Sent to all the candidates in my constituency who have supplied an e-mail address:
I am a voter in the Dover and Deal constituency.
If you are elected to Parliament, will you vote in favour of continued British support for the Ukraine in its armed conflict with Russia?
Sean Gabb
Answer 1:
Hi Sean,
In short, yes I will.I believe British, NATO and US support for Ukraine is essential to the future peace in Europe.On a wider level, as we face increasing threats to UK security, the Government has committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. I share the ambition to increase defence spending to this level. However, I want a defence spending plan that is fully costed and fully funded in Government budgets.The 2030 target is not in the Government’s financial plans. If this 2030 plan had been in a Budget, it would have been independently checked, openly costed and fully funded. Unfortunately, it was not.What we do on defence sends signals to the world. I am concerned that we have been sending the wrong signal by hollowing out and underfunding are armed forces and cutting day-to-day defence budgets by £10 billion since 2010. It also sends the wrong signal when the army is at the smallest size since Napoleon.
I will always champion the defence and security of our nation and our allies.Many thanks,Mike TappLabour CandidateDover & Deal.
Dear Sean Gabb,
I hope this finds you well, thank you for your question to Heritage Party Candidate Sylvia Jean Petersen
Below is her answer:
‘If I am elected to Parliament, I would not vote in favour of continued British support for the Ukraine in the proxy war with Russia. The Heritage Party leader, David Kurten, would achieve a peace deal for Ukraine and stop taxpayers’ money pouring into unaccountable foreign war coffers, and keep the money in Britain.’
In case you missed it, here is a link to what David said on the topic via a public Tv debate back in September 2022
https://youtu.be/2WP98JtCtlI?feature=sharedPlease feel free to stay in touch via our Kent Social Media pages
https://www.facebook.com/HeritagePartyKentTwitter X heritage_p42105
Kind regards
Sean Turner Kent Co-Ordinator
Dear Dr Gabb,
The situation in Ukraine presents a profound challenge that requires careful consideration. Reflecting on the words of Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This highlights the moral imperative to act in the face of aggression and injustice.
My military service has taught me the importance of alliances and the necessity of standing firm in the face of adversity. Supporting Ukraine is not just a matter of strategic interest but a commitment to the principles of sovereignty and freedom, which align with our broader ethical responsibilities. From a libertarian perspective, defending the rights and freedoms of individuals against aggression is a core principle. As John Stuart Mill said, “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”
It is important to balance action with restraint. As Lord Acton noted, “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.” Ensuring that our actions abroad do not undermine our own principles of liberty and non-intervention is crucial.
Whilst I can say I support continued British action in Ukraine given the current situation, I cannot rule out changing my mind if future developments necessitate a different approach. It is crucial to remain adaptable and responsive to the evolving geopolitical landscape. I am not driven by an ideological need for conflict or intervention in other countries’ matters, but by a commitment to protecting freedom and preventing harm.
Best,
Stephen James
Conservative Candidate for Dover & Deal
Sean Gabb replies:
Dear Mr James,
Many thanks for your most thoughtful reply. You may not be surprised, however, that I do not agree with it. The present Government’s foreign policy has widened what would otherwise have been a limited Russian engagement into the biggest European war since 1945, and has taken us close to actual war with Russia – war with Russia and with China, both countries which we have no legitimate reason for making into enemies.
Speaking generally, the Conservative Party since 2010 has consistently campaigned from the libertarian and traditionalist right and consistently governed from the authoritarian left. I could write a book on the scale of the betrayal, but this has been too flagrant to need more than a mention. I will instead suggest that, if you really want to ensure a semi-principled opposition to the Labour Government your party leaders have made inevitable, you should stop your campaign and recommend a vote for the Reform Party.
With best regards,
Sean Gabb
Answer 4:
Dear Sean,
Thank you for your enquiry. The Green Party believes that UK foreign policy should be based on shared commitments to democracy, peace, global solidarity and the protection of human rights. It has never been more important to support the rule of law, including the international law that protects our rights and protects against state aggression. We want to see the UK take the lead in upholding the right to self-determination and the enforcement of international law and to continue to support Ukraine as it resists Russian invasion.
Yours faithfully,
Christine Oliver
Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Dover and Deal
Answer 5:
Dear Dr Gabb
Thank you for writing to me to ascertain my stance on continued British support for Ukraine.
I believe all Western Countries must support Ukraine against Russian oppression. If Russia is able to take Ukraine, then which will be next former Eastern block country to be attacked by Russia?
Thus my view is that it is imperative the British, along with other Western Countries, stand united to support Ukraine against Russia.Yours sincerely
Geoffrey Lymer
Independent Candidate for Dover & Deal
Sean Gabb replies:
Dear Mr Lymer,
Many thanks for your response. I regret that your mode of thought on foreign policy got this country into two and a half big and completely unnecessary wars in the last century. I have no wish for more of the same in this century, so will not be voting for you next month.
Regards,
Sean Gabb
Mr Lymer replies further:
Dear Mr Gabb
Thank you for getting back to me so quickly and in a Utopian world, like you I, would dearly love to see a world, this century without any wars, alas characters like Hitler, Mussolini, Putin Sadam Hussein will ensure this never happens.
Whilst the second World War seemed totally unnecessary, to you I believe those Jews who survived the concentration camps would have been eternally grateful that their race was not wiped out, thankfully due to the intervention of nations determined to stop the aggressive actions of Hitler who was determined to take over Europe.
I am unsure how a nation can stop someone such as Hitler or Putin from invading a country, killing innocent residents of the occupied country. How does the invaded nation protect themselves from such an atrocity? How do you defend yourself against the aggressor from killing your nationals? Capitulation does not save lives under these circumstances.
I would be genuinely interested in how you would deal with situations such as the Russia Ukraine conflict.
I have posed your question to some of the other candidates and their response leads me to believe you may just find it difficult to find a candidate who does not agree with Britain supporting the victim nation, Ukraine, in trying to protect itself from being taken over by force from the Russians, but I wish you well.
Yours sincerely
Geoffrey Lymer
Independent Candidate for Dover and Deal
Sean Gabb replies further:
Dear Mr Lymer,
We plainly have different ideas of the circumstances in which a country may legitimately go to war. You are right, however, that I may have trouble finding a candidate who shares my belief that a country should look after its own affairs in the world, and nothing else. It may be that I shall need to vote for the Workers Party of Britain. I am not a socialist, or even much of a statist. But war is the ultimate statism, and I want no part in another one.
Regards,
Sean Gabb
Mr Lymer replies still further:
Dear Mr Gabb
I agree with entirely, I wish I could think of a way forward without the threat of war between nations.
I believe in the future wars ,as we know it currently, where there is unnecessary loss of life and untold damage will alter to rogue nations trying to damage the economy to bring a nation to its knees.
Let us hope in the future international pressure will in time reduce the threat of conflict between nations.
I hope you will find some reassurance in voting for the workers party. Make it your life’s goal to try to convince politicians to find alternative solutions to war as we know it currently.
Take good care of yourself you sound a good sincere person and I wish you all the best for your future,
Geoff
Geoffrey Lymer
Independent candidate for Dover & Deal
Sean Gabb replies still further:
Dear Geoff,
Under normal conditions, I’d consider voting for you. Well, I’d check you shared my own beliefs about free markets and personal freedom. But you do pass the most basic test of honesty and principle. However, I’ve decided to make this election for me all about peace and war. So you will forgive me for not giving you my vote on this occasion.
Regards,
Sean
Answer 6:
Dear Sean
Apologies for such a slow response to your e-mail. Life has been a tad busy these last few weeks!
Yes the Liberal Democrats have pledged to stand with the people of Ukraine and provide them with the support that they need in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion.
Best wishes
Penelope
Sean Gabb replies:
Dear Penelope,
Many thanks for your response. I would have expected that the party of Charles Kennedy would take a more sceptical line on our relations with Russia and the rest of the world. I will not vote for you next week.
Regards,
Sean
Penelope James replies:
Dear Sean
I am not sure I understand your e-mail.
Whether on apartheid in South Africa, the illegal war in Iraq or the persecution of Hong Kongers, Liberal Democrats have always stood up for the vital British values of democracy, liberty, human rights and the rule of law. We will resist those states that threaten us and robustly challenge our allies when necessary.
The UK must support democracies around the world, especially those threatened by aggression such as Ukraine and Taiwan. We must stand up to states like China and Russia, resisting their attempts to undermine our democratic values.
So in the spirit of Charles Kennedy yes Liberal Democrats will stand with the people of Ukraine.
Best wishes
Penelope
Sean Gabb replies again:
Dear Penelope,
I disagree with you. The Ukraine is not a place known for “democracy, liberty, human rights and the rule of law.” It is a post-Soviet slagheap, with religious and ethnic persecution, the arbitrary arrest and often murder of opponents, and omnipresent corruption. The support given by the present British Government has turned a policing action within the Russian sphere of influence into a large European war. This might turn into a world war. Even without that, it has led to a gathering collapse of the Western economies.
Part of your party’s heritage goes back to Cobden and Bright, who you will recall firmly opposed our last war with Russia. I might have expected their political heirs not to sound like crazed neocon warmongers.
I will vote either for Reform or for the Workers Party.
Regards,
Sean
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That Labour candidate sounds like a moron. I bet he doesn’t think mass immigration is one of the “…increasing threats to UK security…” We certainly do face increasing threats to UK security, due to idiots like him with their support for open borders and relentless war-mongering.
P.S.
I think I will send the same e-mail to candidates where I live. If you don’t object, I will post up the replies here, if any are received.
Be my guest
It’s the Heritage Party then. No reply from Reform?
Nothing as yet
To me, the reply from the Conservative candidate is as flawed as that from the Labour candidate, just in a different sense. He seems to be taking a high-minded principle – in this case, Burke’s maxim – and extending it into a justification for intervening in a matter that has nothing to do with this country. What for the luxury of intervening everywhere to uphold noble ideals, but where is the British interest in our intervention in the Ukraine? Any discussion of such seems absent from his reply, which is telling, and I rather suspect his knowledge of Russia and the Ukraine is as good as mine, which is next to non-existent. It’s almost as if these people are treating the business of government like an expensive train-set and think that public resources, and even the lives and limbs of young men, are playthings for them to satisfy their narcissistic itches to be the star of the next little piece.
The reply from the Heritage Party candidate is better, but the reservation about that Party arises from its own manifesto commitment on immigration – a crucial paragraph of which reads as follows:
[quote]”Legal immigration must be brought down to sustainable, balanced levels, with strict caps on specific classes of immigration such as students and low-skilled and unskilled workers. Skilled workers should be allowed to come to the country for specific jobs on time-limited work visas where there is a shortage of British workers, but this must not be at the expense of training up British young people with the skills they need in every profession. Sham marriages and chain migration must be stopped, and illegal immigration must be halted entirely and reversed.”[unquote]
Source: https://heritageparty.org/manifesto/
At first reading, this sounds OK, but I would argue that it is no different to the policy of the present government, just worded in a way intended to suck in gullible voters who pine for something ‘conservative’. The present government talks about controlling legal immigration and says illegal immigration must end, but we still have both. Why should I think the Heritage Party intend something different or would do any different? Especially relevant is that their leader isn’t even a native Briton. I have nothing particularly against him, but why should I trust him when his own private interests conflict with what he says? Why should I continue to go along with this bromide that immigration and border controls have nothing to do with race and ethnicity, when they plainly do and this is about the survival of British civilisation, which like any civilisation is racially-derived at root?
The truth is that there are few, if any, candidates or parties that are electorally suitable, and on present information, I will be casting my usual vote for None of the Above. I have yet to receive a reply from any of my local candidates, not that I expect even one of them will leave an impression on me with their wit, insight or intelligence, should any even bother. One of them recently admitted that she didn’t even know what a town councillor was until a few months ago. Faith in ‘democracy’ is slipping.
I do support Ukraine. Sorry Sean.
I actually think the Tory candidate gave a half decent response. But given my understanding – and, I think, Sean’s – that Boris Johnson deliberately screwed up the Ukrainian peace process, he gets flak from Sean for what his party stands for. And quite rightly.
My own response would be along the lines of, “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.”
From Hugo Miller
I must respectfully disagree – I do not see the Ukrainians as the ‘innocent party’, not for one minute. They have been busily killing Russians in the Donbas for ten years now, and by 2022 Putin had finally had enough. He sent his troops in to bring an end to the low-key civil war that had been rumbling along since Victoria Nuland’s coup in 2014. Putin’s objective was never to ‘take’ Ukraine, but to force Zelensky & co the negotiating table. And he succeeded. Both Russia and Ukraine had agreed to, and initalled, a ‘peace deal’ brokered by Turkey in April 2022. But that fool Biden sent an even bigger fool Boris to scupper it. Boris told Zelensky not to sign the peace deal, but to keep fighting the Russians, adding that we would back him “for as long as it takes”.
Half a million dead Ukrainians later, we now have ‘Cuban Missile Crisis II’ – Russian war-ships parked in Havana, equipped with hyper-sonic missiles capable of taking out the White House itself. Not only that, but Biden has destroyed the US dollar by weaponising it, driven Putin into the arms of China, bankrupted the US economy and half of Europe’s, and goodness knows what else.
Sunak has been the most enthusiastic proponent of poking the Russian bear with a stick until he nukes us, and as such he has probably made this country Russia’s number one enemy. And for what?
For money and resources, that’s what. $150 billion of US taxpayers’ money thrown at that clown Zelensky, most of which (after everybody has taken their cut, including ‘ten per-cent for the Big Guy of course) goes directly to the US arms manufacturers (and presumably British ones also), who in turn sponsor the politicians who promote the forever-war. Nice work if you can get it.
Senator Lindsey Graham was just shooting his mouth off about all the ‘resources’ in Ukraine, and how we CAN’T let Russia and China have them because we want them ourselves.
I am not a spokesman for Reform, but I am standing as a candidate in Horsham, in Sunny Sussex. My absolute position is that our ONLY intervention in Ukraine should be to bring about a peace settlement as swiftly as possible. Other than that, it’s none of our damn business.
Hugo Miller
Hugo, who invaded Crimea in 2014? Not the Ukrainians, for sure. Yes, I do appreciate the problems in Donbass and Luhansk, where independence movements were crushed. Nothing new – all governments do it. It’s built into the nature of the state.
The solution is, get rid of the state, and replace it by a better way of doing things. A candidate for which (bow, scrape) I have sketched out on this very website.
It was a fairly good answer – but we are long past the point of taking any of this at face value.
I ended up sending 35 questions to local candidates. Here they are:
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).
2. Please explain your answer to 1.
3. Do you believe in God?
4. Do you support the British Monarchy?
5. Overall, do you accept that the state too big and too interfering in people’s private lives?
6. Should the D-Day veterans regret their actions?
7. Who matters most – engineers, medical doctors or entrepreneurs?
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?
9. In your view, what should be the Number One local priority for our new Member of Parliament?
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?
11. Rail fares are now expensive. What do you propose should be done to improve the situation for passengers?
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?
13. In your assessment, how has Brexit affected the constituency and the region? Please include both positive and negative consequences/ramifications.
14. If a realistic proposal were put forward to reverse Brexit in some way, would you support or oppose it?
15. Please explain your answer to 14.
16. If I want to get high, why should the law stop me?
17. Does Britain still need a strategic nuclear deterrent?
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?
19. Do you think 16-year-olds should have the vote?
20. Which should come first: that the police reflect the community they serve or are effective in impartially policing the community they serve?
21. Should schools base their curricula on the needs and requirements of employers?
22. In the long run, is it better for young people to pass or fail their school exams?
23. Do you think prisons should be abolished? If ‘Yes’, what would you replace them with?
24. Should the death penalty be permitted for murder?
25. Do you think it is better in general for NHS management to be lay or clinically qualified?
26. Do you support the local devolution proposals?
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?
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?
29. If your answer to 28 is Yes, could you explain how intervention in this conflict is in the national interest.
30. Do you believe that the white British people have a right to their own country?
31. Do you support an end to mass immigration?
32. If your answer to 31 is No, could you explain how mass immigration benefits the country?
33. Did you support the lockdown and mandatory wearing of masks against Covid-19?
34. Were you vaccinated against Covid-19?
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 two replies so far. Will post these up in due course.
Nice work, Tom. Might be better to put it as a separate article on the site. Sean can promote a comment to an article, if you ask him nicely!
Dr Gabb is a asleep in his care home. Mr Bickley is now in charge. But the comment has been promoted.
I do appreciate that, thank you.
I’m a bit disappointed that Howard Cox hasn’t come here yet, given that I personally alerted him to the existence of this thread. I’d like to think that the delay is because he’s working on Tom’s “35 articles!”
But the Green response is a lulu. Apart from “global solidarity” (meaning unclear), there is nothing to disagree with! Yet “international law that protects our rights,” in greenspeak, means “UN policies that seriously violate the rights of all of us.” Like net zero and anti-car policies.
Alan, would you please visit Dr Gabb tomorrow in his care home, and convince him to respond to this greenwash in his own inimitable style?
I fear I may have got a little carried away with my 35 Articles, but you never know, 500 years from now historians may be puzzling over them and treating them with the same reverence that we afford to Magna Carta or the American Declaration of Independence. It may be known as ‘Tom’s 35 Articles’ and be showcased in a prestigious museum.. Immortality awaits, perhaps.
Dr Gabb says that your response is all that is required on this occasion. He notes, however, that he is running out of people to vote for. He has looked at the English Democrats website, and found the party not at all worth voting for. He would vote for the Reform Party, only the candidate’s refusal – even after as second asking – to answer the question raises the possibility that he is another crazed warmonger. As things stand, it may need to be the Workers Party of Britain. Mr Galloway is reliably against all the wars this country has fought in recent decades, and against those it would like to fight.