Dear Members

Thank you for taking part in For Britain’s unique policy-making process!  We are our members, and our members will have a direct say over policy – thank you for contributing.

I’m writing today to provide you with the results of this year’s members’ poll.  It is worth noting that members are free to campaign to have these policies changed, and to have questions re-submitted to members next year for a re-evaluation. We are a democratic party and our members are free to campaign internally and externally.

Click on the options that are highlighted for the detail

The results are as follows:

Question 1 

Should we campaign to raise the voting age to 21?

Yes – 58%

No – 42%

Question 2 

Should we campaign to raise the age of sexual consent to 18? 

Yes – 57%

No – 43%

Question 3

Should voting be compulsory? 

Yes, regulated by imposing a fine – 30%

Yes, regulated with a reward lottery – 24%

No, voting should be voluntary – 45%

Question 4 

Fathers’ rights

Option 1[1] – 25%

Option 2[2] – 75%

Question 5

Reform of welfare and universal credit

Option 1[3] – 52%

Option 2[4] – 2%

Option 3[5] – 47%

Question 6

Should we campaign to end child benefit?

Option 1[6] – 23%

Option 2[7] – 70%

Option 3[8] – 7%

Thank you all once again for your contribution to this vital part of our party’s structure. It’s very important to me that our members are as involved as possible in the formation of our values and policies.

I am always happy to discuss these issues with members, so get in touch with me if you would like to do so.

Thank you

Anne Marie


[1] A legal assumption of shared parenting for both parents (on a child’s birth certificate) after separation, unless there are specific circumstances involving violence, abuse, or drugs, provable in court.

The shared parenting will apply regardless of whether parents were married or cohabiting, and any parent not named on a birth certificate would have a right to apply for parental responsibility should they wish to do so. Grandparents should also have a right to apply for access.

Mediation should be compulsory for both parents prior to court involvement.

[2] A complete overhaul of the family justice system; this would include a legal assumption of shared parenting (as above), as well as grandparent rights, but also include the introduction of a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for Parents and a public inquiry in to the current state of the family justice system. The Bill of Rights and Responsibilities would impose legal penalties on parents who act maliciously to deny access to children to the other parent. It would also oblige both parents to provide support to children, including emotional, educational, and financial support (in the event that parents cannot agree this amicably during mediation).

[3] The framework of a single simplified benefits system as the way forward in reducing overall running costs. But in order to reduce dependency on benefits we must involve the private sector and give businesses reason to provide jobs and a salary that will cover a person’s cost of living. It is after all the private sector that will be providing jobs for people, they should naturally be more involved in the solution to solve the welfare problems society faces.

We would set up an initiative with the private sector where the government would provide private companies grants, zero national insurance payments and other tax relief to employ benefits claimants on minimum wage but with a government providing a subsidised wage, in line with the living wage based on the cost of living in the local area of employment. This gives the private sector a very lucrative incentive to employ benefits claimants.

These grants and subsidies would be phased out over time as the employee receives more employment rights and becomes more skilled and valued with the private company. By which time the employees’ worth with the company would justify their higher salary. This solution offers the benefit claimants better wages than benefits payments as a real incentive to actually joining the work force, whilst also adding protection in the form of employment law to stop unscrupulous businesses making these employees redundant when the grants and subsidies phase out.


This will likely have a high short term cost to implement such a scheme. Costs to implement it can be reduced by using the framework and experience from government subsidised apprenticeship schemes. But the high cost to implement this would pay dividends after the first year of moving benefits claimants into the labour market.

In funding to cover the continued costs of grants and subsidised wages would come from the tax gap in Inland Revenue. Many multinational corporations, businesses, individuals and companies use loopholes and morally unethical tax avoidance practices right but which the government overlooks because of the economic boost such companies provide to the UK’s economy. We would close these loopholes and stop such practices. By offering incentives in tax relief though taking on benefits claimants this would reduce the likelihood of businesses avoiding tax. The corporations and companies would still have very generous tax relief though this new employment scheme that would reduce the likelihood of them moving operations abroad in order to avoid taxes.

[4] Continue with Universal Credits – make no change

[5] Abolish Universal Credits.

Reinstate housing benefit, paid directly to landlords

Combine remaining benefit departments in to one.

Pay means-tested benefits paid to recipients by bank transfer. Those found guilty of benefit fraud, or abuse of council property, or persistent antisocial behaviour, will receive benefits in the form of redeemable vouchers rather than cash.

Agree tax and National Insurance based incentives with employers to hire benefits claimants. Those with disabilities, physical or psychological, should also be helped in to worth workforce in accordance with their abilities.

[6] Scrap child benefit

[7] Limit child benefit to 2 children

[8] Make no change