There are very many questions that we would like to ask local candidates in the forthcoming General Election. However, we will restrict ourselves to just three:

• Do you support the expansion or elimination of faith schools?
• Do you agree with legislation to permit assisted dying?
• Should religions by right have representatives in the House of Lords?

We propose to contact all of the candidates and will publish the results on this page when we have them. This way Humanists and other non-religious people can take Candidates' responses into account when they vote.

Candidates so far confirmed for the 2010 General Election

Please Note: Candidates in brown are ones who have replied. Thank you! Their answers are listed below. 

Electoral Wards

The electoral wards used to create Milton Keynes North are: Bradwell, Campbell Park, Hanslope Park, Linford North, Linford South, Middleton, Newport Pagnell North, Newport Pagnell South, Olney, Sherington, Stantonbury, Wolverton.

The electoral wards used to create Milton Keynes South are: Bletchley and Fenny Stratford, Danesborough, Denbigh, Eaton Manor, Emerson Valley, Furzton, Loughton Park, Stony Stratford, Walton Park, Whaddon and Woughton.

Responses from Candidates

We have started receiving responses to our questions. They are listed in the order in which they were received:

Q1: Do you support the expansion or elimination of faith schools?

Alan Francis (Green): I fully support Green Party policy as follows: No publicly-funded school shall be run by a religious organisation. Schools may teach about religions, comparing examples which originated in each continent, but are prohibited from delivering religious instruction in any form or encouraging adherence to any particular religious belief. Privately-funded schools run by religious organisations must reflect the inclusive nature of British society and become part of the Local authority admissions system. This non-discriminatory approach will be extended to staff who must not be discriminated against in faith schools due to their own faith either in seeking employment or during employment.

Phyllis Starkey (Labour): If we were starting from a blank slate I would prefer there not to be faith schools, but as that is not the case then I do think in a plural society that it is inequitable to say that absolutely no new faith schools can be opened. Pragmatically I support the inclusion of faith schools within the state system so they teach the National Curriculum, are inspected by Ofsted and have to abide by legislation on equal opportunities. I supported moves by Labour to insist on faith schools (like all other schools) teaching PHSE to include discussions of sexuality, responsibility in relationships and contraception etc in an objective and non-judgemental fashion.

Peter Jones (Liberal Democrats): Neither, really. My ideal for education would be that every child would find that the most local school was also the best for his or her education, irrespective of religion. Our Liberal Democrat manifesto does support faith schools, I have attached a copy of the relevant section: "Allow parents to continue to choose faith-based schools within the state-funded sector and allow the establishment of new faith schools. We will ensure that all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith when recruiting staff, except for those principally responsible for optional religious instruction." (p37).

Jill Hope (Liberal Democrats): Liberal Democrats are committed to making our education system fairer, so that all children will get a fair start in life, we will: a) Allow parents to continue to choose faith-based schools within the state funded sector, and allow the establishment of additional faith schools which do not select by ability, aptitude or faith; b) Require all existing state-funded faith schools to come forward within five years with plans to demonstrate the inclusiveness of their intakes, with Local Authorities empowered to oversee and approve the delivery of these plans, and to withdraw state-funded status where inclusiveness cannot be demonstrated; c) End the opt-out from employment and equalities legislation for staff in faith schools, except those principally responsible for religious instruction; d)  Require schools which choose to hold assemblies to ensure that any act of collective worship is optional for pupils who are old enough to decide for themselves and otherwise for parents; e) Local Authorities would be expected to ensure that faith schools either phase out faith selection or ensure that their intake becomes more inclusive. This will allow the faith school ethos to continue, and it will help to protect faith schools whose identity might be undermined if all faith selection was banned. However, it will also ensure that children in the local community have an opportunity to access these schools.

Michael Phillips (UKIP): There should be no place in State education for "faith schools" Private schools, however, are another matter.    If parents want their state educated children to be taught about the supernatural they should send them to learn these things after school hours or at the weekend at their own expense.  Or teach them themselves at home.    Have we learned nothing from the lessons of Northern Ireland? 

Q2: Do you agree with legislation to permit assisted dying?

Alan Francis (Green): Yes, with tight regulation, assisted dying should be permitted

Phyllis Starkey (Labour): I have an open mind on the issue of whether new legislation is required in relation to "assisted dying" or not. There are very serious issues about where the law draws the line without encouraging undue pressure on very vulnerable people.

Peter Jones (Liberal Democrats): It's the word 'assisted' that I find difficult. I might vote for this sort of legislation but only if I was convinced that there were proper safeguards to protect those who were not ready for death.

Jill Hope (Liberal Democrats):   The issue of assisted dying is a conscience issue for the Lib Dems, this means it is up to individual MPs without a Party whip. I do believe that people should be able to end their lives without having to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland. With the appropriate safeguards, I believe that this will relieve people of the fear of their relatives being potentially imprisoned if they help them to commit suicide, if they are too disabled to undertake that act themselves. I do not believe that older people would commit suicide if they thought they were a burden to their families, even if they were pressurized by relatives wanting their money. Most older people I know cling on to life very stubbornly! Although hospices do wonderful work relieving the pain of terminally ill patients, and giving them a comfortable last year or so, people with progressive debilitating conditions may not be in pain, but simply see no point in carrying on with such a wretched life. These people should be able to die with dignity in the UK.

Michael Phillips (UKIP): The saying "whose life is it anyway" comes to mind.   I agree that everyone should be able to decide their end at a time and place of their own choosing, with or without assistance.   I know that if I personally am ever faced with a long agonising death, or intolerable existence, I would want and believe have the right to ease myself painlessly out of this life. 

Q3: Should religions by right have representatives in the House of Lords?

Alan Francis (Green): No, the Bishops should be removed

Phyllis Starkey (Labour): I am in favour of a wholly elected House of Lords

Peter Jones (Liberal Democrats): No. There is an argument that as the Church of England is still the established church then the bishops should retain their seats. Personally I think that is an anachronism. I could go on at more length but I hope that this is sufficient answer to your questions.

Jill Hope (Liberal Democrats): As a Party we believe in a fully elected House of Lords, which might or might not contain representatives from various religions (depends who gets nominated and elected - after all MK could, in principle, have a Monster Raving Loony MP), but no religion would have a place there as a right. Seeing the behaviour of some senior clerics in the House of Lords has convinced me more than ever that we must either abolish completely or  convert to a second elected House. They seem to have been transported into the Chamber from another century. Liberal Democrats will replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber with considerably fewer members than the current House. We have been the most vocal advocates of reforming the House of Lords - dating back as far as the 1911 Parliament Act. We have consistently called for action to clean up politics and make it more accountable, while Labour and the Conservatives have blocked reform at every turn. Some people ask us why we have put people's names forward for the House of Lords if we oppose it? If we were to prevent Liberal Democrats from joining the House of Lords now we would be even less able to drive reform through during the next Parliament.

Michael Phillips (UKIP): No, I do not believe religions should have unelected representatives in the House of Lords.   If you allow one religion, you should in fairness allow all the others too.   And what a shambles that would be? As you can see, UKIP members give straight answers.    That is why our election campaign slogan is "Straight talking".