Duncs Q and A

Q.
"If you elect me as your leader, you can be assured that these relations will only continue to improve."
 In regards to the current Government, how do you intend to interact with them?

A.
In regards to the current Government, how do you intend to interact with them?

I'm bitterly disappointed to be excluded from government, but I must disagree with the proposals of some who want just to adopt a knee-jerk "screw you" approach, and 3 line nay everything. I have to say from my experience, I doubt the Liberals and the CNP can continue working together for that long. My policy would be to free-vote everything that is not core UKIP policy, and if people want it make it clear their distaste for the government by voting nay, then they can go ahead, but I won't be joining them in doing it.

In terms of getting us into Government, as you can see from my endorsements, I have good relations with the leadership of every government policy, so if I am elected, I find it likely they will be more open with us.

------------------------

Q.
Would you go in a coalition with the Nationalists ?

A.
It would really depend on the terms, and the other parties in the coalition, but I'd be willing, although it would be a last resort, and only under circumstances where they would be moderated by another party. I'd be fine with something like Con-Kip-CNP-Nat, but I'd oppose a Nationalist Alliance V2 where it is essentially just us and them.

-------------------------

Q.
Your endorsements all come from government members. Surely if you are our leader they will think you are much more easier to deal with (I.e: not listening to our demands to enter gov and that you as a leader won't push as hard to get us into government) compared to a leader who has zero ties with the government and can truly hold them up to question about omitting us from the government.

A.
"Your endorsements all come from government members."

To be fair, CrazyOC is no longer a member of the government.

"Surely if you are our leader they will think you are much more easier to deal with (I.e: not listening to our demands to enter gov and that you as a leader won't push as hard to get us into government)"

On the contrary, I think electing a leader who has shown he can work with them would be far more beneficial than electing somebody who will just suddenly come in with demands. I have good relations with these people, and as such they are vastly more likely to listen to me than somebody who has less contact with them, and just demands one day that we be included in government.

Q.
I'm not saying someone will come in first day and demand government. But in the long run, a leader who is more friendly with the 'enemy' is more likely not to get the correct demands, or come out of the deal with a weak deal.

A.
A leader who gets on well with the leadership of the other parties, such as myself is vastly more likely to be considered about government, and the CNP leader even says he would like to work with a Duncs-led UKIP in his endorsement of me. However, do not think because I am friendly with them I am more likely to accept a dud deal, I'll push for what is right for the party, and we can all agree this is government right now, the difference is how we get there, based on my experience with these people (and the last time we tried to force our way into a coalition) I can say that demanding we get government or we will 3-line nay them will not work.

Q.
(Different Person) Would it be fair to say that they knew that the chances were you would be the next leader, and still decided to not work with us?

A.
I'd say that to a certain extent, they knew I would be running for leader, yes. However, I don't think that this would of provided adequate grounds to include us, as we so often see in politics, nothing is certain, and as such, they probably thought it safer to wait and see if I was actually elected, and could lead the party rather than making assumptions.

-------------------------

Q.
"and most importantly, remains able to pass our legislation."

Would you say that passing our legislation is of greater importance than keeping it active?

A.
"Would you say that passing our legislation is of greater importance than keeping it active?"

I would say that the two are very much linked, we need active members to write legislation and pass it, but nobody wants to join a party that doesn't write legislation and try to pass it. If we increase our activity, no doubt we will also increase the quantity, and quality of the legislation we introduce.

-------------------------

Q.
Why do you feel it necessary to have two deputy leaders?

A.
We had 2 Deputy Leaders in the past, and it worked reasonably well, in terms of actual specifics of why I want two, it helps to provide more active leadership from the party, in the rare times when I am away for any reason. In addition, it allows for more input into the Leadership process, as at times I felt that only having 2 people decide on a lot of decisions could be prone to errors, but thankfully we coped reasonably well.

--------------------------

Q.
Would you want UKIP to join the current government even if it meant compromising some of our ideals?

A.
Coalitions are about compromising on issues, we won't get 100% of our manifesto in the agreement, but nor did the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative Party. I would not join a government which advocated for policies fundamentally opposed to our ideals. We need to strike the balance, which strikes back to the old question of if principles or power are more important, and focussing only on one means that you won't get any of the other. We need to comprise, but not too much.

Q.
(Different person) What would you not compromise on? Like the things you would demand any coalition accepted, and the things you would demand that they help us pass

A.
Of the top of my head, I'd demand nothing stupid like last times agreement that prohibited us from leaving the EU, and the 2 main policies I'd push for them to pass with us would be Defence Spending at 2% of GDP (preferably 2.5%), and a complete renewal of Trident

----------------------------

Q.
What are your opinions on religion and traditional marriage?

A.
Religion: I am not personally religious myself, but I respect the right of individuals to have a faith.

Traditional Marriage: I support the idea of Same-Sex Marriage, while marriage continues to be recognised by the state, if marriage was strictly a religious matter, for which couples would get no special legal or tax status, then I would support the rights of different religions to place their own restrictions on marriage.

Q.
(Different person (1)) So do you agree with the Church of England being the state church?

A.
Under my leadership, Secularisation would be a free vote

Q.
(Different person again (2))  Why? We should be united against secularisation, this thread pretty much sums up why we should be against it. Furthermore, a secularisation bill would be very close, so to have a free whip on it rather than 3 Line could decide the result. We shouldn't be a party which allows an important tradition of this country to be abolished.

A.
That would be a thread started by a Vanguard dupe?, and I don't see any convincing arguments for 3-line naying secularisation. Being theocratic is not a core part of our party, and if members, particularly of the more Libertarian leaning element of the party feel secularisation is part of their ideology, they should be permitted to vote how they want.

On a more broader note, Almost every vote under my leadership would be a free vote, I dislike the idea that MPs should be told what to do by Party Leadership, often in times because of the ideology of party leadership, when it was the MPs themselves who went out and got votes to get elected.

Q.
(Person (2))"That would be a thread started by a Vanguard dupe?"

Irrelevant considering actual UKIP members supported it too.

"I don't see any convincing arguments for 3-line naying secularisation. Being theocratic is not a core part of our party, and if members, particularly of the more Libertarian leaning element of the party feel secularisation is part of their ideology, they should be permitted to vote how they want."

Because it's part of our country's tradition and we should be defending it. Also a comment from the mentioned thread which basically sums up my views:

"Social conservatism/liberalism aside though one of UKIP's big things besides the EU, immigration and electoral reform is protecting the Judeo-Christian values which have made Britain what it is today."

I wouldn't have as much of a problem allowing a one-line whip if it was clear that secularisation wouldn't have a chance passing. However, any vote on secularisation would be very tight and a couple of votes could make the difference. We need to stand up to attacks on things like secularisation rather than give them an easy pass.

"Almost every vote under my leadership would be a free vote, I dislike the idea that MPs should be told what to do by Party Leadership, often in times because of the ideology of party leadership, when it was the MPs themselves who went out and got votes to get elected."

Conversely, the MP's got voted on a manifesto made by the party. We should be able to whip bills which relate to our manifesto and/or are going to be a close vote.

A.
"Irrelevant considering actual UKIP members supported it too."

I see as many in favour of secularisation, or at the very least a free vote as I do opposed to it on that thread.

"Because it's part of our country's tradition and we should be defending it. Also a comment from the mentioned thread which basically sums up my views:"

This gets into the broader question of are we a Libertarian or Conservative party. I personally feel that we shouldn't favour one side over the other, and thus my free votes policy.

"We should be able to whip bills which relate to our manifesto"

Good thing secularisation wasn't mentioned once in the manifesto then.

Q.
(Person (2)) "This gets into the broader question of are we a Libertarian or Conservative party. I personally feel that we shouldn't favour one side over the other, and thus my free votes policy."

Personally I think it's important we have a strong image of what our party is. Whether that be Libertarian or Conservative, personally I would favour the latter.

"Good thing secularisation wasn't mentioned once in the manifesto then"

I wasn't referring to whipping secularisation regarding the manifesto point.

---------------------------

Q.
What will you do if you lose? Will you alter your behaviour at all, or continue on as normal?

A.
If I lose, I'll continue on the same path, fighting for what is right for the party.

-----------------------------

Q.
What is your favourite song from Melodifestivalen 2016?

A.
I have no idea what that is, sorry.

Q.
Although it doesn't in any way affect your standing as potential leader, being well acquainted with Eurovision selection contests would gain you some favour :P

--------------------------