Stephen Mcnamara is the Reform UK prospective candidate for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke. We spoke with Stephen last year in his role as a political advisor, below we speak to him about his candidacy.
“for several years now, usually working behind the scenes to recruit potential candidates into the world of politics. For that, I probably owe the world an apology…”
Can you briefly introduce yourself to our readers.
I’m a long-distance luxury coach driver during my working week, but the Stephen McNamara known more publicly has been politically active for several years now, usually working behind the scenes to recruit potential candidates into the world of politics. For that, I probably owe the world an apology…
What made you decide to stand for Reform UK?
I felt politically homeless for a period there. I helped a few independents and a new group for about a year or so, but I had been approached on a few occasions to join reform. I was reluctant at first as I knew what happened in the run up to the 2019 General Election and I was sceptical that this would be another repeat of that. I didn’t want to waste my time if that was the plan.
Over the following weeks and months, I sought reassurance from the main party leadership, and they assured me that the plan was to oust the incumbent party from government ultimately seek to replace them as one of the mainstream viable options for voters.
The Scottish organiser and colleagues made me feel quite welcome since joining and encouraged me to go through the internal vetting process. I’ve been approved now as a prospective candidate and now planning my election campaign to reach out to as many people as possible.
“labour and the SNP are just as bad and that to effect real change it means voting for something new. There’s no bigger proverbial insult to the Tories than voting for Reform!”
You’re the Spokesperson for Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke what’s made you decide to represent this area?
This is where I’m based for my other day job. My youngest daughter was born in Wishaw when I used to stay in Motherwell, and I know the area reasonably well. I also know there’s still a harbouring hatred of the Tories in the area, but I hope to be able to help these same people understand that labour and the SNP are just as bad and that to effect real change it means voting for something new. There’s no bigger proverbial insult to the Tories than voting for Reform!
“Unemployment is quite possibly the biggest issue for many people here. Tory policies from the 80’s are still being felt some 40 years later. The previous Labour government was so incompetent that they just made things worse”
What do you see as the big concerns for the constituency and what issues do you hope to champion?
Unemployment is quite possibly the biggest issue for many people here. Tory policies from the 80’s are still being felt some 40 years later. The previous Labour government was so incompetent that they just made things worse with their constant interference in the economy. With the government switching back to Conservative and now possibly looking like another Labour government again, the people of this constituency are simply being played like a ball in a game of tennis, smacked around the political court with no hope of winning. That’s where Reform come in. Get rid of the incompetent two and move this democracy forward once more.
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
In Scotland especially, we still have a lot of ground to cover. I’m only one man after all so I cannot get around to speaking and meeting everyone. Reform is that breath of fresh air needed to revitalise the country’s stale economic outlook. Join the growing list of members who are frustrated with the status quo and help in any way that you can. You can also follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/StephenMcLbrtrn or find Reform UK at https://www.reformparty.uk/.
In November we held our 3rd My tuppenceworth event giving you the opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you.
Crispin Williams spoke on House of Lords Reform and his speech is below.
“it is the only upper house of any parliament in the world to be bigger than its lower house; and it is the world’s second largest legislative chamber after the National People’s Congress of China”
There is fairly general agreement that the House of Lords is in need of reform. It currently has more members (785) than there are physical seats in the chamber; it is the only upper house of any parliament in the world to be bigger than its lower house; and it is the world’s second largest legislative chamber after the National People’s Congress of China. Many peers either rarely attend or just turn up to collect their attendance allowance.
Furthermore, there has been a tendency in recent years to make an increasing number of political appointments to the Lords, often by ‘promoting’ MPs who have lost their seats or rewarding party advisers.
“even if affiliated to a political party, Lords may express personal views without fear of losing their seat and, in fact, often speak out against party lines. I cannot express too strongly the importance of this independence from the politics of the lower chamber”
The purpose of the House of Lords is – or at least should be – as a scrutinising and revising chamber that looks dispassionately at legislation passed by the Commons, often hurriedly and for political expediency, to ensure that it is logical, workable, and fair. This should be done without the constraints of party whips. The growth in the number of overtly political Lords threatens this independence. Nevertheless, even if affiliated to a political party, Lords may express personal views without fear of losing their seat and, in fact, often speak out against party lines. I cannot express too strongly the importance of this independence from the politics of the lower chamber.
I am, therefore, vehemently against an elected House. This would almost certainly just reflect the composition of the Commons, making the Lords even more political and it would inevitably lead to legislation passed by the Commons being nodded through at the behest of the whips. In short, an elected Lords would negate the very reasons for its existence.
“I would argue that its role as a scrutinising and moderating body is essential. To achieve this role satisfactorily, the Lords should be populated with the ‘great and the good’”
There are those who would welcome the abolition of the Lords altogether, but I would argue that its role as a scrutinising and moderating body is essential. To achieve this role satisfactorily, the Lords should be populated with the ‘great and the good’, i.e., people with experience, expertise and intelligence, not just failed MPs, party donors and spotty, brown-nosing ex-SPADS (special advisers).
“This committee would be composed of people in leading positions in public life but nominated by the position they hold, not by personality. Thus, the holders of specific posts would automatically have a say in selection, whoever they may be”
My suggestion is for members of the House of Lords to be selected by an appointments committee. This committee would be composed of people in leading positions in public life but nominated by the position they hold, not by personality. Thus, the holders of specific posts would automatically have a say in selection, whoever they may be.
Below I give some examples of the kind of positions that might comprise the appointment committee. As I say, these are just examples and there can be much further debate as to the final choice.
The Prime Minister and, say, two leading cabinet positions
The Leader of the Opposition and one other Shadow Cabinet member
The Leader of any other party with a given number of seats in the Commons
The Speaker of the House of Commons
The Speaker of the House of Lords
The First Minister of Scotland
The First Minister of Wales
The Mayor of London
The Archbishop of Canterbury
The Prince of Wales
The Governor of the Bank of England
The General Secretary of the TUC
The Director-General of the CBI
The Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality
The Chair of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes
Each of these committee members would be free to put forward nominations for seats in the House of Lords. Nominations could also come from the public via a mechanism whereby anyone reaching a particular threshold would be put forward to the appointments committee.
This would lead to a House of high-quality people being elected by a committee with balanced views. Clearly, some of the above might also be Lords themselves.
This revised House of Lords would comprise 250 members, re-appointed on a staggered 10-year basis, with no restriction on the number of times a member could be re-appointed.
In November we held our 3rd My tuppenceworth event giving you the opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you.
Mike Swadling gave an update on Croydon Council and his speech is below.
“Croydon is 29th on the list of highest real terms increase at 114%. We are paying well over double the real terms rate we were 1993″
We are the Croydon Constitutionalists. Constitutionalists signifies that we believe in the principles of English constitutional government through electoral politics, and the Croydon part is self-evident we are a local organisation. So, 18 months into a new Croydon council led by a new executive mayor what’s happening in our town?
Firstly, let’s take a little step back in time. The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) has published data showing that of the 450 local authorities that have continually existed since the Council Tax was first introduced in 1993, Croydon is 29th on the list of highest real terms increase at 114%. We are paying well over double the real terms rate we were 1993. We are still de facto bankrupt and we are paying through the nose for it.
“Croydon was one of 47 councils, about 10%, who failed to submit accounts on time. I get that this is doing less, but can it really be called better?”
In an interview in August Croydon’s chief executive, Katherine Kerswell, gave some encouraging words when she said: “Our ambition is to become an efficient council – to deliver essential services well, offer value for money, to listen to the people of Croydon, and simply do what we say we will do. So how do we get there? We must do less, better”
Fine words, but what have we seen in practice. To quote: “Croydon council in South London paid 21 staff six-figure salaries last year. Its top earner was chief executive Katherine Kerswell on £192,474.”
I took this information from a June article in the Daily Express. Not able to take it from the TPA’s Town Hall Rich list report as Croydon was one of 47 councils, about 10%, who failed to submit accounts on time. I get that this is doing less, but can it really be called better?
I tried to verify this data on the council’s website as I should be able to. If anyone cares to search it and can find a decent list, please send me the link. Eventually I found a list of job titles listed in an unclear format in a PDF file on the site which is I suppose meeting their statutory requirement.
Again, I get that this is Croydon Council doing less but is it really doing it better? Worse still whist 21 is down on the 29 roles paid over £100K the council had last year; it is up on the 19 roles the year before. Last year was a year of transition and I believe not all these roles overlapped, so it appears, and the lack of clear publications make this hard to see, that top end spending at the council is back on the increase.
“spending public funds on arts that are not viable commercially or via voluntary donations as the council has been doing for years, is no less of a waste of money when it comes from someone else’s funding stream”
Croydon is the London Borough of Culture for 2023. As part of this they are committed to spending £522,500 in 2022/23, and £452,500 in 2023/24. Additionally, £1,350,000 will come from the GLA, and £1,900,000 is expected from Arts Council England and National Lottery Heritage.
I believe spending public funds on arts that are not viable commercially or via voluntary donations as the council has been doing for years, is no less of a waste of money when it comes from someone else’s funding stream.
“Of the £623,000 spent on the London Borough of Culture in that time, £34K went to Redacted, what are they hiding from us?”
As part of this in the last 4 months Croydon Council has published figures of Borough of Culture spending which include £113K that went to Think Events (London) Ltd, £75K went to Stanley Arts, £67K to White Label Publishing Ltd, £42K to Theatre – Rites, and £39K to London Mozart Players, I could go on and on. Of the £623,000 spent on the London Borough of Culture in that time, £34K went to Redacted, what are they hiding from us?
“in 4 months £623,000 of taxpayers’ money spent not feeding needy families, not boosting our town centre, not providing social services for the most vulnerable, but on painted Giraffes and non-commercially viable arts”
May I remind you this is in the last 4 months that data has been published for, May to July. This is 4 months, not one year, not over the two-year programme. That is in 4 months £623,000 of taxpayers’ money spent not feeding needy families, not boosting our town centre, not providing social services for the most vulnerable, but on painted Giraffes and non-commercially viable arts.
Yes, things are better than 18 months ago. We are no longer haemorrhaging money through Brick by Brick, and we are slowly unwinding the commercial property failures of the last administration. But when it comes to transparency and wise use of public funds, it’s hard to argue they are doing things better at Croydon Council.
In November we held our 3rd My tuppenceworth event giving you the opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you.
Mike Swadling spoke on the issue of housing and his speech is below.
“with so much of our housing stock built between the wars it’s seems likely the number of homes in need of replacement will increase rapidly in the next couple of decades”
At the recent Battle of Ideas, I attended a panel on ‘Housing Britain: Yimbys vs Nimbys’. For a contentious topic there was a surprising degree of unanimity among the panel and audience on the need to build, and even what to build. Most disagreement came on the process of how to get it done.
I am firmly of the belief we need to build housing, and we need to build lots of it. There is a general consensus to meet current levels of demand we need to build around 300,000 new homes per year. In 2022 we built 232,000 new homes.
In checking the data for this I found numbers for new build and net new homes seemingly used interchangeably. This may be in part because of property conversions, but clearly these are not the same thing. However, it does strike me that with so much of our housing stock built between the wars it’s seems likely the number of homes in need of replacement will increase rapidly in the next couple of decades.
All this has led to a growing number of concealed households”, now believed to total 1.6 million potential households of people who would like to be in their own home but can’t because of shortages. We are believed to have about 260,000 long-term empty homes in England but even if somehow these were magically all brought back into use they would solve little of the overall problem. Even second home ownership lies at about 3% and is little changed in decades.
Whatever the reasons behind it, we have a problem today with a lack of houses. We have a problem with a younger generation feeling increasingly disengaged from our society when they can’t leave home and build their own lives. We also have a problem with rising costs for care as an increasingly aging population often face a choice between staying in their own home or being in a care home, with little suitable middle ground alternatives. In short, we need to build baby build.
“People will more willingly accept hosing built in their area if they believe we have control of our borders and if local people from the community the homes are built in are given priority”
Necessary Pre-requisites
There are however some necessary prerequisites to oversee a largescale increase in housebuilding. People need to believe these are houses for their families, their community, not just to be brought by overseas property speculators or used to house the worlds migrants coming to our shores. People will more willingly accept hosing built in their area if they believe we have control of our borders and if local people from the community the homes are built in are given priority to fill them.
“At the battle of ideas panel on housing one member of the audience was simultaneously praising the green belt and complaining about the intensification of building in the city”
At the battle of ideas panel on housing one member of the audience was simultaneously praising the green belt and complaining about the intensification of building in the city. As someone who lives on the doorstep of the green belt and has seen 157 flats go up next to my home, I can’t help but wonder if one or two of the farmers’ fields in the green belt near me could be used to provide 157 houses rather than have flats built on what was my town’s main car park.
Don’t worry about us running out of land, it would take about 5 football pitches to build 157 homes at 4 bedrooms (these flats are not 4 bedrooms), that would use 7 of the 17.2 million hectares of farmland we have in the UK. (This would provide 385 million homes, with currently about 30million in the UK).
The green belt lovely though it maybe, ensures we live in ever more crowded cities, rather than expand them as the need for housing expands. We are in Croydon, a Surrey market town built out to accommodate the expanding population of London, why are we insisting that future generations live in ever more cramped environments rather than in new suburbs or towns further out.
“Can anyone cite examples where cramping people into tighter spaces gives good outcomes?”
Can anyone cite examples where cramping people into tighter spaces gives good outcomes? A hundred years ago we were clearing out the slums. The high rise post war blocks of flats were generally seen as a disaster in my youth. I wonder why we are intent on recreating them.
What to do
So, what are we to do? I say we need to build bigger, build beautiful, build better, and build for everyone. What would this mean in practice.
Build beautiful – At last year’s Battle of Ideas, Ike Ijeh the architect, and 2019 Brexit Party candidate, spoke about how he had seen developers have success getting acceptance from the local community for new builds through well laid out design. Beautiful well laid out communities, which could well include a mixture of flats and houses are more likely to be approved than throwing another box of 9 flats on a previous 1 home plot.
“We all benefit from better high-end homes; we all get the chance to move up the market and we will free up what used to be called starter homes”
Build bigger – I was impressed by an article I read last year on ‘how building expensive homes can help people on low incomes’. The article proposes we should focus on building more £5million homes rather than £120,000 ones. To quote the article “adding homes that are better quality than the existing stock allows people to move out of the existing stock into better homes, and frees up existing stock for suppressed households.” We all benefit from better high-end homes; we all get the chance to move up the market and we will free up what used to be called starter homes. Few communities would object to an estate of £5million homes being build on the edge of town, and few property developers would sit on this planning permission.
Build better – We need to build new estates with services, shops, schools, transport, and things that people want. We can’t build just based on environmentalist dreamlands, where someone after a hard day’s work will somehow pick-up the kids from the childminder and pop to the shops on a push bike.
We are not going to build everything we need just on the edge of cities and as much as I don’t believe it should be sacred the green belt has a purpose. After the war we built new towns in Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, Welwyn Garden City, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Northampton, and many other places. These might not make it to your bucket list of destinations to visit but they are good places for work and to raise families.
“Coming into land at Gatwick airport on a sunny day you can see from Croydon to Brighton and view the miles of greenery in between”
Local to us Crawley houses 118,500 people. Coming into land at Gatwick airport on a sunny day you can see from Croydon to Brighton and view the miles of greenery in between. Only the airport and Crawley stand out as major developments. 3 more airports and Crawley’s in the view and it would still be overwhelmingly green, 6 more and you would still think you are viewing the countryside. We could build 2 more Crawley’s in the area of the A22 to A24 corridors and hardly notice.
Croydon has a 10 year housing target from the Mayor of London of 20,790 new homes (2019 – 2028). This on top of the thousands of new homes already built in the borough in recent years. One new Crawley built with the industrial estates, shopping centres, office blocks, schools, doctors and everything else needed to form a community could at this rate supply 60 years of growth needed in Croydon and over a third of our annual UK wide rate of new homes growth.
“with about a quarter of the country having less than £500 worth of savings it is reasonable to assume many will never buy their own home”
Build for everyone – There are not many times I believe government can help, but I increasingly believe we need to build more social housing, and government will need to play a part in this. As someone who was born into the Regina Road Estate council blocks now being pulled down by Croydon Council, I have little faith in their ability to provide property. However, with about a quarter of the country having less than £500 worth of savings it is reasonable to assume many will never buy their own home. We can argue how much government provided housing is needed, who should run it and what right to buy schemes we should have. But, we do need to provide something for the taxpayer and for renters that is not just busting budgets to pay for private rents.
“Why not offer what I might call free ports of housing. Designated areas with council tax holidays for new development or major upgrades to a generation of remote workers keen to get on the housing ladder, encouraged to less fashionable parts of the country”
Some of the problems I have described are local or they are a southeast problem. We have a whole country much of which is not so expensive to live in and could do with attracting more young people. Why not offer what I might call free ports of housing. Designated areas with council tax holidays for new development or major upgrades to a generation of remote workers keen to get on the housing ladder, encouraged to less fashionable parts of the country by an influx of similar people and tax breaks. Let’s level up the country by helping to spread the wealth and helping people better their lives.
We build properties not just for now but for use 100 years from now, we have a changing population, with greater demand and desires. Why not build better, bigger homes, why not let people have second homes, whilst also catering for those who need help. We have the land let’s make use of it, whilst also encouraging people to move across the country. This does require some government action but is best achieved by them laying foundations and then getting out of the way whilst we build baby build.
Join us for a live interview and Q&A with Tony Brown Libertarian Party Candidate for Mayor of London on Wednesday 17th January at 7pm.
The Libertarian Party advocate for individual rights, non-interventionism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the constraint of government size and influence.
Venue:
Upstairs, Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF
Part of our #ThirdWednesday drinks and events, we hold these in association with Dick Delingpole’s #ThirdWednesday Libertarian drinks club, and POLITICS in PUBS a group of people from across the political spectrum who value the freedom to question and to speak openly.
Join usUpstairs, Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF on Wednesday 17th January, from 7pm.
Come and meet-up with likeminded freedom lovers, at our Christmas #ThirdWednesday drinks at Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF, from 7pm.
Held as part of our regular #ThirdWednesday drinks, we hold these in association with Dick Delingpole’s #ThirdWednesday Libertarian drinks club, and POLITICS in PUBS a group of people from across the political spectrum who value the freedom to question and to speak openly.
It the spirt of Christmas we have a prize book to give away to one lucky attendee of Christmas drinks. To spread the news of freedom to the next generation we are giving away a copy of the book ‘Johnny Profit: Bedtime stories about Capitalism’. The book “bucks convention and takes the labels of guilt and greed out of honest profit making. It shows kids the value of mutually beneficial exchange and the pursuit of wealth.” One name will be drawn at random on the night, to use this as a possible gift for the upcoming celebration.
Join us at Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF on Wednesday 20th December, from 7pm.
“The Voice referendum result has been described as Australia’s Brexit moment, with the referendum backed by the metropolitan elite and major institutions being thoroughly rejected by the people”
I happened to be in Sydney Australia for October’s ‘Indigenous Voice referendum’. Whilst my focus was mainly on glorious views of Sydney Harbour and sampling a few schooners worth of the local brew, I did notice the election campaign going on around me.
The Voice referendum result has been described as Australia’s Brexit moment, with the referendum backed by the metropolitan elite and major institutions being thoroughly rejected by the people. I’m not best placed to write about the issues at play and the referendum result, but rather what I observed in Australia during the campaign and just after the results were in. For more on Australian politics, I would recommend following Helen Dale, and you can read her here on ‘Why Australia’s Voice vote failed’.
Maybe this is the way of the modern world, but whilst in Sydney I probably saw more about the Voice referendum on my phone from international social media and political web sites, than on the streets, in conversation or watching the local TV news. Ordinary Australians just didn’t seem that bothered by the vote. Now this may be because in past 120 years Australia has already had 45 referendums (for constitutional changes) and 4 plebiscites (for non-constitutional issues). Also, with compulsory voting there is no need for the ‘Get out the vote’ (GOTV) campaigns we see here.
“The Yes campaigners outnumbered No’s considerably, but there were good natured interactions between both, some of whom were chatting, and both occupied the same area to hand out leaflets”
This is not to say the referendum wasn’t spoken about or campaigned on. Getting off the ferry at Manly Wharf I saw a dozen or so campaigners from both sides handing out leaflets to those on their way to the famous beach. The Yes campaigners outnumbered No’s considerably, but there were good natured interactions between both, some of whom were chatting, and both occupied the same area to hand out leaflets. Having done many a street stall and leafleting session in the UK I can say generally opposing parties or sides would be civil and occasionally friendly. Civility is however generally maintained by having a respectful distance between both (or multiple) groups, and where occasionally needed, calming down more excitable participants.
“The suburban Sydneysiders of all ages I spoke with were voting No in the referendum, which seemed a statistical anomaly until the results came in”
This contrasted with the media representation of a nation divided. Much like in our EU Referendum many in the media had decided only a Yes vote was acceptable and somehow even contemplating a No vote was beyond the pale (an example here from our ever even-handed and impartial BBC). Whilst famously plain spoken, it was noticeable that older Australians with little to lose were much more vocally critical of referendum proposals than those in middle age, and with teenage children. As one explained “ahh they keep correcting what I say, they get brainwashed with this stuff at school”. The suburban Sydneysiders of all ages I spoke with were voting No in the referendum, which seemed a statistical anomaly until the results came in.
“for most of the week leading up to the referendum the main political activity I saw in the area was for the ‘Don’t Block The Rocks!’ campaign against proposed harbourside development”
The whole referendum didn’t feel like a big a deal on the ground as it did in the media. Staying in The Rocks, an area sandwiched between Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Central Business District, with great views, and average ‘unit’ prices of over AU$2million (~£1million), I was in what should be the passionate centre of Yes voters. Indeed, in a site unusual for us in the UK, on voting day the local polling station was engulfed in Yes campaign posters. However, for most of the week leading up to the referendum the main political activity I saw in the area was for the ‘Don’t Block The Rocks!’ campaign against proposed harbourside development. Even at a 21st Birthday party on the day of polling none of the young guests appeared to be talking about the vote.
“The next day Australians just seemed to get on with their lives as much unaffected by the result as I found them to be unbothered by the vote in the first place”
Ultimately Australians are just not as woke as their elites would like them to be. Even in The Rocks, the heart of young metropolitan culture two of the major pubs are called ‘The Lord Nelson Brewery Hotel’ and ‘The Hero of Waterloo Hotel’, both of which are covered with suitable patriotic décor. The results came in and 60% rejected the referendum proposals. The maps in The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) below show how the Yes vote won in all the city central areas you might expect, with limited support beyond. The next day Australians just seemed to get on with their lives as much unaffected by the result as I found them to be unbothered by the vote in the first place.
“I voted to stay in the EU in 1975 but two years later came to the conclusion it was a huge mistake. I thought it would be a trading organisation but soon discovered it had a political agenda”
Can you briefly introduce yourself to our readers.
My name is Tony Love and I live in Felixstowe, next to Ipswich, with my long term partner. I have three children
I voted to stay in the EU in 1975, but two years later came to the conclusion that it was a huge mistake. I thought it would be a trading organisation, but soon discovered it had a political agenda; the breakdown of the nation state and their borders, which would lead to the breakdown of our cultural identities and eventually our communities. It is true that for the next forty years I bored everybody I met trying to explain why we should leave.
I was a bookmaker for thirty years on the Surrey/Hampshire borders. On the night of the Referendum I sat down to watch David Dimbleby, expecting that we would vote to stay in the EU. Forty years and I would now have to shut up! The good news is we voted to leave, the bad news is it cost me £10,000 in my betting shops, paying out on bets taken that day to Leave at 9/1.
“The biggest ever infringement of our civil liberties occurred during the Covid Lockdown with the Labour Party wanting to be more draconian than the Government”
What made you decide to stand for Reform UK?
I watched the lunacy in the House of Commons as the politicians strove to overthrow the biggest ever constitutional vote ever in our country. I watched as John Bercow attempted a coup of our Parliament. My partner kept telling me to stop moaning and do something about it if I felt so passionately, so I did, I was the candidate for the Brexit Party in Suffolk Coastal in the 2019 election. Nigel Farage then stood us down to assist Boris Johnson who promised to achieve Brexit, but I had made too many promises that I would stand and so continued as an Independent.
The biggest ever infringement of our civil liberties occurred during the Covid Lockdown with the Labour Party wanting to be more draconian than the Government. The vile coercion used by Parliament to make us comply, let alone the restriction on freedom of speech, travel, familial relations etc. beggared belief.
I have also watched this Conservative Government lie barefaced about its promises to keep immigration in the tens of thousands. They have been complicit in the cultural destruction of our cities and towns by allowing huge numbers to legally enter our country, over 600,000 net last year. Illegal immigration last year was 52,000 and that was only those we know about.
The people of Ipswich have lost cultural identity, their community, and their town, with many feeling intimidated in the town centre and most certainly in the evenings. The town is dying, shoplifting by gangs and individuals is rampant, businesses are leaving, and the police are ineffective.
“We are against Net Zero, 15-minute neighbourhoods and ULEZ which are being imposed against majority opinion. We intend to be the voice of the silent majority”
Richard Tice, the party leader of Reform, has financially enabled the Party to survive these past four years, and it now stands alone in offering a real option to those who feel disenfranchised. I was not going to be politically involved again as I felt I had done my bit, but the so very sad situation in this country has changed my mind. I have decided to stand up for the people of Ipswich in my neighbouring constituency.
The Reform party is beginning to gain traction. We are not against migration as we are a nation that has always welcomed and then benefited from migration. But we are against unfettered migration, and most certainly illegal migration. We are for the principles of democracy that our present political incumbents think they can ignore. We are for the rights of the individual, which are being obliterated by international organisations. We are against Net Zero, 15-minute neighbourhoods and ULEZ, which are being imposed against majority opinion. We intend to be the voice of the silent majority, the people who know something has gone badly wrong and need someone to vote for.
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
At a local level Reform Ipswich can be contacted through our website – reformukipswich.com, and followed on Twitter.
At a national level Reform can be contacted through our website – reform party.uk.
For the second year I attended the Battle of Ideas Festival from the Academy of Ideas. Held in Church House near Westminster Abbey the event hosts almost 100 panels, interviews, and discussions on a range of topics on Free Speech, The Economy, Technology and Science, Education, Housing, Arts, and other political and moral issues. Up to 10 panels are held at any one time and you often need to arrive early to get into the one you want. With so much going on there is always a discussion with free space, that you will be happy to see.
The director of the Academy of Ideas is Baroness Claire Fox, the commentator and former Brexit Party MEP. Other key figures in the Academy include former podcast guest Alastair Donald, and Spiked columnist Ella Whelan. The great guests on the panels are too numerous to mention but some personal highlights included seeing local man and GB News regular James Woudhuysen, former Podcast guests Harry Wilkinson and Dominic Frisby, commentator Helen Dale in the audience and former Croydon teacher and resident Francis Foster of Triggernometry.
The event isn’t just the panels, around the events were stalls from the SDP, Reform UK, the Free Speech Union, Don’t Divide Us, #Together, and especially pleasing to see our new associates Politics in Pubs who received a well-deserved shout out from the main stage by Claire Fox when encouraging people to create their own forums for free speech.
Pro-noun elite and California values
The panels were at times light on opposing views as so many commentators from what was once the liberal left refused to engage. But this did lead to lots of sound comments like references to the Pro-noun elite and those having California values. That didn’t mean there wasn’t plenty of disagreement, as I saw in a fascinating debate on housing. How and where do we get housing built, and some of the practical problems of the Town and Country Planning act were heatedly discussed.
Some highlights for me were a panel of comedians reminding us to laugh at the things we think are a threat, and attending the live recording of Spiked’s Last Orders anti nanny state podcast with Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs.
Perhaps my favorite sessions were on ‘Understanding Modi’s India’ and ‘Schools: The Great Expulsion Debate’. Modi’s India was an interesting and useful session on the world’s largest democracy and most populous country. The panel included Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert of Don’t Divide Us, and spoke about among other things, India’s 1937 elections and ‘Toilets before Temples’. The Expulsion Debate included Lord Tony Sewell of Sanderstead on the panel. The debate covered the high rates of Special Needs (SEN) pupil expulsions and how we combat this, and Dr Sewell spoke about varying expulsion rates across the country and how schools can set up to reduce the need to expel pupils.
An overall fascinating event I would encourage anyone to sign up for information on future Academy of Ideas events, and if they can, to attend next year’s Battle.
