I care about Animal Welfare

Here’s the text of a message I received, asking me “Do you care about animal welfare?” and asking me to complete a survey from the “League Against Cruel Sports”:

Dear Simon Platt,

I am writing to ask your views about animal protection.

Britain has some of the strongest animal welfare laws in the world, but we now risk falling behind:

  • The Hunting Act, which protects wild animals from being chased by packs of dogs, is under threat, despite 84% of the public supporting the ban.
  • Sentences for animal cruelty offences are extremely lenient, with a maximum six months in prison, compared to two to five years in most countries.
  • Court orders banning those convicted of animal welfare offences are unenforceable due to a lack of records.

As a voter who treasures Britain’s animals and natural environment, I would really appreciate if you could take a moment to fill out this survey about your views. [link removed]

Kind regards,

Here’s my reply:

Yes, I do care about animal welfare, very much, and have done since my early childhood. I can’t remember when this subject wasn’t important to me. But I can’t understand why you think “we now risk falling behind”. Could you explain?
I followed the link to your survey, but found it to be from the League Against Cruel Sports. I’m afraid that I do not support that organisation. I think they are misguided and intolerant, and I shan’t be participating in any of their activities, not even completing an online survey.

Labour’s poor advertisement in the Lancashire Post

Today’s Lancashire Post has a wrap-around advertisement for the Labour Party. It’s an attack on the Tories. Everyone I’ve spoken to about it has said they think it shouldn’t be allowed. I’m not sure I agree. I don’t like it, of course, especially as it means that complacent old parties with deep pockets can get their shallow message out more easily than those of us who rely on volunteer help to deliver leaflets and work on social media, but I don’t like the alternative, of more controls on campaigning, either.

I suppose this attack ad is aimed at Preston and South Ribble constituencies. Labour have no chance elsewhere in the Evening Post’s area (Fylde, Wyre and Preston North, Ribble Valley). I don’t think they have much chance in South Ribble, either, although they did hold it for a while during the Blair regime.  During the last parliament their only MP in the area was my main opponent in this election, the bored and complacent Mark Hendrick who, I suppose, is happy to have his bosses fund this advertising for him, as it saves him having to speak for himself.

What do Labour have to say? Three things, basically:

  • “The Tories are threatening our schools” Well, unlike any of my opponents I went to school locally, as did, and do, my family. And I’ve worked in education locally for many years, as have friends and family members. I think I’m well placed to judge. My observation is that the Tories “could do better”, especially for Lancashire’s schoolchildren, but Labour are “bottom of the class”.  Top of the class, of course, are UKIP. Hear more about our outstanding education policies in this video.
  • “The NHS is in critical condition under the Tories” That’s rich, coming from the party whose policy of wasting £billions on Private Finance Initiative projects has been aptly described as “buy one hospital, pay for six”. UKIP is the party that really cares for the health of the British people, with realistic plans to revitalise the NHS and integrate social care. Hear more about UKIP’s plans for health and social care in this video.
  • There should be more free stuff. That’s what Labour’s famous for, of course. That, and not having any money left after 13 years of “prudence”.
    Labour’s legacy: the note left by Liam Byrne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the last Labour Government. “I’m afraid there is no money”. No, Liam, it wasn’t funny.

    They promise no student tuition fees, at a cost of about £25 billion a year (their figures), an extra £45 billion a year for the NHS and social care – that’s £70 billion so far. They think an extra 10,000 policemen is small change – they can’t add up, it would cost about another billion. And there’s more. They don’t need a magic money tree, but a magic money forest. UKIP shares some of the same aspirations, but ours are tempered with realism, such that our programme will pay for itself within two years without increasing taxes, largely due to a Brexit bonus of just under £10 billion, and is truly prudent.

I have noticed before (although hadn’t had time to blog about it) that the policies of which Labour are most proud, for example those listed on their election communication (delivered by Royal Mail) and in this anti-Tory ad, are often UKIP policies, too. But UKIP do them better, of course. We understand the real world, and have properly costed, prudent plans. We believe in Britain, and you should, too. Vote UKIP on June the 8th. In Preston, vote for me, Simon Platt, your local UKIP candidate.

My stance on key issues, in the Lancashire Post

All Preston’s candidates were recently interviewed by the Evening Post’s Fiona Finch, for a feature in today’s paper.

I suppose it’s hard for Fiona to cut down what we all had to say to fit the space she had available, but I’m glad to say that she has reported my policies mostly accurately, although incompletely. I think she’s done a pretty good job.

There is one mistake, however, perhaps due to the poor telephone line over which we spoke: she wrote that UKIP “would increase medical training places by about 10,000 every year over a few years”, which of course is incorrect. (It would be a mistake of almost Abbottian proportions: it would increase the number of training places from 7,500 to 57,500 over five years, an increase of 767%!)

What we would actually do is raise the cap of medical training places by a third, from 7,500 a year to 10,000 a year. See this video for more on our policy on health and social care.

Here’s what I had to say, corrected as described above.

What are your plans for the NHS?

UKIP is the only party that has a plan for the combined health care and social care system. We’d have a joined up management. We would increase medical training places by about to 10,000 every year over a few years (from 7,500). We would introduce a licensing system for hospital managers. We will have a medical insurance recovery for migrants

How will you combat terrorism?

We would employ more policemen and prison officers. We’ve lost about 20,000 policemen over the last generation or so. We would reinstate that number and the resources they need. Our prisons are overcrowded – we would build more prisons but not knock down the other prisons. We would reintroduce Stop and Search (powers).

What kind of Brexit do you want to negotiate?

I want a full British Brexit. We’ll have a Brexit bonus of just under £10bn a year – our net contribution to the EU. We’ll be a self governing nation once again. We will be able to restore sovereignty over borders and fishing grounds.

How will you fund social care?

It’s a serious problem and we haven’t got a simple solution. We are proposing a Royal Commission to find a way forward. UKIP is very strong on inter-generational fairness. We are not keen on proposals that will require people to effectively give up their homes when they die rather than pass them on to their family.

Will you control immigration?

We have a policy over the next Parliament there will be zero net migration. We can’t achieve that while we are in the European Union.

What are your policies on the environment?

UKIP would repeal the Climate Change Act of 2008. It is no good for the environment and it damages our economy.

Hunting Act 2004

I’ve received the following standard petition, with the subject heading “A question from a local constituent: Will you #keeptheban on fox hunting?”

Dear Dr Platt,

I am concerned that Theresa May has promised a vote to repeal the fox hunting ban if the Conservatives win the general election. Please can you tell me:

If there is a vote to repeal the ban, how would you vote?

What is your party’s policy on fox hunting?

I am emailing you via this Care2 petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/798/498/031/


(I actually received eight emails from this petition, all within ten minutes. That was an interesting example of the power of social media. A couple of senders added personal notes. I’ll respond to all eight, soon – it’ll be tomorrow morning, now – with personalised responses as appropriate.)

My standard response is as follows:

I believe that mankind has a responsibility to be good stewards of creation, and to promote animal welfare. It’s partly for that reason, and partly on grounds of liberty and tolerance, that I cannot support your campaign.

I haven’t closely followed discussion of the likelihood of repeal of the Hunting Act, although I am aware that there has been some speculation. I think that’s unlikely to be a government priority in view of the important constitutional matters that are bound to preoccupy parliament for at least the next two years and possibly longer. In a way I think that’s a shame; as Preston’s MP I would certainly vote for its repeal and for the legalisation of hunting once again. I’ve never hunted myself, and there are no hunts very close to Preston although I think there is or was one in Bowland and another based near Chorley. My own sport has always been fishing; and I’m looking forward to spending time on the bank again soon, once the election campaign is over and the coarse-fishing season begins.

And people shouldn’t be concerned about the prospect of a vote in parliament. That would be an example of our democratic system in operation. MPs would be able to review the operation of the Hunting Act, a little over a decade since it came into force. They would also be able to take representation from constituents and other interested parties and come to a consensus view. Surely that is not a bad thing? (As I say, I am sure that government time would not be made available for repeal of the hunting Act, but it is always possible for a suitable Private Members’ Bill to be introduced.)

I’m not aware of any UKIP policy on hunting. It’s certainly not a UKIP priority. If there were such a policy, however, it wouldn’t change my view: I would vote to repeal the Hunting Act. And this is something we can do in UKIP. Elected representatives and candidates from UKIP are encouraged to have their own minds; our councillors are not whipped, and we candidates were briefed recently “if there’s something in UKIP policy that you don’t agree with, don’t hide the fact”. I have few reservations about UKIP policy – our manifesto is superb – but I have no hesitation in speaking my own mind when I do. That’s the UKIP way; one of the things that sets us apart from the old parties.

I opposed the ban on hunting in 2004 – I was a member of the Countryside Alliance – and I oppose it now. I think that fox hunting is a humane way of pest control; the best for the welfare of the fox population as a whole and of individual foxes, too. (The concern is usually about fox hunting, although the Hunting Act has wider scope than that.)  Although I have never hunted myself, and although I am seeking to represent an urban constituency where nobody hunts, I have absolutely no objection to those who take pleasure in doing so. I want to live in a society that is tolerant enough to take the same view as me.

I think the ban on hunting should be repealed.

People are welcome to contact me in this way; I’ll do my best to respond, whether or not I agree with the petitioners, and post my responses here, for all to see.

What I will do for the environment if elected

I’ve received the following standard petition, with the subject heading “What will you do for the environment if elected?”

Dear Dr Platt,

NB this email is sent when somebody in your constituency signs this petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/en-gb/429/898/151/

The environmental threats we face will change life on Earth for millennia, and may leave our children and even ourselves struggling to survive as many already are elsewhere. These issues make others seem almost minor yet our MPs rarely refer to them let alone prioritise them as is urgently needed:

Loss of species and the habitats they depend upon: It is reasonable to consider that our fellow species have an intrinsic right not to be carelessly made extinct. Even from a selfishly anthropocentric perspective, a strong biodiverse natural world is vital to support the environmental services that we depend upon. It has become clear that the loss of even some obscure species can cause a domino effect resulting in dramatic environmental change. Consider corals that shelter the young fish that many fish stocks depend upon.

Climate Change: This issue is well covered by the media, and no-one serving the public has any excuse not to be familiar with it and determined to reassess all other policy in relation to it. It brings into question the GDP growth basis of policy, and suggests that we need to re-focus on less environmentally destructive values. We also need government to put policy and funding on a ‘war footing’ to de-carbonise our economy. This means abandoning the misplaced and backward looking support for fracking.

Agricultural soils: Tilling the soil, leaving it bare, and extracting organic materials in ever larger amounts (‘higher efficiency’) has dramatically degraded many farm soils. Mineral content has dropped by as much as, eg: 50% (for iron) over 60 years, which is reflected in the food produced and the fact that these soils only have 60 years of cropping left in them.

In the UK, that means losing the ability to feed ourselves – a dire security risk, in a world where international supplies will likely become severely restricted over the coming decades.

Elsewhere, where wilderness still exists, it will likely be destroyed in desperation as farm soils fail, exacerbating the other issues mentioned. Solutions to this are harder with such a large and expanding world human population, but include switching to perennial crops, intercropping, no-till, the returning of nutrients to close the cycle ( and change sewage as a problem into a solution), and a determined research push.

I would like to hear what you intend to do to address these issues urgently, and can promise that many will be watching as these disasters unfold (if not addressed), reflecting back on who did and didn’t do what. If you’re on the side of a genuinely safe, healthy and equitable future where these matters have been addressed seriously with the full force of the British state, then I wish you good luck on June 8th.


My response was as follows

Thank you for your email. UKIP is committed to direct democracy and bottom-up politics, and it’s good to get interaction even from petition sites and even if I have to give the answer “yes and no”.

Care for our environment is absolutely, literally, vital. And that’s been something dear to me from an early age, ever since I started fishing as a young lad and spent many days in the country by canal, river, and lake, and grew concerned about pollution (and not just water pollution). And, growing up in what was then Preston North constituency, just off Lightfoot Lane, in the time of the Central Lancashire New Town, I became aware of the damage that can be done by development projects. How can I forget the campaign “Cows not Concrete for Cottam”?

So let’s consider your points one by one.

It is important to maintain biodiversity. Although I believe very strongly that mankind is more important than other life on earth (is that selfishly anthropocentric?) that’s because of the great value of individual human lives, not because other species are unimportant. We’ll never stop extinctions completely, of course, and there must have been uncountably many extinctions before mankind ever began to have a significant effect on Earth’s ecology – and lost habitats galore, too. I don’t think it makes sense to impute rights, intrinsic or otherwise, to species, however.

I must also disagree that Climate Change is well covered in the media. Far from it! At least, it is very poorly covered in mainstream media. Did you know, for example, that climate models that are used to influence political decisions, such as the disastrous Climate Change Act 2008, have been shown not to replicate real trends in climate (see, for example, here, https://youtu.be/6GzNATrGH7I?t=1h39m45s for evidence presented to parliament on this issue). Nonetheless, even though our economic activity is having very little effect on global climate, I think you are right that an almost exclusive emphasis on GDP is not healthy; I think it is not sustainable.

I’m afraid that “decarbonising” our economy is a terrible idea. We rely utterly on energy, and hydrocarbon fuels are currently the only practical and environmentally friendly source of such energy. (I think that will be the case until we have successfully met the fusion challenge.) For example, the Climate Change Act 2008 is extremely damaging to the lives of poorer people, raising fuel bills significantly, to energy security, and to the environment. Did you know, for example, that Britain’s biggest power station, Drax, now generates power mostly from wood pellets, a form of biomass, a development which is considered “decarbonisation” because of the relatively quick regrowth of trees (at least, on the geological time scale). Drax, which is built on top of a coal field, ships these pellets in from across the Atlantic. As an environmentalist, that doesn’t seem sensible to me. But the people at Drax are forced to do this by misguided legislation.

Our hydrocarbon resources are very important. Shale gas is the obvious example, and very important in Lancashire. There are good reasons for being concerned about fracking, in my view, but these are to do with infrastructure development and with the perceived risk of pollution. If these concerns can be overcome, we must exploit shale gas, for energy security and to provide the low-cost energy needed by families and the economy. I think Lancashire County Council approached this issue very well in its recent consideration of the planning application from Cuadrilla, balancing the need for a prompt answer with the need properly to consider the evidence received. They said: “Wait. We’re not sure yet.” The shale gas isn’t going away, and we should have taken longer to consider the environmental evidence, not just for Lancashire but for the sake of the whole country. I think that for the County Council’s decision to be overruled by the government in London should not be acceptable. The government’s response was unnecessarily gung-ho. And to add insult to injury, we in Lancashire now have to police the protests at Weeton out of our limited police budget.

UKIP would do things differently, balancing energy security with environmental protection and listening to local voices.

And food security is as important as energy security. It is difficult for a country like Britain to feed itself; we have a large population density and the least populated areas are in many cases not very productive. So we must take care of our farmers and fisherman, of our farming land and our fishing waters. These are serous issues, although I am not aware of evidence of the reduction in mineral content that you state – perhaps only because it is not my specialist field. Nonetheless, I agree that caring for the soil is very important, and support organic farming and buy organic produce where possible for that reason, and I agree that agricultural land ought not to be built upon, at least not for the kind of large-scale developments we see around Preston. This is UKIP policy, too. And, of course, once we are free of the EU and free of the damaging Common Agricultural and Fishing Policies, we can set our own sensible, environmentally friendly policies.

I’m sorry to send such a long reply. As you can see, environmental policy is something about which I care a great deal, but don’t often get the chance to talk about. Thank you.

People are welcome to contact me in this way; I’ll do my best to respond, whether or not I agree with the petitioners, and post my responses here, for all to see.

My pledge on protecting animals

I’ve received the following standard petition, with the subject heading “Will you pledge to protect animals?”

Dear Candidate,

On June 8th, like many millions of other people, my vote will be influenced by a desire to see Parliament better protect animals. I am writing to ask whether, if elected as my MP, you would be a positive voice for animals, both locally and in Westminster.

Specifically, I would like to ask if you are willing to pledge the commitments set out by leading animal protection groups at www.animalprotection2017.org.uk:

1. Defend animal protection laws and regulations, and to strengthen them where appropriate, including the Animal Welfare Act, the Hunting Act, the Protection of Badgers Act, the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the Welfare of Farmed Animals regulations; and

2. Send a strong signal about your commitment to protecting animals by supporting the introduction of an official national database of convicted animal abusers, and an increase in animal cruelty sentences to up to 5 years in jail.

A Party’s policies for animals can be a good reflection of how it views vulnerable members of our society. I hope that you will commit to speaking out for those without a voice.


My response was as follows

I’ve been an animal lover since a very early age; I think probably starting with my first pet rabbit, but reinforced especially once I started fishing, as a young lad, a pastime which took me out into the country and gave me the great pleasure of quietly observing and interacting with farm animals and wildlife of many kinds – not just fish. As I have grown up, I have come to realise that all of creation is precious, and that mankind’s duty is to be good stewards. For example, my family always avoids eating food from intensively farmed livestock.

I am familiar with some of the legislation your campaign supports, I know of no objection to the Animal Welfare Act or the Welfare of Farmed Animals regulations and I think the Protection of Badgers Act is uncontroversial and widely supported. I strongly support the aims of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Perhaps you are aware that it is UKIP’s policy that all legislation deriving from EU directives will be retained in the first instance and only considered for repeal or revision subsequently. I don’t think it’s likely there will be any attempt in the foreseeable future to repeal or weaken animal protection legislation, and I can’t imagine my supporting any such attempt.

But the Hunting Act is different. I would certainly vote to repeal it. I think it is illiberal and counterproductive.

I suppose my reply will not please you. Thank you, nonetheless, for taking the trouble to contact me. One of my main concerns in this general election campaign is that politicians are failing to engage people, especially in Preston, and so I welcome interaction. I see that your email comes to me via a campaigning website, and I know that some MPs resent that (probably they get more email than me), but I’m very happy with it: perhaps you know that UKIP stands for more direct democracy.

I can assure you that my difference of opinion with your campaign is not because I don’t care. Animal welfare is very important to me.

People are welcome to contact me in this way; I’ll do my best to respond, whether or not I agree with the petitioners, and post my responses here, for all to see.

Responding to online petitions

UKIP is well known for championing the voice of ordinary people. We stand for direct democracy. And one social media phenomenon that parliamentary candidates will be familiar with is the growth of democracy sites (is that the right term?) making it easier for ordinary people to get in touch with MPs and with candidates, often hosting petitions on topic of interest.

I promise always to try to be responsive to interactions like that, even when I can’t give the petitioners the answers they really want to hear. I want to take my cue from people like Audrey Wise, with whom I rarely agreed but who in my recollection was always polite and forthcoming in correspondence, and John Redwood, who provides an excellent example of two-way communication with constituents and others.

It seems a good idea, especially when standard emails come in from several sources, to draft standard responses and post them here, in addition to replying to the petitioners directly. So that is what I will do, using a new post category “Response to petitions”.