of care, whether at home or in care homes, such that our hospitals cannot discharge those patients who no longer need medical attention but who are not able to look after themselves. Do these services not require extra spending rather than cuts?

5.   'Cut through and get rid of the Liberal Civil Service and replace them with “believers in Brexit” who want the best for Great Britain'

To replace the Civil Service is going to be rather a large-scale change. How long do you think it would take and what would be the cost implications during such an upheaval, do you suppose?

Would you question those applying to join the new Civil Service as to their voting record in the referendum? Presumably those unconvinced that Brexit was a good idea or those who thought initially that it was a good idea but had changed their minds would be excluded from being employed by the state.

Can you see any disturbing echoes from the past in a policy which gives certain people more advantages because of their beliefs and disadvantages others?

6.  'Stopping the boats? Why can’t our border force intercept them and tow them back to France?... If we can’t take them to France then they should be held offshore until processed and sent home'

I think you may find that Maritime law does not allow our navy to put people's lives at risk other than in time of war. And trying to tow back to France the inflatable boats being used would certainly fit into that category. So then, we come to your alternative - that they be held offshore until processed and sent home. The Bibby Stockholm can accommodate around 500 people. How many barges do you think we would need altogether and how much would they cost? What happens if their country of origin refuses to take them back?

7.   ‘Brexit Bonus. Cut Unnecessary Regulations. Government red tape and nanny state regulations are estimated to have cost the UK economy £143 billion since 2015.

You do not give the source of the estimated cost to the UK economy of £143 billion since 2015 (£16 billion per year). Perhaps you could point me in its direction. Would I be likely to see the side of a rather infamous bus?

Neither do you actually specify which are the ‘unnecessary regulations’ to which we are subject. Since leaving the EU, the government has passed an Act having the effect of removing various leftover EU regulations either already incorporated in our statute law or which had become redundant.

Presumably you consider that there should be a more wide-ranging cull. Would you be so kind as to let me have your list of those you now wish to see the back of. I’m sure it’s quite long, but I would be interested to look through it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,
 
Paul Buckingham

27 May 2024