web analytics
UKIP Tameside

ukip tameside join usUKIP Tameside hello@ukip-tameside.org.uk

Election communication

Contents

UKIP Parliamentary candidate for Denton and Reddish

 

 

Joshua’s background…

Hello, I’m Joshua Seddon, your UKIP Parliamentary candidate for Denton and Reddish in the forthcoming election on the 8th June.  Thanks for taking the time to look at this brief summary about me and my background.
I was born and raised in Denton and Reddish and attended Priestnall Secondary School and then Stockport College.  I was keen to become independent and stand on my own two feet, and started work at the age of 17.  I worked at a variety of different companies, with good reports and references culminating in my current employment as an RTT Validation Officer at Stepping Hill Hospital.  Having worked for the NHS for the past 8 years, I really understand the necessity and urgency for  adequate funding of our hospitals.  I believe through training extra numbers of GPs, nurses and midwifes we can provide a sufficient workforce and improve the quality of care.
I have always been passionate about politics and have been an active member of UKIP, which is the only party representing my views.  I was voted on to UKIP Stockport’s Branch Committee in 2015 and last year became their Branch Secretary, and I also liaise with UKIP Tameside since my home constituency of Denton and Reddish primarily falls under Tameside.
As a former Trade Unionist and Shop Steward for Unison, I have always been dedicated to stand up for and protect the rights of his fellow employees.  I’ve been disillusioned by the failures of multiple successive governments, and decided to stand for Parliament in this year’s election in order to fight for the interests of my local community.  I am committed to promoting positive community spirit and economic growth in my neighbourhood.
My broad range of interests includes history, politics, science and computer technology. I’m a nature lover and the protection of greenbelt both locally and nationally is very important to me. In my free time I like to pursue outdoor activities, and I’m also a wild camping and bush craft enthusiast.  I live in Heaton Norris with my fiancé; and we are looking forward to our first child at the end of July.
Thanks again for reading my introduction.  If elected, I will listen to your views and represent you in Parliament often more so than the UKIP party.  Unlike other parties, UKIP allows me that freedom so I hope to serve you well.
Joshua Seddon

 

Some useful links…

Joshua’s Twitter page
Joshua’s Facebook page
UKIP’s 2017 national manifesto (read or download)
Listen to Joshua’s radio interview on Revolution 96.2 here (‘Play’ button is part way down the page)

 

Joshua’s 2017 election leaflet…

 

Download the leaflet here.

 

 

Some questions answered by Joshua….

  1.  On exiting the EU where do you stand on the future of EU citizens in the UK and reciprocal rights for UK citizens in the EU?
There are 3.15 million EU citizens currently living in the UK, a great number of who have been here for over 5 years (or will have been -by the end of the negotiation period).  These EU citizens, given that they have met certain criteria, are currently eligible for permanent residency under EU law.  According to the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, one third of these applications are rejected every year, a rate that is not unusual within our visa system, however, it is a great deal higher than in the cases of ‘indefinite leave to remain’, which is the equivalent for non-EU citizens’ path to settlement.  Once we have exited the EU it will be up to parliament to decide whether to recognize the concept of permanent residency or replace it.  In my opinion all EU citizens who have made our country their home should be allowed to stay, live and work here following our exit from the EU.  Equally, the government should do everything in its power to secure reciprocal rights for the 1 million Britons living and working in other EU countries.  I do believe that the rights of both of these groups are important and coming to a mutual agreement with our EU partners regarding this issue should be amongst our foremost priorities during the negotiations.
  1. On exiting the EU, what issues do you think should be the top priority when forming new international partnerships?
Regarding new international partnerships, I think that our main focus should be on free bilateral trade agreements, while trying to remain impartial when it comes to international conflicts.  I am a strong believer in the Westphalian system of world order and while our manufacturing and other industries should be strengthened and exports increased, trade should never interfere with our or our partners’ sovereignty.
We should take great care when examining the geopolitical chessboard of our time and differentiate between military adversaries and economic competitors, as the lines between these have recently become blurred.  Our interventionist attitude in places such as the Middle East had resulted in unimaginable suffering and further destabilization of the region, as well as endangered our own homeland due to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.  We have to take a radically new attitude towards world affairs and lead by example rather than military strikes.  The latter, while profitable to only the very few, may have unforeseeable consequences for the many.
  1. In 2015 Parliament voted overwhelmingly to protect society’s most vulnerable people, by preventing the legalisation of assisted dying. Will you uphold this decision?
One of the misconceptions is that by not allowing this practice people are kept alive against their wishes.  However, everybody –including terminally ill patients and those who suffer from incurable conditions- has the right to refuse treatment at any point if they wish to do so.
There are a few points I would like to highlight.  Firstly, the legalization of assisted dying in the cases of incurable diseases could lead to the decline in research funding and interest in finding cures for such diseases.  Many conditions have previously been thought to be incurable, however, through scientific research and our technological advances, cures have been discovered.  I believe the legalization of such procedure would disincentivise the science community from seeking cures, as the disease- with the suffering individuals themselves- can be eliminated by a lethal dose of toxic substances.  This could lead to such procedure becoming a ‘cheaper alternative’ to medical care, which is a very dangerous slippery slope.
Another point worth mentioning here is the need for safe guarding measures to ensure vulnerable individuals are protected, and the need for a set of criteria regarding whom can qualify.  Vulnerable people who do not wish to end their lives, but happened to meet such arbitrary set of criteria, might be suggested through this that they ought to opt for assisted dying and sent the message that they are no longer useful to us as members of our society.  Also, people who do not meet the criteria but would like to end their lives might be made to feel they are not deserving of the elimination of their suffering.
In countries where assisted dying has been legalized such as in Belgium and the Netherlands, the conditions which qualifies patients for this ‘treatment’ has been expanded to sufferers of mental illness, to children and even to the victim of sexual abuse in her 20’s due to her ‘incurable’ PTSD.
We live in a liberal democracy with one of its primary principles being egalitarianism.  This means in our legal system nobody has the right to apply restrictions on the other that would violate those persons’ rights.  Our fundamental human right is the right to life.  Nobody should have the authority to decide who has the right to live or die.  Very often, those arguing for the legalization of assisted dying bring up the person’s right to independence and their right to decide their own fate; however, it is not how it would work in real life.  The need for safeguarding and identifying the criteria for eligibility would enable a group of bureaucrats to set those standards.  Therefore, rather than claiming independence and sovereignty, these people would relinquish their right to decide to an authority that is made up of people who are supposed to be their equals.
For the above reasons, which make up a complex ethical and philosophical minefield, and due to my personal belief in the sanctity of life I would support Parliament’s previous decision of preventing the legalization of assisted dying.
  1. Will you support measures to promote the intrinsic value of life at every stage? What restrictions do you think there should be on Abortion, would you vote to put limits on abortion and for what reasons?
According to modern science, human life begins at the moment of conception.  Therefore a foetus, at any point in its developmental process, represents human life.  Some say foetuses do not have intrinsic value and rights because they are not persons.  However, many animals, who are not persons, possess value and rights, such as the endangered Siberian Tigers or our pet dog.  They enjoy protections and cruelty against them is punishable by law.  A living being, such as a foetus, do not have to be a person to have intrinsic value and rights.
Some say it is the right of the mother to decide when, for what reason and under what circumstances to end her foetus’s life.  But this can only be morally accepted if we believed that a foetus have no intrinsic worth.  Most of us would agree that a foetus have infinite worth once the mother decides to give birth to it, and killing it is murder.  However, if the mother decides not to give birth the foetus is classed as worthless.  The foetus either is or is not worthless.  In the case of a newborn it is society who decides if the baby has intrinsic worth.  Why should it be any different a few months before birth and should the mother alone have the moral ground to decide the worth of her foetus?
Some argues the mother has the right to control her own body, which is most certainly true.  However, the foetus is not her body.  It possesses its own unique DNA, and often has a different blood type to the mother.  It is a separate body inside the mother’s body.  As said earlier, everybody would agree that killing a baby outside of the womb is murder.  How then is killing it a few months before the equivalent of a tooth extraction? If we believed that these foetuses have no intrinsic worth, no value or rights, then are we going to allow gender-based abortions? If we developed a way to detect homosexuality at an embryonic stage, would parents be allowed to abort their homosexual baby if they choose to do so? I think we all agree that would be morally reprehensible, therefore these foetuses must possess intrinsic worth.
In the cases where the pregnancy is the result of rape and/or incest, or the child would be born with severe disability, we find ourselves facing an even more complicated ethical dilemma.  However, in the case of rape I do believe that the child should not be punished for the crime of his/her parent.  We do not punish rapists by sentencing them to the death.  Why should this be the outcome for the innocent child?
In the case of potential disabilities, I think we must first be able to accurately define and predict suffering.  What is suffering and what constitutes as ‘good quality of life’? Some disabled people are happy to be alive and content, despite them perhaps living very differently, having very different experiences compared to fully able individuals.  I do not believe we should cast judgements on the quality of lives of others and assume their suffering.  Suffering is part of life, life is full of obstacles, heartache, disappointment, pain etc., and therefore, parents inevitably sentence their children to various levels of suffering by giving birth to them.  I do not believe the prevention of suffering is a just argument.  Rather than ending it, I think our responsibility should be to help life to flourish, irrespective of our subjective views on its quality.
Further ethical arguments can be made against how abortions are funded.  I do believe that it is unethical to use taxpayers’ money to fund procedures that goes directly against those individuals’ fundamental religious views.
In my opinion abortion should not be just casually viewed as another form of contraception.  People should be encouraged to practice safe sex or abstinence and to bear the responsibility and consequences of their actions.  Our ideals of happiness and personal convenience should never stand over human life.  The liberal ethos of enjoying unlimited freedoms, the treating of sexuality as a recreational activity, the promotion of decadent hedonism while expected to bare zero responsibilities makes abortion the ultimate sacrifice at the altar of self.
  1. The family is at the heart of the health and well-being of society, and above all the well-being of children. What policies do you propose for the nourishing of family life? 
The nuclear family and traditional gender roles have been the backbone of our society for centuries.  Unfortunately today a war is being waged against this vital institution on political, economical and ideological fronts.  Traditional families were greatly affected by the influx of cheap labour, which effectively kept wages down, and were further compromised by the destruction of our industries.  Low skilled and manufacturing jobs began to leave our country and those remaining were filled by ever increasing number of foreign workers.  The traditional gender roles within the nuclear family, where men secured the family’s income, while the women stayed at home to care for the children and run the household, was no longer financially feasible.  The ever increasing need for women to go out and work in order to supplement the household income was made worse by the women’s liberation movement’s cry for emancipation, their rejection of traditional female roles as forms of patriarchal oppression, and their argument for the interchangeability of the sexes.  While I support the free choices and preferences of individual women to pursue their career, we cannot ignore radical feminism’s misguided message that caring for children and being a homemaker is an unworthy occupation, and that women’s identity can only be found if they went out and got a job.  This, in my opinion, results in a huge number of women never truly finding fulfilment.  Traditional marriages are no longer promoted in schools and the liberal media began to champion single motherhood.  Today making a marital commitment before producing children is considered unnecessary and to be an outdated concept, reminding one of a bygone era.  Single motherhood is not only exalted, it is also financially incentivised through welfare programs.  Numerous researchers found that children of broken families are disproportionally at risk of a variety of social dysfunctions, which we then spend huge sums of money to try to remedy.  The gap between low and high achievers in schools, first thought to be the result of socio-economic differences, was also explained by the child’s family background, whether they came from intact families, with mother and father present in the home, or single parent households.  The former showed significant correlation with increased academic achievement of those children.  In light of the empirical evidence for the detrimental effects of broken families on our youth, it makes you wonder why is it in anyones interest to undermine this secure and nourishing environment for them to grow up in.  We have to understand the political incentive behind such trend.  Single mothers are in effect married to the welfare state.  The government justifies its existence and size through the need to provide mothers and children everything previously the family unit provided.  There was no need for childcare or school dinners once, as the mother took care of those, nor for living allowance or unemployment benefits because fathers had a stable and sufficient flow of income.  Statistics had shown that single mothers are more likely to vote for left wing parties, promising more welfare, bigger state, more government programs.  While married women are more likely to vote for parties which promise to tax their husbands less, so they can stay at home in financial security and raise their children.  Taking the women out of the home through demonising her traditional roles and putting her into the workforce to compete against men had a negative effect on our broader local communities too.  Our streets became nothing more than bedroom communities, with both parents at work and children in day-care; many people only going home to have dinner and go to sleep.  The era of vibrant streets where we all knew and were in regular contact with our neighbours is long gone.  In a sense, if news doesn’t travel fast in your area then you aren’t living in a community.  Instead, we often rely on the free weekly newspaper or internet at best.
I do believe that the family is what stands between the individual and the government; a strong and functioning family is the biggest obstacle to state power and expansion.  Therefore, we cannot reduce the size of the state without strengthening the family, and this should be amongst our utmost priorities.  I would support UKIP’s proposal of financial and tax incentives for married couples; the promotion of traditional family values; an initial presumption of 50/50 shared parenting in custody matters; and the automatic grant of visiting rights to grandparents unless it is proven to the Family Court that there is a good reason to withhold such rights.
  1. Across the world millions of people are persecuted because of their beliefs. How do you intend to promote freedom of religion or belief for all, and what steps could be taken as a priority in UK foreign policy to protect religious minorities, including Christian minorities? 
Christianity and Judeo-Christian values have been the backbone of Western Civilization.  Having shaped British law and our system of governance, it is as important today as it has ever been.  I believe that Christians and followers of all other faiths should be able to practice their beliefs freely, without the fear of prosecution or exclusion, within the boundaries of the common law of our free and civilized society.  The prosecution of religious minorities across the world needs immediate attention by the mainstream media and our politicians.  Amongst which, one of the most prosecuted groups are Christians.  During the early 1900s 20% of the population of North Africa and the Middle East were Christians.  Unfortunately, this number today is as low as 4%, with most of the decline having occurred during the last couple of decades.  The Coptic Christians of Egypt have been fleeing persecution in the tens of thousands.  Their churches are bombed, burnt and destroyed, the followers kidnapped, beaten and executed in horrific ways.  It also greatly saddens me to witness the destruction of one of the oldest Christian communities of the world in Syria.  Whether is the road to Damascus, where the apostle Paul is said to have been converted, or the inhabitants of the town of Maaloula who still speak Aramaic, this region bears great significance to other Christian groups worldwide.  In the 1920’s the number of Syria’s Christians reached 20% of the whole population.  Sadly this number today is below 10%.  Since the so called pro-democratic uprising against the government of Bashar al-Assad, and the rise of ISIS in the region, Christians have been persecuted, forced to convert to Islam, forced to pay the jizya, or killed.  The al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front is said to be responsible for kidnappings and the torturing of these minority groups.  Many survivors fear that the overthrow of President Assad could lead to similar atrocities as we saw committed against Iraq’s Christian communities following the US invasion.  Therefore, I am strongly against British military intervention in Syria or the arming and training of rebel forces, which are said to contain radical fundamentalist elements and foreign mercenaries with links to ISIS.  I would also recommend that this prosecuted minority group should enjoy priority when they claim refugee status, as they are not only fleeing war, but also severe religious discrimination often with the threat of execution.  I want the government to reflect our principles and stick to our fundamental values in all our foreign policies and interactions, be it in regards to our adversaries or our allies.
  1. Catholic schools make a positive contribution to society, serving over 845,000 children in England and Wales. Will you support parental choice for the education of their children? Will you support Catholic schools as part of this choice for faith-based education?
I agree with UKIP’s position in supporting faith schools on the condition that they meet our educational standards, do not discriminate against any section of society, open to the whole community and uphold British values.  I also support their proposition for Religious Education in all schools that reflects the religious make up of our country.  One should not mistakenly believe that non-faith based state run schools are impartial, apolitical and ideologically sterile spaces for our children to develop in organically.  They are not so, in fact, they are saturated with state sanctioned ideas and ideological propaganda.  This invisible infiltration of our schools and academia can be traced back to Marx’s Revolution Theory, which failed to bring about global communism during the early part of the 20th century.  Neo- Marxists such as Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács believed the reason for the unrealized utopia was Western Culture with its roots in Christianity.  Therefore, to dismantle the obstacle in the way of their communist utopia they had to dismantle Western culture and its foundations, such as the idea of the nuclear family, which the proletariat was ‘infected’ by.  The working classes had to be de-Christianized through education.  Their values had to be subverted and their sexual morals destroyed.  Lukács set out to achieve this through the introduction of sexual education in Hungary, where he promoted free love, showed graphic images, mocked the idea of marriage and family and encouraged rebellion against parents.  He greatly influenced the Institute for Social Research based in Germany, also known as the Frankfurt School, whose members fled to New York following Hitler’s rise to power.  There they developed the so-called ‘Critical Theory’, a philosophical approach to culture, which set out to criticize, denigrate and redefine every traditional institution of western culture.  They redefined society not only along economic lines but also along racial, sexual, gender, ethnical and ideological, into oppressors and oppressed.  Academic disciplines were invented, where students are now thought that anybody who believes in traditional values are part of the privileged class, they are prejudiced, sexist, racist, and fascist.  Gender studies, Women studies, Post-Colonial studies etc., all set out to ‘educate’ our youth about the ‘evils of western civilization’ while covertly provoking significant social tensions.  This ideology is today referred to as progressive liberalism and is rampant in our education system.  Cloaked in the semblance of tolerance, which is the only virtue schools are allowed to encourage these days, progressive liberalism became so dogmatic that anybody daring to question its validity instantly faces criticism and even charges of hate speech.  The only diversity this ideology does not tolerate is intellectual diversity, which I believe should be at the core of our educational system.  Therefore I fully support parental choice, the right of all parents who are wishing to send their children to an institution that is representative of their values.

 

Joshua Garth Seddon

 

Published and promoted by UKIP Tameside, 11 Ansdell Drive, Droylsden, Manchester.