High-Rise Blocks: Sprinklers MUST BE THE LAW!

Above are some of the images relating to the Grenfell Tower tragedy in London that has so far taken 79 lives, and the Redbridge Towers fire in Southampton.

The Southampton fire was thankfully not a tragedy. But a similar fire occurred in April 2010 in Shirley Towers, also in Southampton, killing two firefighters. And in 2009 a fire at Lakanal House in London killed six people.

The English Futures Party is campaigning for ALL high-rise buildings to have sprinklers installed. 

Why do we think sprinklers should be mandatory?

Because they save lives.

Because the Coroner of the Shirley Towers tragedy recommended sprinklers be installed. But he was ignored.

Because the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group has recommended FOR YEARS that sprinklers be installed. But he and they were ignored.

In addition, as shown above, the Sprinkler Policy of the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service states that they think sprinklers be installed in all high-rises. Other Fire Services agree.

Unbelievably, despite all of the above, only NEW high-rises have to have sprinklers installed by law.

It is not the law currently for old high-rises to have sprinklers installed in them, despite the Coroner’s recommendation.

Do you agree with our campaign? If you do, then please get in touch and please sign Southampton resident Tracy Cutler’s petition here. Ms Cutler explains why she created the petition and some of the reasons are personal.

Why were the above recommendations ignored before Grenfell and after Shirley Towers?

Why did the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service allegedly agree with Southampton City Council that HFRS agreed (according to the Council) that sprinklers should only be installed in THREE blocks – the scissor-type blocks similar to Shirley Towers.

Our Leader Andrew Pope (pictured above) has been trying to get answers from the Council and Fire Service for many weeks and they have refused to provide them.

All blocks would benefit from sprinklers, not just the scissor-type blocks.

Sadly, despite the Shirley Towers tragedy, and the Coroner’s recommendation, and the Policy of the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service that sprinklers be installed in high-rises, action had not been taken in Southampton.

As reported by Southampton’s Daily Echo, in 2017, days before the Redbridge Towers Fire and on the SEVENTH anniversary of Shirley Towers, not a single sprinkler had been installed in Southampton City Council’s tower blocks.

And this was despite the Council pledging in 2015 to install them in three of their tower blocks.  Note that they had only pledged to do three blocks of the City’s total of TWENTY.

Last week, our sister party Southampton Independents announced victory in their campaign for Southampton City Council to install sprinklers ALL high-rise blocks. The Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Warwick Payne, had repeatedly refused to do install sprinklers even in one block – Redbridge Towers – saying in writing and on BBC Radio Solent that residents didn’t want them.

Concerns remain however about the Council’s pledge for all blocks, because a senior Council housing manager has admitted that he doesn’t know how the Council will fund the works. Strangely, the Council has found £25m for cycling, and around £30m for “The Arts”. So we expect to see them come up with these vital funds for the safety of residents.

Similarly, we expect councils across England to come up with the money and if they truly can’t, the Government must find the money. Stoke-on-Trent have announced it, so the rest of the Councils must too.

Where will the Government get the money from?

The same place the Tories found the extra £1 BILLION for their grubby deal with the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party.

Or the same place they found the extra £2 BILLION for the over-budget aircraft carriers.

 

 

Statement

A Joint Statement from the founders of the English Futures Party, Denise Wyatt and Andrew Pope.

“Today, we announce that following our request to them, we have had confirmation from the Electoral Commission that the English Futures Party has been de-registered.

Why did we create the English Future Party?

Because we believed then, and we still do, that England and English people need a sensible civic nationalist party, like the Scottish National Party, but for England. We also believed then, and we still do, that England needs an English Parliament. In fact, this was written into the Constitution of the Party.

What has the English Futures Party achieved?

Working with allies across the South Coast, we killed the Solent Devolution Deal, as reported by the Daily Echo.

We put the issue of an English Parliament at the heart of our campaigning.

We put fire safety in tower blocks on the national political agenda.

And we have contributed to getting a review of Safe Standing at English football stadia implemented across England.

This is all despite being volunteers and the party being self-funded. It is also despite attempts to infiltrate our party by persons unknown, and attempts to discredit our Party by the Westminster parties and their affiliates.

Why have we requested that the regulator of political parties, The Electoral Commission, de-register our Party?

Simply because we do not have the time or resources to continue. Starting, running and building one political party is enough (Southampton Independents). Doing two is too many, given our time and money constraints.

We still believe what we believed when we founded the Party.

And we will still campaign for those things.

It just won’t be as the English Futures Party.

We hope that others will take the campaign for an English Parliament forward. We will support them.

And we will campaign for a sensible civic nationalist party for the English and England to emerge.

Signed

Denise Wyatt and Andrew Pope

11th October 2018″

 

 

The English People Voted for Brexit

Labour’s Dying Rose

At the 2017 General Election that the Tories and Labour inflicted on the English people, over 80% of voters voted for Brexit.

Why? Because both the Tory and Labour manifestos contained commitments to:

1. Brexit
2. Leaving the single market
3. Leaving the customs union

On page 36 of the Tory Manifesto, under the “Leaving the European Union” section, it states:

“As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union but we will seek a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement.”

On page 24 of the Labour Manifesto, under the “Negotiating Brexit” section, it states:

“We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.”

This shows that Labour did not intend to keep Britain in the single market nor in the customs union.

So BOTH Tories and Labour had clear commitments to honour Brexit, leaving the single market and leaving the customs union.

The Government, if or when it is formed, must deliver these commitments.

And if they are not delivered, people will know that this is yet another case of Tory and Labour lies in the manifestos.

And they will know never to trust them again.

2017 General Election Announcement

We will not be standing candidates in the 8th June General Election.

However, our Leader Councillor Andrew Pope will be standing in Southampton Test for Southampton Independents, a local party registered with the Electoral Commission that stands up for local people in Southampton.

Please support candidates like Andrew that support our policies, especially our policy on an English Parliament and rejecting the Tory Government’s view of “English devolution”.

 

Who Speaks for England?

On the day that the Government triggers Article 50 for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, Leader of the English Futures Party, Councillor Andrew Pope, asks:

“Who speaks for England?

Labour speaks for everybody except the English people and England. Their own surveys prove it. They are in chaos nationally and locally, failing at being Her Majesty’s opposition and at historic lows in the opinion polls. Labour is obsessed with keeping Scotland in the UK, but not for the right reasons, They want it only because they know that they can’t win in England.

The Conservatives are also obsessed with keeping the Union together, despite there being plenty of evidence that England benefits much less from the United Kingdom than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has achieved its main goal and some would say only goal. The triggering of Article 50 begins that. Like Labour, they too are in chaos. And like their friends the Tories, they are obsessed with the Union.

Like Labour, the Liberal Democrats speak for everybody except the English people and England. Nick Clegg and Tim Farron deceived everybody about tuition fees and their other lies, and they have paid the price. They are now continuing to deceive everybody about Brexit.

And the nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not speak for England. Instead they wish to continue to take from England, and to work against the vast majority of the UK population in England by ensuring decisions are taken for minority parts of the British Isles, instead of for the majority who live in England.

Unlike the Westminster parties, the English Futures Party speaks for England.

We are a civic nationalist party.

We were formed to speak for English people, whether they were born here or have chosen to live and work here.

We want an English Parliament.

And if we do not get an English Parliament, the English people deserve a referendum on England leaving the United Kingdom.“

How Clean is England, Your England?

What a load of rubbish!

Is your local council keeping your area tidy?

Or is it leaving it looking like the above photo in Southampton?

You pay your council tax, so you expect the area to be tidy.

So why are so many councils failing to keep their area tidy?

Are they trying to blame the Government-funding cuts for their own failures?

Are they spending money on the wrong things?

Name and shame your council below, and tell us why you think they are failing to provide this key council service.

What do you think of the levy on plastic bags?

Do you think it has worked?

What would you think about a similar levy on plastic bottles?

What about on glass bottles?

What is your council like on recycling?

Tell us – we are very contactable, by Facebook, Twitter, or email.

Or just post a response below…

The Future of English Farming

English Farmland on the Somerset Levels

The English Futures Party has been setting out its plans for a People’s Brexit, a Brexit that is in the interests of the people of England.

The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been highly controversial for decades. It has involved the expenditure of many billions if not trillions of pounds in farming in England, and even more across the EU. In 2013, the BBC estimated that the CAP accounts for a whopping 40% of the EU budget.

The CAP has received criticism from:

• farmers, especially smaller ones, as large farmers get more
• wildlife and conservation organisations like the RSPB
• those that question public spending such as the Taxpayers Alliance
• campaigners for the developing world
• from other sectors of business due to what they see as an unfair subsidy for unviable businesses, and
• from the public for reasons that include the sheer scale of money going to subsidise farmers and farms – money that could be spent on our NHS and other public services.

In England, the CAP has been administered by the UK Government via DEFRA, the Department for the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, and various agencies. Farmers have often been put in trouble by delayed subsidy payments.

But why are some farmers so reliant on subsidy? They should not be. They should be viable businesses WITHOUT subsidy, just like other businesses are.

When England and the UK leave the European Union, the arrangements are likely to change, although the current Conservative UK Government has guaranteed that CAP payments will continue until at least 2020, when Brexit should have already occurred.

Decisions will have to be made as to what Brexit will mean for Government departments, and this includes DEFRA.

So what of the future for DEFRA? BBC Radio 4’s Farming Today has speculated upon it this morning.

The English Futures Party believes that DEFRA should only continue to carry out three purposes:

• disease control in plants and animals, including livestock
• flooding, via the Environment Agency
• environmental protection including air quality, climate change*, waterways, wildlife habitats and natural ecosystems

All other current DEFRA purposes should be transferred to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Farming should be treated fairly with other sectors of business, not given special treatment. Such treatment is simply a hangover from World War II. The World is a very different place. Developing nations produce and export food and England imports it.

Post-Brexit, any farming subsidy must be tied to specific purposes for the public good such as wildlife conservation or tourism in areas of outstanding natural beauty. But subsidy should not be given for the production of goods that can be obtained via trading with other nations.

England should produce a minimum that it needs for self-sufficiency and to stave off starvation. But this should not need subsidy, as it should be the staple goods that the English eat and drink a lot of (e.g. potatoes, carrots, wheat, barley, hops, apples, pears). Agriculture is relatively unimportant in our economy.

All other farming subsidies should be scrapped. If it is deemed helpful to phase-out subsidies, then Government must assist farmers to adjust to the new regime. However, this should be limited to 3-5 years in order to encourage diversification and innovation. Seed funding should also be considered.

Outside the EU, English farming will need to be self-sufficient and run as profitable businesses. If they can do it in New Zealand, a much smaller country in an isolated location, so can we do it in our much larger country in a location that has traded throughout the World for centuries.

Trading relationships with developing countries must, as far as possible, replace Government aid. The English Futures Party is not a paternalistic Party, does not want to create dependencies on aid and wants to see developing countries build capacity, self-sufficiency and self-reliance.

So not only will cutting farming subsidies reduce the burden on the public purse, enabling that money to be re-directed to other public services, it will also reduce the expenditure on Government aid.

The English Futures Party believes that farming businesses can thrive outside the EU, without massive subsidies that are not justified in terms of the relatively low importance of agriculture to our economy.

The English Futures Party believes that wildlife conservation can thrive outside the EU. Farming subsidy can help to achieve it, by creating the wildlife corridors that conservation organisations have been calling for.

The English Futures Party believes that the People’s Brexit demands the prioritisation of Government resources to public goods such as the NHS, transport infrastructure, education and welfare as a safety net – not the subsidy of businesses dependent on handouts.

The English Futures Party

March 2017

---

* The scrapping of the Department of Energy and Climate Change may turn out to be a backward step in reducing carbon in England’s energy production. Therefore, to ensure that climate change is minimised and renewable energy production is maximised, reducing climate change must continue to be an explicit Governmental responsibility. We agree with the Government that reducing climate change should be part of everyday business, but it needs to be monitored and promoted. DEFRA should take on this responsibility.

Don’t Just Blame the Politicians

It isn’t just Tory politicians like Eric Pickles and Sajid Javid that have been cutting funding to councils across England.

There is an army of “public” servants who help them to do it – both in Government departments and in local councils.

For example, below is a structure chart of the Department of Communities and Local Government. This is publicly-available information.

Names above have been involved in disastrous Tory Government policies like Troubled Families that have spent YOUR money whilst not achieving the goals of the policy.

While the policies may be flawed and come from politicians, these “public servants” are paid a lot of money to fail to improve the lives of people in England.

Ask yourself – is this what you pay your taxes for?

Why are they happy to help cutting services in YOUR area whilst getting a healthy pay check (also publicly available information)?

And then wasting YOUR money on failed schemes…

Tell us what you think.

VICTORY! The Solent Devolution Deal is Dead (updated)

We were delighted to see tonight’s (25th Jan 2017) report from Peter Henley on BBC South Today that the Solent Devolution Deal between the Isle of Wight, Southampton and Portsmouth is dead.

(Updates – 26th Jan 2017: Today we are quoted in the Southern Daily Echo, the local BBC website has posted an updated article, and finally, after we and the Echo had pressured him over the last week, the new Leader of the Isle of Wight Council publicly confirms that the Deal is dead.

After our questions to him today, the Leader of Southampton City Council Simon Letts is still adamant the deal is not dead and he has a “mandate” to carry it on. Portsmouth Leader Donna Jones told BBC Radio Solent this morning that the Deal is still “salvageable”! They must be the only people on the South Coast who are still carrying a candle for their failures and can’t admit defeat. This is another reason why they must both go.)

Deputy Leader of the English Futures Party, Denise Wyatt, said:

“The English Futures Party campaigned in Southampton, Portsmouth and on the Island against this Deal.

We worked cross-party, and with Independents of no party, to oppose it.

It seems rationalisaton and reduction of councils is the real agenda of the Conservative Government.

People of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight might need to prepare for the Hampshire Leader Roy Perry’s idea of a ‘super council’.

Leader of the English Futures Party, Andrew Pope, said:

“The Deal was just not a good idea, and was only in play because of previous failures to agree by the leaders of the councils. Residents did not ask for this ‘devolution’ fiasco.

The former Leader of the Isle of Wight Council resigned over it.

We call for Southampton and Portsmouth council leaders Councillor Simon Letts and Councillor Donna Jones to consider their positions.

They pushed this bad Deal, regardless of all of the opposition from councillors and residents.

We maintain, and we founded this Party on this principle, that an English Parliament, not this disastrous so-called “English devolution” is what England and the English people need.

We would like to thank all councillors and residents of Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight who worked with us to kill this bad deal for our area.”

An English Parliament NOT Devolution

With reports from the BBC that the Solent Devolution Deal is now dead:

#Solent #devolution deal “dead”, says resigning deputy leader of #IoW Council Steve Stubbings – Govt has “withdrawn” offer

— Jessica Parker (@MarkerJParker) January 16, 2017

following the resignations of both the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Isle of Wight Council, we have written to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with the below letter.

The Leader of the English Futures Party, Councillor Andrew Pope, says:

Isle of Wight Councillors Bacon and Stubbings have paid for not listening to the residents of Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight with their own positions.

The Leaders and Deputy Leaders of Southampton and Portsmouth Councils should do the honourable thing and resign too. They too have failed the people who live on both sides of The Solent.

Denise Wyatt, Deputy Leader of the English Futures Party, says today:

It appears that Cllr Bacon did not inform his Southampton and Portsmouth counterparts and Council Leaders, Cllrs Jones and Letts. Perhaps this shows the level of “esteem” and “trust” he places in their efforts to bring English devolution to the Island?

And according to the BBC, it appears that Cllr Jones is still in denial about this Deal. The Island Tories and the other Indies oppose the Deal. How can it not be dead, even if it isn’t withdrawn? Only Cllr Jones seems to know.

It’s just another dead devolution deal.

We want a moratorium on all English devolution until Brexit is completed.

England needs its own Parliament, and NOT the form of highly flawed “devolution” the Government was peddling.

Join us!

 

UPDATE (19th January 2017): We have written to three Council Leaders – Southampton, Portsmouth and Hampshire.

Southampton Labour Council Leader Simon Letts insists that the Deal is still on the table.

Portsmouth Conservative Council Leader Donna Jones has not replied to our letter.

Hampshire Conservative Council Leader Roy Perry, who has been publicly critical of the Solent Devolution Deal, is still hostile towards it and believes the actions of the previous Isle of Wight Administration to overturn the vote of majority of councillors to oppose the Deal, were undemocratic. We agree.

Government Minister for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid MP, has not yet responded to our letter, copied below.

Leader of the English Futures Party, Councillor Andrew Pope, says today:

“The new Conservative Administration on the Isle of Wight needs to urgently make a statement on their stance on the Solent Devolution Deal, and what actions they will take between now and the Island elections in May.

This must include whether they will uphold the referendum on any finalised deal, as supported by a majority of Island councillors, IF any deal ever comes forward, or whether the Deal has been withdrawn by the Government as claimed by the previous Leader of the Council, Cllr Bacon.

It is outrageous that having overturned the vote of councillors against the Solent Devolution Deal, Cllr Bacon did not attend yesterday’s Full Council meeting and if the reports are true, equally outrageous that former Deputy Leader Cllr Stubbings abstained in the leadership vote when it was so close.

Why did they give power away to their opponents?

Why didn’t they work behind-the-scenes with other Independents up until the elections? The people of the Island, and those in Southampton and Portsmouth, need answers.

We warned Cllr Bacon that they could lose control if they ignored the Island people, and now they have.

However, we wish Councillor Ian Stephens well in his return to the leadership of the Independent Group.

The English Futures Party still believes Independents are preferable to the same old Conservatives or Labour two-party system that has failed our country and our local councils for too long.”

—

---

Our letter to the Secretary of State:

Dear Mr Javid,

We have campaigned against this Solent Devolution Deal from the beginning, working in Southampton, Portsmouth and on the Isle of Wight.

We warned the Leaders, Deputy Leaders and Cabinets in all three locations against the Deal.

This morning, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Isle of Wight Council have resigned. We warned them that their support for the deal may mean they lose control of the Council. It has. They were often quoted as saying the Deal was the only way of solving the funding crisis on the Island. It is unfortunate that they felt this way and have taken this course of action. But they have also been quoted by the BBC as saying the Deal has been withdrawn.

Can you please confirm that the Solent Devolution Deal is now dead, and the reasons for it now being dead?

If it is, it is one of an increasingly long line of failed devolution deals. The appetite was not there before the Brexit vote. There is even less of an appetite now.

We therefore urge you and the Government to put a moratorium on progressing ALL English devolution until Brexit is completed. Surely you have enough to be dealing with, and you cannot be sure of having the funding in place for any devolution?

Can you please inform us whether the Government agrees with this suggestion of a moratorium on devolution?

In any case, the English people would prefer an English Parliament to the current form of English devolution. Survey after survey has proved it. The Campaign for an English Parliament is growing from strength to strength, gaining support across our proud country. The high attendance, from across the political spectrum, at last year’s presentation at the University of Winchester’s Centre for English Identity and Politics also shows the support for an English Parliament.

Please can you advise us of the Government’s view on an English Parliament, and the view of the Conservative Party?

If the English people do not get the voice that they deserve, then they may have no alternative but to break up the United Kingdom.

Best wishes,

Councillor Andrew Pope and Denise Wyatt

Leader and Deputy Leader