The 2022 Status Quo Election Manifesto

 Nominations close, at 4pm on Wednesday the 30th March 2022, for persons wishing to stand as candidates in the forthcoming election for Glasgow City Council. No doubt there is a similar deadline for other councils across Scotland. The election will be held on Thursday the 5th of May 2022. That is election day. Similar local elections will be held in England and Wales, and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly will also be held on this day. No doubt there will be similar deadlines for persons to lodge their papers and become candidates in those forthcoming elections too.

This then, is the right time, to encourage persons to stand in the elections, and to offer them a platform upon which they can stand, as part of a great alliance or coalition.

Standing as a candidate in local elections is done quite easily. The same usually applies to the assemblies and parliaments in different parts of the UK. This is to encourage participation in the democratic process.

I intend to outline how easy it is to become a candidate, to set out why you would want to be a candidate, how you would run your campaign, and what manifesto or platform you should campaign on.

As said, the process to become a candidate is relatively simple. When reforms came in, that set up the different assemblies and parliaments, and reformed local government, the reforms were aimed at making participation easy. The major political parties have always known how to stand in elections, but this is sometimes a mystery to smaller political parties, and those who are not in parties, or who are new to politics.

If I use Glasgow as the example, they have a website for all of their services. You click on the subject you want. One subject is 'Elections'. You go there, and the site will tell you where to go to pick up your nomination papers. In the olden days, you used to have to collect a list of people nominating you to stand as a candidate. That is now all done away with. Now the nomination paper is like a legal document, that requires a witness to sign. Just a witness. They do not have to agree to support you in the election. They are merely a witness that you want to be a candidate. The Glasgow election office will help new people, who want to be a candidate for the first time, how to go about it. No doubt other councils will be similarly helpful.

Of course, the question is, why do you want to be a candidate in the local elections, and why do you want to be a councillor if you get elected?

The answer to this should be a simple one. If you are concerned about the services that the local council provides, and you feel that these services are not being provided properly, and want them to be provided better, and your concern is such that you think you have better ideas, or that you think you could do a better job, then you can just stay at home and complain and moan, or, you can act, and offer yourself as a candidate. This is how democracy works, indeed, it only works, if people are willing to put themselves forward, and for different ideas to compete, so that voters can choose who they think is the best candidate, and has the best ideas.

Once nominations close, those who have lodged their papers are now official candidates. They will be given advice on the rules on how to conduct their campaign. One of the most important rules, governs money. It costs nothing to stand as a local council candidate, however, there is a limit to the amount that a candidate can spend in their election campaign. They must detail everything spent, and it must not exceed the limit.

A campaign can be run with a very small amount of money. Leaflets cost money, but knocking on doors and speaking to people costs nothing. Most campaigns will have some mixture of these two things. A small amount of money can be used to put out leaflets during the campaign, as well as perhaps on election day. Indeed, this can be when votes are secured. Being seen at the polling station on election day, and handing out a small leaflet, perhaps having a brief conversation, marks you out as a serious candidate, and this personal touch, can deliver votes.

Of course, suddenly deciding now, out of the blue, that you wish to be a candidate, would not make you a serious candidate, unless you have already spent time being involved in local campaigns and groups. For the committed local activist, standing as a candidate, is merely a logical extension of your previous activities. It is the local issues that would drive your desire to be a candidate and what you would campaign on.

There is actually little need for national parties to be involved in elections and putting forward policies. Indeed, political parties are very poor vehicles for delivering democracy. Certainly, at a local level, when the delivery of services is what is important, party labels are not. The idea that only one party knows the best way to run council services, is one that is easily argued against. For the parties though, the idea that another party is in power, is what drives them to win, to keep out the others. It is a power-struggle between them.

Sadly, the competing political parties, will put forward a manifesto, that covers the whole of the council areas. Little local issues are ignored. Indeed, when a political party controls a council, it will instruct it's elected councillors how to vote on every issue, and to even vote against what is important and right in their local area. Thus then, a local independent candidate, can put forward what is important to them, and if elected, can truly represent their voters.

One issue that is always important in local elections, is the issue of rubbish collection. A couple of examples from Glasgow can be used to explore the issues. 

Now well over a decade ago, there was a strike in the Cleansing Department. At that time, the council was run by Labour. They decided that instead of the bins being emptied five days a week, this would be changed to seven. Whereas previously the bin men worked Monday to Friday, now they were forced to do shifts, hence the strike. Those who went to church on Sunday, could opt out of working on Sundays. However, of course, in the future, all new employees would be forced into the new shift patern, thus meaning that church-goers faced the choice of no church or no work. An argument can easily be made, that this discriminated against Christians. More generally, this was an attack on the terms of service of all of the refuse-workers. Their weekends were free, now they were to be forced to lose their weekends. A related issue, is that of the quality of the service itself. Previously, bins would have been emptied on a working day, when working people were getting up early for work themselves, or later in the day, when they had left the house, perhaps in their car. However, under the new regime, people would be woken up from their long lies on the weekend, as the noisy bin-lorrries drove down narrow streets now filled with cars.

Recently, the council, now run by the SNP, has decided that they would extend the time between when bins are emptied, from two, to three weeks. They have also abolished the free uplift of bulky items. Unsurprisingly, fly-tipping and littering has increased.

Common-sense is needed to run local government. If people feel that they can contribute this, and want to, then they should step forward to offer themselves to the voters.

In Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, there are nationalist political parties, wishing to split up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They will campaign to get votes on that basis. However, they have no mandate to do this.

In Scotland, in 2014, a referendum was held on the issue of Scotish independence. The result of the referendum was that people voted to stay part of the UK. That was the will of the people. This status quo position has never been accepted by the SNP. They have never accepted the result of this referendum, or any referendum for that matter. Two years later, the people of the UK voted to leave the European Union. Since then, the UK has left the EU. This was the settled will of the British people, and is now the status quo position. However, again, on voting for Brexit, again the SNP refuse to accept the referendum result. Quite frankly, the SNP do not accept democracy, and thus are a threat to democracy.

The same applies to those nationalist parties in Northern Ireland and Wales.

Even in England, the Liberal Democrats are still committed to the UK being in the EU. It is an idea that has been rejected by the people. It is now something in the past, but the Liberal Democrats refuse to accept this, and are committed to the past, and are living in the past.

Over the last dozen years, the UK has had much political turmoil. Perhaps most British now desire a more peaceful political scene with no more turmoil. Acceptance of the present status quo position, in constitutional matters at least, can seem to be a sensible position to hold.

Thus it was, that for me, that the idea that the status quo position was one to aim for, began to seem a viable political position. In Scotland, A4U put forward that position, and had a plan to defeat the Scottish nationalists who refused to accept the status quo and the will of the people. That the A4U plan failed in 2021, did not mean that the plan was wrong. The plan was brave, as was A4U itself, and tribute should be paid for the staging of the project. To defeat the Scottish nationalists, it makes sense that those who oppose them work together in an alliance or coalition.

I agree with the position that Unionism is outdated. It is not a rallying cry, around which, all are comfortable gathering. I now believe, that status quo is a viable political position. Indeed, since the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, I have put forward status quo as a specific political phiosophical position. I accept that many would not stand under my hard-line political philosophy of staus quo. Politics is of course the art of the possible. Therefore, I am proposing that those who support the status quo, on the biggest issues such as the constitution and the unity of the UK at least, support, even if very slightly, the idea of an alliance or coalition of those who hold the status quo position.

The election system used for local elections means that all can compete. There is no need for pre-election pacts. There is no need to stand down in favour of another candidate. People will vote for those they want the most, and those who get elected, will be the ones who are wanted by the most. 

What we, who support the status quo position, should say to the voters is, vote for me as your local candidate, on these local issues. However, I support the constitutional status quo position of the UK, and if elected, will work together with others who support this position, and will try to exclude from power the Scottish nationalists who refuse to support the status quo position.

This then, is my clarion call, to all those thinking of standing in the forthcoming elections. Come and join this status quo alliance and coalition. Let us create an alliance that stretches across the political spectrum, and can embrace people from left to right.

However, I do not wish to have so broad a church or coalition, that unsavoury figures, who I do not wish to associate myself with, feel that they can declare their solidarity with me, and associate themselves with me. To separate out the goats from the sheep, and the wheat from the chaff, biblical references that are actually apt here, I will lay down a marker, to ensure that this happens.

This is my line in the sand! This is my red line!

There are many who say they are opposed to sectarianism. However, when you dig down into the detail, their opposition to sectarianism, merely amounts to oposition to Catholic schools. Indeed, it is those who are least likely to send their children to a Catholic school, who are most opposed to them. They are not Catholics, their children are not Catholics, indeed they have no intention of sending their children to a Catholic school. Yet, they want to ban Catholic schools. They say they just want all the schools merged. The reality, is they want to ban and stop Catholic parents from sending their Catholic children to Catholic schools.

Before I make arguments for the retention of Catholic schools, I will lay out the history. Before 1918, Catholic schools were completely separate from the state. They had been started by Catholics, were funded by Catholics, and ran by Catholics. Then the 1918 Education (Scotland) Act came into force. When this happened, Catholic schools were taken over and became state-funded. At that time, there were nearly 100,000 pupils in over 200 schools. Under the new regime, the schools retained their identity, and religious education, and their teachers were approved by the Church. There are now, present day, well over 300 such schools.

Returning to my new political philosophy of status quo, the argument is always, if it's not broke, don't try to fix it. Catholic schools, have existed in this present set-up for over 100 years. Over a century! Why change this!

Indeed, since schools which were owned by Catholics, are now owned by the state, it follows, that the state would be required to give back those schools to the Church, if it ended state-funding of Catholic schools. Thus the state, in the form of local councils, would lose all this prime real-estate, which would then go to the Church. The state would lose all control over these schools. As the state was now breaking the agreement to finance the schools, the schools would revert back to the Church, and would remain Catholic schools, which just as now, would stay open because there was a demand for them. Unless of course, the state believed it had the right, not only to shut Catholic schools, but to steal them too, and where would they put all these Catholic pupils? Of course!, I forgot!, they would force these children to go to schools that their parents did not want them to go to. It should always be remembered, that those who send their children to Catholic schools, and they are not all Catholics by the way, are not only choosing the Catholic school, they are also rejecting the non-Catholic school. That is the choice they made.

The family existed long before society or the state, and thus family has primacy over the state. The state should only interfere, where there is a proven need to. Religion also predates modern society too of course. More of that later.

Those who wish to tell parents what schools they must send their children to, do not seem to think that parents should have a right of choice. Surely, in a matter as important as the education of a child, the right to choose the education of their choice, should be the right of all parents. In communist countries, which of course did their best to suppress religion, their was no freedom of choice, in schools or anything else. The state decided not just schooling, but also what goods would be available in shops, and all sorts of other restrictions on individual freedom. Here, in the liberal-democracies of the West, we have freedom of choice, of what professions to follow, and a free-market in goods available in shops. How can choice be a bad thing?

Those who oppose Catholic schools say that they stop their little Johnnie from going to the same school as his friends. Of course this is not true! If the parents were that concerned about the friends, they would send their little Johnnie to the Catholic school. Of course this never happens though. What they want to do is to stop and shut down the Catholic schools.

Here then is the crux of the matter. We are talking about religion here. Catholics have a religious duty to give their children a Catholic education. This is what they choose to do. Those who oppose this, want to deny Catholics the right to give their children a Catholic education. However, this is not just a matter of Catholics having the right to choose a Catholic school for their children. The issue is actually much bigger than that. The issue is actually about the the freedom of worship. The right to follow the religion of your choice. Those who oppose Catholic education, are in reality opposing the right of Catholics to be Catholics.

About half a millennium ago, people were persecuted, tortured, executed, and often in hideous ways, because they were deemed to be the wrong religion. Catholics and Protestants, waged war upon one another, because they were deemed to be the wrong type of Christian. Thankfully, that is now mostly in the past. Now we live in a country, that whilst it is officially Christian, is so in a very nominal way. In fact, in many ways, the country is very secular. Even the great Christian feasts, are very secularized. In this modern secularized country we live in, we live a relaxed life-style with full toleration of religion, for all religions, even cults. We now have equality and freedom for those of all religions, and for those of no religion too.

The idea that Catholics should be denied freedom of religion, is an idea that is beyond the pale!

I have no interest in associating myself with anti-Catholic bigots, thus if my support for the right of Catholics to send their children to Catholic schools, is something that some cannot support, and thus prevents them from desiring to stand under my banner, then that is all to the good. That is precisely what my intention is, in stating this position. "Be gone!" I say!

I believe, that a Status Quo political philosophy has a role to play in politics. I do not demand that all accept my hard-line definition of it. Barring the example above of Catholic education, I merely ask that those who are willing to work with myself to create a status quo alliance and coalition, do so, merely on the basis of the great constitutional issues of the unity of our UK. I am trying to create a framework and template around which, and within which, the greatest number possible can come together.

As we support the concept of the UK, so we should also support the foreign policy of the UK. Right now, an awful war is being waged. Russia has invaded Ukraine, attempting to change the present status quo, and impose their will on an independent people and state. The UK is committed to supporting Ukraine in it's fight for freedom. This is a position that should continue. A few communist Russophiles and Tankies oppose this status quo position, and again, if this deters them from joining my status quo campaign, so be it!

I have written at great length, in this article entitled 'The 2022 Status Quo Election Manifesto'. You dear reader, may have observed that I have laid out very few policies in the article. This in essence is the Status Quo position. Steady as we go in steering the ship of state! The position is Status Quo! Change, for the sake of it, is opposed! Change should only be considered, if it is conclusively proved, beyond all doubt, that the change is needed and required, and must happen, and that this change can be introduced with little or no pain.

Thus, if you think, my, no change, Status Quo, position, has some merit, and can play some role in politics in the future, feel free to adopt this 2022 Status Quo Election Manifesto, and use it in the forthcoming elections.

Together, let us build a Status Quo movement, for the whole of the UK, perhaps even, for the whole of the world!

Status Quo for today, and for tomorrow too!