Month: November 2020

Interview with Ian Woodley, SDP organiser in Surrey

The Social Democratic Party (SDP) continued to exist after the merger with the Liberal Party to form the ironically named Liberal Democrats.  The pro-Brexit party, anti-lockdown and anti-woke SDP have attracted some high profile support.  We interviewed Andrew Bence, back in April and have published and worked with the party.

More locally Ian Woodley is the party organiser in Surrey.  An ex-Croydon resident and Palace fan, we spoke with him about the party’s plans in the county.

Ian thank-you for your time.

Can you introduce yourself to our readers?

My name is Ian Woodley. I am the Surrey Coordinator for the Social Democratic Party. I was born In South London and spent my school years in Croydon, Elmwood and Selhurst Grammar /High and now live in Woking. I run a couple of businesses that raise investment for the restaurant sector and British manufactured goods, I have 4 children and one grandson.

Food, Music and Sport dominate my personal interests, lifelong Palace fan, once chairman of Dulwich Hamlet FC, Harlequins supporter, Americana music and a keen home cook.

The party is gaining publicity, but it’s still fair to say the SDP is not a well-known as it once was.  What first attracted you to the party?

The party has had a roller coaster past. It is 40 years old in January and hit the heights with the “gang of four” in the early 80s. Then followed what turned out to be a disastrous alliance with the Liberals which ended in a full merger and gave them the word “Democrat” which is something over Brexit they have obviously forgotten. Those who didn’t want to throw their lot in with the Liberals such as Dr David Owen kept the flag flying and the party has existed at grass roots level ever since. Membership is now growing as we have enjoyed greater visibility. Like most people I have gone almost full circle on political views as I have grown older, before joining the SDP I was an “inactive” member of the Conservative party although was never a fan of austerity and got very frustrated with the infighting and ill discipline over Brexit. I now very much feel at home.

“at the time of writing I really hope Boris doesn’t bottle it, we have come too far for a fudged compromise. I am in line with the party’s views on lockdown in that what we really needed was a longer term consistent policy not the endless stop/starts which have destroyed some sectors and as for woke, I see this an unwelcome American import”

We described the SDP as pro-Brexit party, anti-lockdown and anti-woke SDP.  Would you agree with these descriptions and what are your thoughts on where things are on these issues?

All of those things are certainly true although that sells us a bit short. We are very much Red Tory Blue Labour. We sit left of centre on economic matters such as a fairer distribution of wealth and renationalising the railways. As you suggest we are socially conservative although radical in some matters such as the abolition of the house of lords and creation of an English parliament. Specifically, at the time of writing I really hope Boris doesn’t bottle it, we have come too far for a fudged compromise. I am in line with the party’s views on lockdown in that what we really needed was a longer term consistent policy not the endless stop/starts which have destroyed some sectors and as for woke, I see this an unwelcome American import which has highlighted that our media and academia is laden with progressive liberals who are a real danger to free speech and British culture.

We are hopefully coming out of the worst of the Covid Lockdown crisis.  What would you do to help us recover?

Firstly I would say that now there is news of a vaccine do not expect the government to change its approach. To me I think the discussion around state aid and Brexit are crucial. What the government need is free a hand to stimulate British Industry. I think the major difference between us and the other parties on this is that we would be far more interventional and not leave everything to the vagaries of the free market which would mean more jobs effectively exported to China. We have a buy British policy where possible for government procurement.

“We have a policy for new immigrants  “All will be required to agree to a pledge to uphold and adhere to contemporary British values as a condition of migration” which will light up the wokeratti but is what we feel most British people would expect”

The SDP are a communitarian party, what do you think we should be doing to build a more coherent national community?

That isn’t a five-minute job as our communities have been undermined for decades. Culturally I think the governments Australian style immigration policy is on the right track in that we need to slow the flow to allow things to settle. Never were the British people asked for their views on mass uncontrolled immigration. Most are in favour of immigration but not at the speed it has happened in past decades a situation made worse by there never being a plan for integration. The free market liberals whether they be Labour or Conservative have viewed immigration as a means to plug gaps in the need for short term unskilled labour but without factoring in issues such as housing and the NHS which have become stretched. We have also hugely ignored the needs of our own working class who have understandably felt that they have been pushed to the back of the queue. What some people call racism is actually resentment which has built as a result of thoughtless government policy. We have a policy for new immigrants  “All will be required to agree to a pledge to uphold and adhere to contemporary British values as a condition of migration” which will light up the wokeratti but is what we feel most British people would expect. As a nation we have grown afraid to actually say what we want on this issue.

Economically there are huge extremes of wealth and the North South divide is real. We keep hearing the term levelling up but that will not happen on its own and will need steering from government.

You’re an ex-Croydonian what are your memories of growing up here, and thoughts on the now bankrupt borough?

I spent years 2-22 in Croydon, as mentioned earlier I was at Elmwood in West Croydon, which had the countries first schools steel band! Going to see Palace at the age of 6, the last year of the 11 plus and going to Selhurst Grammar seeing the head boy wearing a cape. No more first year intake so we were the youngest boys in the school for 4 years in a row. Discovering Lady Edridge girls school even though Selhurst girls school was right next door. Working my Saturday job at Sainsburys in the Whitgift centre and the many pubs we used to frequent around Croydon. I must admit not being close enough to understand what has happened with Croydon council but I was saddened by the news as I am sure most old croydonians were.

“We have made ourselves busy in objecting to Surrey County Council’s bid to get rid of the 11 district and borough councils to create one mega unitary authority. Too big and not accountable”

How are the SDP making headway in Surrey, how have you been campaigning and what are your plans once we’re back to a more normal situation?

I only took on my role this summer so have not actually enjoyed a period of freedom to convene a meeting of existing members live so to speak and comms revolve around zoom calls . This is massively frustrating as it has been very difficult to make any headway. We are focused on getting some candidates out for the forthcoming Council elections in May and will be all guns blazing once we can get back to some form of normal. I think in common with most members of the party we believe we have a compelling message but as we get so little coverage progress is painfully slow.

We have made ourselves busy in objecting to Surrey County Council’s bid to get rid of the 11 district and borough councils to create one mega unitary authority. Too big and not accountable.

What are the local issues you think the party can make headway on in Surrey?

Surrey is very Conservative, all 11 constituencies are viewed as safe seats so we are under no illusion that we have an uphill battle. That said I feel there are a great number of disillusioned Tory voters who would certainly feel comfortable our policies and I think a number of people vote Lib Dem thinking they are centrist when on many issues they clearly aren’t. Housing and Transport are the big two. Its impossible for young couples to get onto the housing ladder and our solution is to dust off the concept of council housing which worked well for decades but then became ideologically unacceptable. We would also nationalise the railways its expensive and not very good and every Surrey commuter we feel would happily encourage a complete rethink.

If you could introduce two big changes Surrey and two nationally what would they be?

Only two? In Surrey as mentioned above, we must resolve the housing issues and make public transport more affordable and efficient, it should be our jewel in the crown.

Nationally, lets go big, proportional representation and abolish the house of lords. The people of this country will not get the government it needs and deserves under the current archaic system.

“Brexit was a fantastic reminder of this, forgetting the EU for a minute, it was the British people saying Oy! This is not what we want! That however was the start of a bigger fight to defend democracy not the finish as we found out”

Are there any thoughts you would like to leave our readers with?

Wow, haven’t I said enough. Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, which I am not. We need to be very alive to the creeping globalism of huge tech firms, big pharma , vested interest and a political elite who seem to forget they are accountable to the people who put hem there. Brexit was a fantastic reminder of this, forgetting the EU for a minute, it was the British people saying Oy! This is not what we want! That however was the start of a bigger fight to defend democracy not the finish as we found out.

Learning the lessons of EU membership we must not sleepwalk into a situation where we find  that our views and our vote no longer count.

Ian can be found on Twitter at https://twitter.com/IanWoodley6.  The SDP are online https://sdp.org.uk/, on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxHouHEwW8AguK_Vi1y_duQ with some great interviews, on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TheSDPUK and on Twitter https://twitter.com/TheSDPUK. 

Podcast Episode 47 – Sean Finch: BBC Humbug, Green Industrial Revolution & Canada Trade Deal

We are joined by local Libertarian activist Sean Finch, as we discuss BBC Radio 1 banning the Christmas classic Fairytale of New York from their airwaves, Boris’ 10 point Green Revolution and the Canada Continuity Trade Deal. We then chat with Sean about his resignation from the Libertarian Party, his involvement in anti-lockdown protests and his plans for the future.

Follow Sean on Facebook and on our site at http://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/category/sean-finch/

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio

Fire and rehire

Hoong-Wai Cheah asks –What is fire and rehire? And why does it happen?

What is the effect of banning fire and rehire? Bad policies can make a bad situation much worse – we have to be careful to not let good intentions cloud our judgement.

Driven by Labour MPs (of course), Parliament is now talking about banning the employment practice known as “fire and rehire” – a method for employers to reduce the wages they pay their employees, by releasing them from their current employment contract (fire), and then re-employing them under a new contract with lower wages (rehire). Sounds like a reprehensible tactic, doesn’t it? It’s unfair that employers can do this to their employees, right?

“Sometimes businesses do need to reduce costs. Not just for the sake of profit, but it could be the difference between breaking even or unsustainable losses”

Why would an employer fire and rehire?

Sometimes businesses do need to reduce costs. Not just for the sake of profit, but it could be the difference between breaking even or unsustainable losses. Many big businesses will have bigger financial reserves, or are able to borrow money easier. But smaller businesses don’t have enough flexibility in their operational margins to weather losses for long periods.

“why is it fair for any employee to get paid more for their work than everyone else on the market who does the same work?”

Why would an employee accept fire and rehire?

If the employee can command a better wage elsewhere, why haven’t they gone to work for another employer, instead of coming back to their existing employer for a lower wage? Employees aren’t forced to stay with any employer. In a worst-case situation, the employee has to stay on the new lower wage only until they can find better employment elsewhere.

In most cases, unhappy employees facing an unfair reduction in wages should be able find another employer who pays them better. The only situations in which this is not true is if 1) there is a general economic downturn so wages are falling everywhere, or 2) the employee was being paid above market rate to begin with.

In both cases, why is it fair for any employee to get paid more for their work than everyone else on the market who does the same work?

“Alternatively, businesses can terminate existing staff, and hire new staff at lower salaries instead. This means existing staff are forced to become unemployed instead of simply having a lower wage”

What is the effect of banning fire and rehire?

Nevermind the issue of fairness. What’s more significant is the effect of banning fire and rehire on both employers and employees alike.

Without the ability to reduce employee wages, employers will not be able to reduce their operating costs as easily. More businesses facing financial difficulty will go out of business if they cannot lower operational costs whilst retaining the staff they need.

Alternatively, businesses can terminate existing staff, and hire new staff at lower salaries instead. This means existing staff are forced to become unemployed instead of simply having a lower wage.

It might feel unfair for an employee to be moved to a lower wage, but which is better, for employees to remain employed at a lower wage, or for the business to close down, rendering all staff and business owners without an income?

Bad policies can make a bad situation much worse – we have to be careful to not let good intentions cloud this reality from our judgement and decision-making.

Kindly reproduced with permission from HoongWai’s blog at https://hoongwai1984.wordpress.com/2020/11/16/fire-and-rehire/

Image by Gerd Altmann  from Pixabay

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Image by Darko Djurin from Pixabay

The Libertarian Listener interview – Dan Heaton

The Libertarian Listener is a UK political podcast reviewing the week’s major news stories, current affairs and events whilst providing original insights, public opinions and perspectives from the nation’s freedom lovers and liberty seekers.

For the 18 November 2020 episode they spoke with Dan Heaton about – UK Second Lockdown, EU, COVID Vaccine, Trump Lawsuits.

Interview with Councillor Sandy Wallace of the Scottish Libertarian Party

The Scottish Libertarian Party a pro-Brexit and pro-Independence for Scotland, has recently reached an important political milestone.  Back in April we interviewed Tam Laird the party leader.  Now we are delighted to interview Aberdeenshire Councillor Sandy Wallace a first elected politician for the Scottish Libertarian Party.

Sandy thank-you for your time.

You represent Stonehaven and Lower Deeside on Aberdeenshire Council.  Can you tell us a bit about how you came to be a councillor and about your ward?

I was the Councillor for Lower Deeside, where I live, from 1999-2007 under old one member FPTP rules. I was not re-elected when it went to multi-member STV wards at a time when the Conservatives went through a Hague/IDS/Howard period of being unelectable. I was talked into standing again by a close friend, Alex Johnstone MSP, who sadly has since died. The Conservatives won a mini landslide in 2017, which English readers will recall from Alex Salmond losing his seat in the GE a month after the Council elections. The ward is 20% Lower Deeside, rural farmland but in reality an upmarket dormitory for Aberdeen, then 80% Stonehaven, a gorgeous seaside harbour town. In England it would be rock solid Tory but we have tartan Tories to fight it out with 

“I sit on the Communities Committee, which is Policing, council housing and social work. That is my opportunity to ask the police how their pointless war on drugs is going”

You sit on the Aberdeen Community Planning Board, The Regulation of Private Renting Sub – Committee and the Sustainability Committee, among others.  What are you able to achieve in these roles, and what are the main challenges facing Aberdeenshire Council?

I have achieved the square root of bugger all which is why I flounced out of the Conservative Party. They have no interest in smaller government. Sustainability is enjoyable, mostly I draw attention to BS, and point out that the fluffy policies the council has merrily adopted actually have consequences. Planning has been fairly heart-breaking and was the camel back-breaking straw for me the council is run by anti-business NIMBYs. Gypsy Traveller Committee is good fun, the Chair likes having me there because I can give a pro-business and liberty perspective on the idea that perhaps we should stop trying to give gypsies services they don’t want but maybe just leave them alone to live on land they themselves own. I sit on the Communities Committee, which is Policing, council housing and social work. That is my opportunity to ask the police how their pointless war on drugs is going. Have they managed to bully anyone into choosing to give up drugs by threatening to take their kids into care or have them evicted? Yes, sadly, I have been reduced to that level of behaviour. The main challenges are that we have no money left and can’t get our head around doing less. 

You had been a Conservative Councillor prior to moving to the Scottish Libertarian Party.  What made you leave the Conservatives and what first attracted you to the Scottish Libertarians?

I did not join the Conservatives because I agreed with them, I joined because they seemed to be the party with the most chance of coming my way., They had dropped their stupid support for Clause 2a ( Clause 28 in England), dropped the poll tax and opposition to devolution. I had hoped they could continue the journey. They didn’t, but nobody else did either, so I have not been proved wrong. I am a very wet libertarian, I would say a Whig, a fanboy for Dan Hannan and Doug Carswell. Joining the Libertarians is my public expression of anger at the lockdown.

We speak at the time of Covid.  How have you personally found the lockdown and what do you think of the Scottish Governments handling of the crisis?

Personally? I am one of the many people living the dream. Detached home, garden, financially secure, 80% salary on furlough, granted a pass for university work based on earlier marks. Who cares about the kids in the gig economy whose future is being squandered. Of course in reality, I am livid. Johnson looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights, but while Sturgeon is following identical policies, her motivation is totally different. This is what she dreamed of, an authoritarian regime that destroys people’s lives then calls them selfish for grumbling about it.

“The idea of letting somebody have a birthday party for a ten-year-old now seems like anarchy. We need to have birthday parties for ten year olds. With a magician. And a whole buffet of finger food that all the parents just sort of graze at”

As we move into 2021 what would you like to see done to help the economy and society recover?

It is a huge task because even if you lifted all restrictions tomorrow, 25% of people would still choose to follow some of them and every time you don’t buy a coffee, that is somebodies job at risk, and with it, perhaps her ability to stay in college. It honestly needs changes that are tantamount to revolution. The idea of letting somebody have a birthday party for a ten-year-old now seems like anarchy. We need to have birthday parties for ten year olds. With a magician. And a whole buffet of finger food that all the parents just sort of graze at. And car sharing. We have put society back 25 years, the only solution is to put government back 25 years.

The Scottish Government is introducing a new Hate Crime and Public Order bill.  Can you give us your thoughts on this legislation?

My thoughts are barely printable. This is Humza Yousaf’s pitch for leadership when Sturgeon goes, his vision is a soft-focus form of fascism like Singapore or Malaysia.

If you we’re able to get more Libertarians on to Aberdeenshire Council what would you like to see done differently, how would you change the council?

Well if you mean Councillors of a libertarian frame of mind, most of what we do is defined by the Scottish government, so a tax and services cutting budget is not actually feasible. I would like us to run the planning system with a presumption in favour of development, whether it meets policy or not, unless there are actually constraints such as sewage.  A neighbour with a bad attitude is not a constraint. a planner thinking the building is ugly is not a constraint. I would like us to seek to delist half our listed buildings so that people could afford to maintain them, including all the bridges the council actually owns. I would like us to regard the equalities agenda with the contempt it deserves, given that it is the bastard child of people who belong to parties that are actually institutionally racist

“I would like to see Scotland governed very lightly, more of it by local authorities than the Scottish government, with local authorities raising nearly all of their own revenue so answerable to the voter for value for money”

The party is both a pro-Brexit and pro-Independence for Scotland.  What would be your vision for the future of Scotland.  How would you like to see it governed in say 5-10 years?

I voted for the winning side in both referendums. I hope to see that the democratic mandate honoured. I would like to see Scotland governed very lightly, more of it by local authorities than the Scottish government, with local authorities raising nearly all of their own revenue so answerable to the voter for value for money. The UK government can carry on worrying about defence and foreign affairs, ideally not being involved in any foreign wars. More important than that, however, I would like to see us being a tolerant nation, one that welcomes economic migrants and treats asylum seekers with compassion but a bit of suspicion.  I would like anyone who claims to be offended to be asked ” so what?”

Are there any thoughts you would like to leave our readers with?

I think George Foreman was a better fighter than Muhammed Ali, new Taylor Swift is as good as old Taylor Swift and John Stuart Mill should be core reading in states schools especially the bit where denounces the very concept of state schools 

Sandy can be found on twitter at https://twitter.com/Boogieeck and on https://vote-2012.proboards.com/.

The Scottish Libertarian party can be found online at http://scottishlibertarians.com/, on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ScoLibertarian, and on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/ScottishLibertarians/.

Podcast Episode 46 – Dick Delingpole: US Elections, Lockdown 2, Rolls-Royce Nukes & Croydon Council is Bust

We are joined by Dick Delingpole as we discuss the US Elections Results, Lockdown 2, some “Despite Brexit” news and the fact that Croydon Council is now officially bankrupt. We then chat with Dick about his new found stardom and we play the Yes/No game with him.

Follow Dick on Twitter at https://twitter.com/DickDelingpole or listen to him periodically on the Delingpod at https://delingpole.podbean.com/.

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio

Johnson’s Aide’s Resignation: Tory Government Was in Turmoil Since Start of Pandemic – Sputnik Interview

On 11 November, Boris Johnson’s ally, Director of Communications Lee Cain, announced that he would leave his post, just 24 hours after reports suggested that he was in talks to become the prime minister’s chief of staff. Sputnik Radio spoke with Mike Swadling.

“This is a Government in turmoil. It has been this way since the start of the pandemic. It’s not clear they have control of what’s happening. They have a strategy for Brexit, but that seems to be dragging on and on and on”

“fundamentally, if you have a leader, it doesn’t matter what the lieutenants think of you. Know what the general thinks. No one ever thought with Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Harold Wilson – no one thought that the lieutenants were making the rules. They knew there was a general in charge of them”

“you’re chief of staff, and you have to force through a policy, then a professional footballer makes you change it a few days later. Then they do that again, after another few days. Then it feels like you’re following the policy of the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government. Then you say, ‘No’ we won’t have another lockdown, then you have another lockdown, and so on, and so on and so on. You know, you’ll come out of that role with no credibility. Why would you go into it in the first place?”

“There’s nothing you can say about this Prime Minister or this Government that makes you think, ‘Oh, he’s the reason for their being, he is their raison d’etre’. Therefore, until they have a purpose, they’re going to be in constant turmoil”

“Every deadline they’ve given so far has been pushed back. A deadline has to be a deadline. A sensible negotiator would have said, ‘Business needs six months to roll in the new rules, whatever they might be, so let’s set a deadline in the middle of June this year”

Full article: https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202011121081143914-johnsons-aides-resignation-tory-government-was-in-turmoil-since-start-of-pandemic-observer-says/

Audio:

Lessons In The Covid World

What We Can Learn From Sweden, South Korea and Japan For Fighting Covid In 2021

Opinion Piece by Josh L. Ascough

It is now roughly 9 months into the Coronavirus pandemic, and the United Kingdom has been placed into another national lockdown.

It seems to be the case that Einstein was right with his definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results”; by that definition, it’s not just the UK to which insanity has overtaken; Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia and many other nations have taken the approach of trying to focus on cases, when this is a fool errand.

Due to the nature and the way in which Covid-19 spreads, everyone is going to get this virus at some point; just like how at some point, everyone is going to get the flu, a cold, chest infection, or any other form of virus that spreads person to person; but this does not mean everyone is at risk of dying from the virus, nor does it mean death from the virus is inevitable.

It is very similar to the boom/bust cycle and how the Keynesians wrongly view the bust as the problem, but ignore the boom; when it in fact is the artificial boom that should concern people, the bust is merely the inevitable effect; we’ve been trying to prevent the inevitable cases, to try and stop the preventable deaths; the way we should have been handling this virus, is to accept the inevitability of cases but have measures in place to prevent as many deaths as possible.

This does not mean people should actively seek to get the virus; unless they are not vulnerable and are looking to donate plasma, so further testing on anti-bodies can be done; but to not panic if cases rise or if you get this virus. Remember, we should be looking to reduce the preventable (deaths) not the inevitable (cases).

I want to address three countries in particular that have taken different approaches to fighting this virus compared to most “lockdown enthusiast” countries; namely Sweden (I can already hear the lockdown lovers screeching at that name), South Korea, and Japan. Before I get into that however, let us briefly go over what it is we, the United Kingdom did wrong.

“The NHS did neglect its patients; it neglected to allow cancer patients to choose whether they wanted to go through with their treatment, taking into consideration the risk of Covid; the choice was made for them, that Covid was more dangerous and more deadly than their cancer”

Covid – What We Did Wrong.

On the 23rd of March 2020, the United Kingdom went into a national lockdown. In hindsight it was a terrible choice, but considering the healthcare system we have, it is understandable to have seen it as the only option on the table at the time. The purpose of the lockdown was simple (though it appears forgotten): We have a lockdown to spread out the cases and deaths, so as to not overwhelm the NHS to the point we have to make the choice of who lives via treatment, and who dies by neglect.

The UK currently, at the time of writing this on the 10th November 2020, has 1.23 million cases, and 49,770 deaths related to Covid-19 (key word being related. This has been a problem since the pandemic first began, where if someone contracts Covid-19 then dies from a car crash, they are marked as a Covid “related” death; not from, related). With a population of over 68 million and an elderly population close to 12 million, the case rate amounts to 1.8% of the population so far being infected, and out of the UK population 0.07% have Covid-19 “related” deaths, and out of the percentage that have been infected 4.04% have died; again, “related” to Covid-19.

The lockdown was never meant to stop deaths or cases, merely to spread out cases so we didn’t have to neglect saving people. The problem is we did neglect people.

When the lockdown first came about, cancer treatments, diabetes treatments, and many others were cancelled to save room for Covid patients, so the idea of not neglecting people was a complete lie. The NHS did neglect its patients; it neglected to allow cancer patients to choose whether they wanted to go through with their treatment, taking into consideration the risk of Covid; the choice was made for them, that Covid was more dangerous and more deadly than their cancer. Sky News insultingly reported that roughly 1 million breast cancer screenings had been “missed” because of the pandemic. No, 1 million women didn’t “miss” their screenings because of the pandemic; as if there was a choice, 1 million women had their cancer screenings cancelled for them; not by them, because the government decided it had the authority to decide which conditions were worth treatment…so we could save lives.

It is very anecdotal, but I’ve had many conversations on this subject, and the response is always, “well my uncle’s friend has cancer and he was okay with his treatment being cancelled”. My response to this is always: okay, but what if they weren’t? What if they were more scared of their untreated cancer progressing and killing them? What about the people who aren’t okay with their treatment being cancelled; whether it’s cancer, diabetes, arthritis, or heart transplants?

The typical rhetoric against attempting to rationally consider the positions taken and use critical thinking skills is often the following:

“Well you just want people to die. You’re selfish.”

To that I say fine, we can play that game.

In the UK, there is likely to be at least as many if not more preventable Cancer deaths than Covid-19 deaths, because of the diversion of resources into Covid. Richard Sullivan, Professor of Cancer and Global Health at King’s College London and Director for its Institute For Cancer Policy stated that:

“The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the Coronavirus itself. The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable, avoidable suffering. Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable such as cervical, bowel and breast. When we do restart normal service delivery after the lockdown is lifted, the backlog of cases will be a huge challenge to the healthcare system.”

On the 6th October Matt Hancock stated:

“Cancer Patients may only be guaranteed treatment if Covid-19 stays under control.”

Even though the NHS was never overwhelmed, millions of cancer screenings were cancelled to “Protect the NHS” and to “Save Lives”. If this is the crowd that claims to care about people’s lives, and proclaim that sceptics of lockdowns are “selfish” and “want people to die”; I think it may be safe to say that pro lockdown individuals have some form of mental deficiency.

Let us turn to the countries I mentioned at the beginning; what exactly can we learn from them?

“Sweden never had a lockdown, nor did it impose really any restrictions. The government took an advisory position for the elderly and other vulnerable people, with social and moral pressure for individual self-restraint and responsibility”

Let us first take a look at the now most hated country, Sweden.

Sweden holds a fairly small population of just over 10 million. Out of those 10 million, 162,000 have been infected with Covid-19, which equates at 1.6%, and out of the population 6057 have died, which is 0.05%; out of the percentage of people infected, 3.73% of those infected have died. This may still seem scary, but remember lockdowns only postpone current cases and don’t do anything to prevent deaths overall, and these are deaths and cases overall so far. But if we expand the perspective a bit and look at the rates and the directions they have been moving in, Sweden is doing pretty well for itself. Sweden hit its peak death rate on April 15th at 115 deaths in one day, and just recently hit its cases peak on November 5th at 4766. Yet since April 15th when it had its peak death rate, Sweden’s death rate has been drastically decreasing, and continues to do so, with its current death rate per day at the time of writing being 3, and it has been on low double digits to single digits; sometimes zero, since the 3rd July when it was at 8 deaths per day.

Sweden never had a lockdown, nor did it impose really any restrictions. The government took an advisory position for the elderly and other vulnerable people, with social and moral pressure for individual self-restraint and responsibility.

Japan is another success story.

Japan is home to a population of over 126 million people, and an elderly population of just over 36 million. Out of its population of 126 million, 110,000 people have been infected with Covid-19, which is 0.08%, and out of the population 1840 have died, equating to 0.001%; the percentage of people infected who have died is 1.6%.

Japan as well, never had a lockdown, though they took slightly stronger measures than Sweden did with regards to masks, and recommending shops close and vulnerable people isolate; these measures however apart from mandatory masks, were not legally punishable.

Japan hit its peak in cases back on the 3rd August when it reached 1,998 infections per day, and currently from the time of writing this, on the 10th November was at 899 infections per day. The death rate is equally impressive. Japan reached its peak death period on the 22nd April with 91 deaths per day; on the 10th November these deaths had dropped to 11 deaths, and has continued to stay at a stable, low double digit level since around mid-July.

The last success story to mention is South Korea, which is most probably the closest to home in terms of population size overall and in terms of elderly population.

South Korea is home to just over 51 million people, and holds an elderly population size of roughly just over 7.6 million.

Out of its population of 51 million; at the time of writing this on the 10th November, 27,799 have been infected, which is 0.05%, and out of the population 487 have died, equating to 0.0009%; the percentage of people infected who have died is 1.7%.

South Korea, like the others mentioned, never had a lockdown. The nation did however hold very local restrictions in terms of isolation if infected.

There are a few additional pieces of information to give context to South Korea. Due to the wounds from the SARS virus still in people’s minds, the general public was very cautious from the start of the pandemic. In addition South Korea has a predominantly private healthcare system, and so with the profit incentive being allowed to function, mass production of testing kits and ventilators were produced and sold; the market process quite literally saved lives.

South Korea hit its peak infection rate all the way back on the 1st March; where it was at 1062 cases per day. Since then it has seen a dramatic decrease in overall cases, where they dropped to double to single digits as early as April. It has since late August however seen a rise into triple digits, however this has been on a decline since the 1st September; the current case rate in South Korea; at the time of writing this, stands at 146 cases per day.

South Korea’s death rate has remained impressive. the nation reached its peak in deaths on the 23rd March at 9 deaths per day, and began to see a decrease in April; South Korea has never exceeded single digit deaths per day throughout the pandemic. The current death rate in South Korea from the time of writing this, on the 10th November, stands at 2 per day.

“These three nations; Sweden, South Korea and Japan have shown that it is not the case rate to be concerned with; it is the death rate. They have shown that lockdowns are ineffective and do nothing to curb overall deaths or cases”

So what can we learn from these countries, and what can we do differently towards the coming new year?

These three nations; Sweden, South Korea and Japan have shown that it is not the case rate to be concerned with; it is the death rate. They have shown that lockdowns are ineffective and do nothing to curb overall deaths or cases, and merely postpone cases to a future time frame.

I’m sure there will be some mad raving lockdown loony, who will try to say I don’t take the virus seriously; to which I say I do take it seriously. I live with a vulnerable person, and funnily enough I’ve made choices that aren’t part of government “guidelines” which better suit my life and my circumstances; most of the time while travelling before the 2nd lockdown I took a taxi everywhere because it would limit who I had to interact with during my journey, meaning I could have better control of my situation.

What measures could be suggested that we take via influence from Sweden, Japan and South Korea? I believe the following would be the most pragmatic if we were to focus solely on preventing deaths rather than inevitable cases:

  1. End the National Lockdown.
  2. Localise decision making to local councils in terms of what restrictions they are to have in place based on demographics of age, medical vulnerability in relation to infection rate. For example if a local area has few elderly residents, few individuals who are medically vulnerable and a double digit infection rate, the local councils could set low restrictions. It would be similar to the tier system but on a much more localised scale, allowing local governments themselves to decide their own restrictions; not on their behalf by Whitehall.
  3. Allow private establishments to choose whether to mandate mask wearing if they are capable of upholding social distancing.
  4. Allow individuals who are consenting with one another to meet for gatherings unless they contradict with local measures.
  5. Mandatory mask wearing in hospitals and care homes. These are vulnerable areas where people are seeking treatment.
  6. Allow for the expansion in private companies producing and selling testing kits and allow individuals to purchase these kits outside of the NHS for home use. Allow businesses such as Boots, local pharmacies and such to sell these testing kits and correlate positive tests back to local hospitals and GP practices.
  7. Allow for the expansion of businesses producing and selling ventilators and leave the decision of whether to purchase or not to local governments in correlation with hospitals within their region, with regards to their demographics of age, medical vulnerability and infection rate. This will ensure that we are not focussed on preventing cases but have the means in the local areas where they are needed to prevent as many deaths as possible.
  8. Do not imprison residence in care homes. If the residence and their families would feel safer leaving the care homes to live with family, allow them to do so; do not make the same mistake of imprisoning care home residence to simply wait for death. In addition do not imprison students at university; if the students feel safer in returning home or staying, the choice should be theirs to make with advice from the student bodies.
  9. Offer financial incentive to people who have tested positive to donate plasma so an expansion in testing on anti-bodies can occur; this should especially be encouraged among young adults.
  10.  Allow private establishments to decide the maximum capacity in one group they will allow, in relation to whether they can uphold social distancing .
  11.  Allow businesses and business owners themselves to decide whether to open or close. It is immoral for the government to decide who is essential and who is not; your livelihood is essential to you, it doesn’t matter if a politician thinks otherwise.
  12.  Allow patients to decide whether they want to take the risk of cancer and other treatments during the pandemic. It is completely abhorrent to allow the government to decide whether people should have treatment; that choice is to be made between patient and doctor alone.

The essence of these suggestions boils down to more decisions being made at the local level based on demographics, not one-size-fits-all approaches that may be needed in one location but are overboard in another. This approach allows individuals to make their own judgements of what is best for their circumstances, and what risks; if any, they are willing to make, while local governments who know their constituents better than the central government in Westminster to make the political choices and work with hospitals and the private sector for producing ventilators and testing kits. We’ve done the one size approach, and it has failed, we’re trying it a second time, and it is still failing; the nations that didn’t take a national lockdown approach; whether they took small measures of restrictions or no restrictions, they are showing success by having an ever declining death rate.

It is inevitable there will be people who say I’m being selfish for wanting to socialise with loved ones; but man is a social animal, and we know the mental and emotional effects prolonged isolation can have on people. If we are to believe that self-interest and selfishness are evil, what is more evil is believing everyone apart from yourself has to take responsibility for your health; the number one person responsible for your health, is you; not the man who decides to go drinking with friends, not the woman who wants to open up her small business to provide for herself, not the grandparents who nearing the end of their lives want to see their family and not be forced into isolation, and it is certainly not the responsibility of young people who have their whole lives ahead of them; who’s progress we have halted by force; it is your health, your responsibility.

“Life is about living, not simply existing and doing everything to remain “safe” so you can keep on simply existing. Yes, making choices to ensure you are safe from death is important; but the timeframe for living is very limited”

Life is about living, not simply existing and doing everything to remain “safe” so you can keep on simply existing. Yes, making choices to ensure you are safe from death is important; but the timeframe for living is very limited, and if you keep pushing that timeframe into a smaller and smaller margin, eventually it will expire, and sooner than you think.

– Sources –

Image: https://pixabay.com/illustrations/virus-covid-science-covid19-4937553/

Croydon Council – Section 114 notice

Croydon Council issued a Section 114 notice on Wednesday (11 Nov) afternoon “due to the severe ongoing financial challenges facing the authority.”

News of this is being widely reported including by the BBC – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54897296

“The Section 114 notice bans all new expenditure at Croydon Council, with the exception of statutory services for protecting vulnerable people”

“£17.7m of the £27.9m of the “new savings” presented to Croydon’s cabinet on 21 September and the full council meeting on 28 September were “incorrectly identified as new savings”

“Croydon’s financial pressures are not all related to the pandemic”. It is under a government review amid claims of “irresponsible spending”

Whilst we have been by no means alone.  In the 2 and a half years the Croydon Constitutionals have been running we have regularly reported on what we have seen as irresponsible spending by the council. 

These concerns have been validated by the recent audit report:

Mike wrote a summary of the problems for the TaxPayers’ Alliance:

All of this spending didn’t improve services for the people of Croydon:

With the TaxPayers’ Alliance and some cross party support we’ve highlighted the high rates of executive pay at the council:

Poor commercial property investments have caught up with the council. Rather as we expected them to:

We didn’t think Croydon Council got value for money for residents:

We have asked them to tax us less and even found ways to save money:

Don’t just take our word for it we’ve also interviewed Councillor Robert Ward, Councillor Jeet Bains who also spoke with us about planning in Croydon, Councillor Mario Creatura, Chris Philp MP, former Chairman of the Croydon Conservative Federation Alasdair Stewart and council candidate Jayde Edwards.

Things can change in Croydon and Mike spoke about the campaign for a Democratically Elected Mayor of Croydon at one of our events.

For more of our articles and podcasts on the council go to http://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/category/croydon-council/

Podcast Episode 45 – Future of the BBC Forum

We host a forum on the Future of the BBC. Croydon Councillor Jeet Bains, Sofia Svihurova, former Brighton Group Leader of the Libertarian Party, and Harry Fone of the TaxPayers’ Alliance present their views on what’s next for the Corporation.

We then hold a panel discussion with questions from our online audience.

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio