Category: Mike Swadling

Into Battle

By Mike Swadling

One of the many things that surprised me during the Brexit campaign was the extent to which old political divisions were rearranged and formed into new constitutional and cultural groupings.  I had always enjoyed listening to Claire, now Baroness Fox on the Moral Maze, and in various TV appearances, but I had never expected to find myself agreeing with her as much as I have over the last 6 years.

Aside from being sound on Brexit, Claire Fox is the director of the Academy of Ideas.  Alastair Donald, the Associate Director of the Academy spoke at our first My Tuppenceworth event about the risks to freedom from identity politics, and also appeared on our Podcast. The Academy “has been committed to organising free and open public debates for over 20 years”, and one of these debates is the Battle of Ideas.

The Battle of Ideas or #BattleFest as it’s known on social media holds events around Europe and the UK with major events in Buxton and London.  I attended the Sunday of the London event in mid-October, and frankly can’t wait to go back.

The format of the day was set around panels of 4-6 people discussing topics such as ‘Age of ‘ISMS’: What happened to ideology?’, ‘Climate Emergency: Catastrophe or Catastrophising?’ and ‘How do we solve the housing crisis?’, with a scattering of lectures thrown in.  Up to 10 panels are run concurrently and for the most popular sessions you need to arrive early.  In addition around the main conference hall were a series of stalls from among others, the Free Speech Union, and the Reform Party.

“I picked my choices for sessions to attend based on a mixture of the topic and those on the panels, taking advantage of the opportunity to see Rod Liddle, Shaun Bailey, and Christopher Snowdon”

I picked my choices for sessions to attend based on a mixture of the topic and those on the panels, taking advantage of the opportunity to see Rod Liddle, Shaun Bailey, and Christopher Snowdon.  The day also afforded the opportunity to catch-up with a few people I know.  The panel discussions felt fairly informal, with a mix of views across the panellists.  Even where they differed the conversations were polite and mostly very friendly.  Audience participation was a major part of the day with plenty of time for people to ask questions.  As someone who has run Q&As from a large crowd it was a fascination for me to see the mastery with which the panel chair’s managed to generally keep questions as questions, rather than speeches, and move the discussion along.

The crowds were largely what regular readers of this website might call sound, and of a cultural libertarian bent, although a range of views were present.  Given the views of most attendees a special congratulations need to go to the panellists who, so rarely for today, came willing to speak to a crowd who weren’t on side. 

“Hearing from an architect on the panel how building well designed attractive houses generally overcomes local planning objections was especially interesting and rang true in my local area.”

My personal favourite session was on housing, where frankly I haven’t made up my mind on how we meet the desires of local communities to keep their character, verses how we build the new houses we need.  Hearing from an architect on the panel how building well designed attractive houses generally overcomes local planning objections was especially interesting and rang true in my local area.  In the suburban area I live, the objections to new houses are far lower than the objections to yet more flats.

An all-round great event with lots you can agree with, some things to challenge you, and lots to make you think. Checkout their website for upcoming events.  I look forward to attending both days in London next year. 

Video’s from the day can be found at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUJGOCM8cUJnVjZwlSACrNQUrO14O41lJ

Have they never heard of the Laffer Curve?

Photo by The original uploader was Blakwolf at Italian Wikipedia. – Transferred from it.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY 2.5

First published in February Mike Swadling writes about the Laffer Curve.  It felt for a short while under Liz Trust and Kwasi Kwarteng as if the Conservatives had rediscovered the problem with high taxes, but alas no more.  Once again, we are back in the situation described by Winston Churchill as “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

“The curve shows that at a 0% tax rate no income is raised, similarly at a 100% tax rate no income is raised, as no one would work to pay all the earning to government.  Somewhere in between is a tax rate that maximises revenue for government”

Johnny Leavesley the former Conservative Party treasurer party donor, in an article in the Telegraph asked of the Government “Have they never heard of the Laffer Curve?”.  You have to wonder.  Surely a Conservative government, a Conservative government would have heard of the Laffer Curve, but alas it appears not. This is a government that has increased corporation tax and is increasing National Insurance rates.  Do they really believe this will raise more money?

Whilst it is unlikely anyone reading Free Speech is unaware of the Laffer Curve it is maybe worth just noting what it is in case anyone from the government is reading. Named after Arthur Laffer, the Laffer Curve illustrates the relationship between the rate of taxation and the resulting government revenue.  The curve shows that at a 0% tax rate no income is raised, similarly at a 100% tax rate no income is raised, as no one would work to pay all the earning to government.  Somewhere in between is a tax rate that maximises revenue for government.

Separate to a moral case for keeping more of your own income, even if you believe in a high spending government, higher tax rates make no sense.  People often assume the higher the tax rate, the higher the tax take but this is not the case.  As a little thought experiment do you believe more income would be raised with an 80% tax rate or 20% tax rate?  If you think of your own circumstances, it’s likely that at a 80% tax rate it would not be worth your while working in your current role.  It is quite possible you would look for cash in hand work and you certainly wouldn’t be looking to take on more hours in a role taxing you at 80%.  Whereas at a 20% tax rate is possibly less than you pay today.  You might be tempted to work more hours or take on a more stressful but rewarding role knowing you get to keep more of your money.

“Strangely none of us could remember the Minister or the Senior Civil Servant coming in to help us with our work at the weekend, but somehow, they were always there to help us with the income for it.”

My own experience with the Laffer Curve came some years ago working with a team of engineers who were all approaching a new higher tax bracket.  Much of our work involved weekend overtime and everyone’s hand would shoot up at first opportunity to work a lucrative Saturday.  Then suddenly our incomes that year had breached the threshold, we noticed we were no longer taking home the lion share of our income for the weekend, instead it was split fairly evenly with government.  Strangely none of us could remember the Minister or the Senior Civil Servant coming in to help us with our work at the weekend, but somehow, they were always there to help us with the income for it. From that point onwards finding someone to cover a weekend became increasingly difficult, and ‘bribery’ in the form of overtime no longer automatically worked.

The great mistake people often make is to forget that working itself is a cost, the cost is your free time, your energy, time not spent with your family or friends.  This all has to be weighed up against the rewards you receive for working.   This is equally true for businesses, setting up a business requires an investment of money and energy. Many people set up businesses in areas they’d already worked and where they could already draw decent income. When you take on the risk and extra effort of running your own business you need to see the extra reward.  What feels like a small increase in corporation tax maybe the difference from someone starting their own enterprise, employing people, and creating value or staying in a role they have today and letting somebody else hold the risk.

Nevertheless, the government seems committed to the idea that raising tax rates will raise the revenue needed so recover from the economic armageddon of lockdown.  Prior to the pandemic the UK government had been spending just over 39% of GDP, it shoots up to over 52% last year and is likely to remain over 40% for some years to come.  What does the government know that we don’t, and why do they think increased tax rates will somehow help?

“The basic rate income has been as high as 35% and as low as 20%.  The top rate has been as high as 83% and as ‘low’ as 40%.  Yet the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never exceeded 37.5% of GDP.”

Since the 1970s tax receipts have never exceed 38% of GDP, mostly that have hovered around 35%.  In this time, we have had governments of Labour, Conservative, LibLab Pacts, Conservative Liberal coalitions, the UUP prop up James Callahan, and the DUP prop up Theresa May.

The basic rate income has been as high as 35% and as low as 20%.  The top rate has been as high as 83% and as ‘low’ as 40%.  Yet the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never exceeded 37.5% of GDP.

Higher tax rates don’t increase tax revenue, something this government has clearly never heard of.

This article was first published in the Blacklist Press Free Speech newsletter.

Incentives – How the fiscal statement will change behaviour

Image by Stefan Schweihofer from Pixabay

“why do we think that “changing the incentives will in no way change behaviour”?”

The September 2022 fiscal statement from Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, is proving controversial for among other reasons, the ‘cost’ of the tax cuts it contains.  For a tax cut to be a ‘cost’ you need to make a couple of assumptions, that (1) allowing people to keep their own money is a ‘cost’, and (2) that changing the incentives will in no way change people’s behaviour.

To tackle the first point that “allowing people to keep their own money is a ‘cost’”.  If last month you worked some overtime and say earned an extra £300, but this month you didn’t have the same opportunity to work the overtime, would you say your costs had gone up by £300?  Of course not, no one would say that.  Most January’s many businesses will put on sales often cutting prices by a third or more.  Do we refer to these price cuts as an increase in costs?  Do the price cuts get added as Expenditure to the company’s accounts?  For both personal and business expenditure we see reduced revenue as just that, reduced revenue, not a new or increased cost.  Many people don’t particularly want to work overtime, valuing free time more than the money they earn from extra work.  In the case of businesses, we don’t bemoan the cost of reduced prices, we see this as an opportunity for the business to get rid of old stock, gain market share, or simply get more sales.  Reduced prices provide an incentive that changes the behaviour of consumers.  So why do we refer to changes in tax rates as a cost?  And to the second point above, why do we think that “changing the incentives will in no way change behaviour”?

Why do sin taxes exist if not in part to disincentivise people from undertaking the sin? 

I have written before about the Laffer Curve (Blacklist Press), (Croydon Constitutionalists), the theory that cutting tax rates can result in increased total tax revenue, but even if you are sceptical of this, we all know taxes change incentives.  Why do sin taxes exist if not in part to disincentivise people from undertaking the sin?  Why are ISAs tax-free if not to encourage savings?  Why does the government offer businesses R&D tax relief if not to encourage more Research and Development?

“It might be fair to say these changes are not incentive enough to make up for the reduced revenue of the tax cuts (I would disagree) but it is not reasonable to argue that there is no change to behaviour”

Clearly cutting taxes will impact the behaviour of people.  Lower National Insurance rates incentivises employment, lower taxes on profits incentivises business investment, and lower taxes on income incentivises both increased work and releasing invested funds for personal use.  It might be fair to say these changes are not incentive enough to make up for the reduced revenue of the tax cuts (I would disagree) but it is not reasonable to argue that there is no change to behaviour as a result of these changes.

The government didn’t just change tax rates in the budget fiscal statement.  We heard about changes both to the Inland Revenue rules known as IR35, and the cap on bankers’ bonuses.  Wikipedia refers to IR35 as “anti-avoidance tax legislation designed to tax ‘disguised’ employment at a rate similar to employment”.  First introduced in April 2000, the rules have changed over the years, with the latest change being to repeal the 2017 and 2021 reforms. 

“The naïve assumption behind IR35 is that by changing the tax rules for contractors, you will simply earn the same gross pay and pay more tax, receiving less net pay.  Of course, this is nonsense”

IR35 was trying to stop people filling basically the same role, from being taxed differently based on how they are employed.  This sounds reasonable, except of course that how you are employed does affect your role, and in some cases means different incentives, in this case partly via taxes, should apply.  I have worked in the same industry as an employee, what is referred to as Inside IR35 (in effect agency staff), and Outside IR35 (via a limited company) often referred to as a contractor.  The naïve assumption behind IR35 is that by changing the tax rules for contractors, you will simply earn the same gross pay and pay more tax, receiving less net pay.  Of course, this is nonsense.  Being a contractor comes with additional risks and costs, you really need an accountant, you invariably need to take out additional insurances, and a private pension.  You tend to change role frequently as companies only want you on the books for peak demand, and your lack of security of tenure both provides an incentive to be productive and means you tend to have a good buffer of savings for those periods when you are not earning. 

You might wonder, why anyone would be a contractor with all these downsides?  Well of course it’s because you are incentivised by earning more.  These earnings are both in gross pay (invoices into your limited company) and net pay (working via a company being more tax efficient).  When the Inland Revenue changed these incentives, did they see lots of people stay as they were and simply pay more tax?  No of course not, change the incentives and people move.  The costs and risks stayed high, but rewards reduced, so guess what, people moved to lower risk roles.  It’s not clear to me that the government has ever made more or less money when I have been employed via any of the different methods available.  But what is clear is that the economy has lost flexibility in its labour force, business savings, purchasing of goods and services, charity donations and productivity, when I and others like me simply don’t have the money or the incentives needed for these.

“Over the same period salaries improved to retain and recruit staff in a competitive IT market.  Total reward didn’t change much but the incentive structure did”

Lastly, bankers’ bonuses are not a subject likely to draw huge amounts of sympathy.  But that doesn’t mean private enterprise shouldn’t be able to pay people via the incentive method they believe is best suited for the role.  I worked in banking during the financial crisis and saw my bonus structure change and total bonus reduce.  I should say I worked for a retail bank in the IT department, so the sums involved were far away from those being earned by city traders, but to me and my colleagues they mattered.  Over the same period salaries improved to retain and recruit staff in a competitive IT market.  Total reward didn’t change much but the incentive structure did.  If you believe that moving from a pay structure that in large part rewarded outcomes, to one that mainly rewarded showing up, didn’t have an impact on productivity, we must discuss terms on that bridge I have for sale.

Removing the bankers bonus cap doesn’t increase costs or total reward, it changes the incentive.  Changes to IR35 and tax rates are not costs to government, they change the economy and provide the opportunity (they haven’t gone far enough), to develop the more dynamic high growth economy that will benefit us all.

Is this how a council is meant to function and Does democracy travel at 20mph?

In three articles from 2016 and 2017 Mike Swadling writes in the Croydon Citizen – ‘Is this how a council is meant to function?’, ‘Does democracy travel at 20mph?’ and about a local Special Needs School, St Giles.

Is this how a council is meant to function?

“Alison Butler, answered most of these questions. It is fair to say that the cabinet councillors’ answers did little to pacify the view of those that I was in the room with. This is understandable given the amazingly dismissive attitude that councillor Butler displayed”

“Two answers underlined the attitude. When asked about traffic problems, cabinet member for transport and environment councillor Stuart King didn’t know the difference between the A232 and A23”

“The whole meeting continued on this theme: we didn’t see councillors debating the issue of Croydon, instead we saw politicians point- scoring. Given the lack of local media coverage of these meetings they were mainly doing this for their own party members”

Full article: https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20190509180817/https:/thecroydoncitizen.com/politics-society/council-meant-function/

Does democracy travel at 20mph?

“The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of democracy includes the definition of “the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges”. This leads to a question – why is Croydon Council looking to have a two-tier democracy in the borough?”

“The people had a chance to respond to the opinion surveys, and they responded in favour of the 20mph speed limits. Whatever your personal view on the speed limits, believers in democracy would therefore agree that they should be implemented”

“Why are council officers, people paid by us to serve us, recommending taking away our right to a democratic process?
Why does the Labour council not consider the people of Coulsdon, Kenley, New Addington, Shirley, Waddon and other areas worthy of having the same democratic rights as the people of Thornton Heath and Addiscombe?”

Full article: https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20190509174356/https:/thecroydoncitizen.com/politics-society/democracy-20mph/

St Giles: a very special school indeed

“Croydon has six dedicated special schools and over a dozen Enhanced Learning Provision units inside mainstream schools. These schools meet a wide range of needs for pupils with profound, severe and moderate learning difficulties, autism, physical disabilities and speech and language difficulties. The six schools have between them over 700 pupils on the roll.”

Full article: https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20190509173851/https:/thecroydoncitizen.com/politics-society/st-giles-a-very-special-school-indeed/

Britain, suffering from a lack of Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain

By Mike Swadling

“I don’t feel I would have this problem if I worked for the government. I mean for starters they don’t seem to have anything that works”

I have a habit of referring to things that work as Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain.  Many of you will remember the 1990s advert that proclaimed that Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain, does exactly what it says on the tin. 

One of the challenges with this and my many other 80s/90s British TV references is that in these increasingly interconnected times the person I’m speaking to either isn’t in the U.K. or doesn’t remember most of the 90s let alone the 80s.

I don’t feel I would have this problem if I worked for the government. I mean for starters they don’t seem to have anything that works and there is certainly nothing that does exactly what it says on the tin.

“Surely, they are driving the water companies to invest more and improve services.  They must surely be imposing fines on water companies for reduced service to customers through hosepipe bans.  No, quite the opposite”

The list is endless, as I write this, we have had a drought declared in some parts of the country.  We have also seen many news stories lamenting the lack of any new reservoirs in a period the population has increased by about 10 million.  Thames Water has a desalination plant they have never used, whilst at the same time they are imposing hosepipe bans. 

With all this going on where are Ofwat the water regulator?  Where is the Environment Agency?  Surely, they are leading the fight to get people water.  Surely, they are driving the water companies to invest more and improve services.  They must surely be imposing fines on water companies for reduced service to customers through hosepipe bans.  No, quite the opposite.  Ofwat commissioned a 2018 paper “to analyse and present the options available for making deep reductions to per-capita consumption over a minimum fifty-year period”.  Water companies are far from blameless for the failure to keep a plentiful supply of water flowing, but when Thames Water did try to build a new reservoir in Oxfordshire, the Environment Agency blocked it on the grounds there was apparently no need for it.  This isn’t all that new, the 2014 flooding of the Somerset Levels, was widely blamed in part on the Environment Agency’s decision to stop dredging the rivers, something they were tasked with undertaking, for the purpose of reducing flooding. 

But it’s not just water management that doesn’t work in the UK.  The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy exists yet our island made of coal, with gas and oil reserves and an advanced nuclear power industry, is not expected to have enough power generation this winter.  Of course, as is made clear in a March statement to Parliament, the department puts every barrier in the way to fracking.  Not long before he became Deputy Prime Minister, that visionary Nick Clegg expressed his opposition to new nuclear power stations as they would take too long to come online.  Of course, the prediction had they been commissioned then is they would have come online about now, right when we need them!

Net Zero and the green agenda are in large part behind these departments working towards grand environmental plans, rather than for the benefit of taxpayers.  But it’s not just on the environment our government lacks the essence of doing what it says on the tin, take for example public health.  Public Health England before they were dissolved had some 5,000 staff, who whilst very productive at telling us how to live our lives were woefully under prepared for Covid 19.  Public Health didn’t protect the publics health, they did however lead to the shutdown of our economy and massive loss of freedom.

Failure is in all parts of our government.  Paul Lincoln the disastrous Director General of the Border Force from 2017 to 2021, described ‘bloody borders’ as ‘just such a pain in the bloody a***’.  Nationally the Police failed to solve a single theft in 84% of neighbourhoods in the past 3 years.  70% of Metropolitan Police officers didn’t make a single arrest in the past year and the RAF has seemingly stopped recruiting on ability but now recruit based on wokery.  We have a Bank of England that is charged with keeping inflation at around 2%, yet no one is losing their well-paid jobs as inflation soars above 10%.  None of these departments are Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain, they are not even close.  The departments we pay taxes for, and the regulators we rely on, are consistently working against us.

“we need some desire from government to actually act to improve the lives of the citizens of the UK.  Let’s assume for a moment the next Prime Minister ushers that in, and I’m not saying I expect them to, but it is a prerequisite”

What can be done about this?  Firstly, we need some desire from government to actually act to improve the lives of the citizens of the UK.  Let’s assume for a moment the next Prime Minister ushers that in, and I’m not saying I expect them to, but it is a prerequisite.  We need to start with a requirement government departments and quangos act to improve the standard of living of law-abiding UK citizens.

The improvements they are planning to deliver needs to be codified, and for this all-government departments at all levels need published Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or targets.  Much maligned as targets are, without them we simply have no measure of success, or even an indication of what a department is trying to achieve.  There will be problems, some departments will focus on targets to the exclusion of other activity.  Some may cook the books on the numbers, and if staff submit fraudulent data, then action should be taken.  Others will set easily achieved goals, fine, better to achieve an easy goal that benefits us, than to actively work against our interests.  We will be able to see what an area of government believes is its purpose, and what success it has in achieving that goal. 

It seems as if nothing in government works.  Let’s get back to first principles across the state, with for instance a Police force who police, a Border force who protect the borders, water regulators who believe in ensuring people have water.  And with a costs of living crisis upon us, and a few troubled years ahead, lets hope someone in government apply the principles of Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain, to provide the services we pay for.

Hey Council, leave my town alone…

My tuppenceworth speech by Mike Swadling

“I wrote in the Citizen about how plans to make Croydon a living wage borough, risks jobs at the proposed Westfield Shopping Centre, I note it has never been built”

The Licensing Act 1872 – among other things – stopped the practice of adding salt to drinks, which was originally put in beer to increase thirst and sales. This ‘improvement’ was made by the government to help us as consumers. I often think of how government intervention fails to improve things, as I pay for my own salted crisps to accompany a pint.

Words from my article for the Croydon Citizen from four years ago.  The article was extensively about how Croydon Council had destroyed the bustling night time economy of the town centre of my youth, through a series of bright ideas to “improve the town”.  These included a presumption to refuse new applications in the town centre for “premises used exclusively or primarily for the sale/supply of alcohol and/or loud amplified recorded music”.  The council was thankfully finally reversing this initiative.

When they were running, I wrote in the Citizen about how plans to make Croydon a living wage borough, risks jobs at the proposed Westfield Shopping Centre, I note it has never been built.  I also wrote about how the council spending £1.1 million on improving Surrey Street Market had led to over a 20% drop in traders.

“What business is it of mine if someone wants to build this?  What business is it of Croydon Council’s politicians or officers if someone wants to spend their sweat and treasure on building this?”

At our last My Tuppenceworth, I spoke about how we needed a Democratically Elected Mayor of Croydon, we now have one.  I now want to speak about how I implore that he and his council, leave my town, our town, alone.

We hear Westfield are once again looking to develop in Croydon.  This is great news, and something is much needed.  Now clearly the council needs to be involved in granting planning permission, and no doubt will need to weigh in on changes to roads, parking, and public transport.  They have a statutory duty to be involved in these areas, beyond that, I ask they stay well clear.

“please Croydon Council stay out of their way.  Beyond that, stop with any bright ideas, grand plans, and great initiatives”

The old Allders department store building, which before the council’s intervention had reinvented itself as a successful Village Outlet store, now has plans to become an arts venue.  The idea of a venue where you can, too quote “lose oneself in art, beyond digital culture, where we can connect in the real world, in deeper and more meaningful stories.”, frankly sounds potty to me.  But so what, I’m not their target market.  What business is it of mine if someone wants to build this?  What business is it of Croydon Council’s politicians or officers if someone wants to spend their sweat and treasure on building this?  Their initiative is to be welcomed, but please Croydon Council stay out of their way.  Beyond that, stop with any bright ideas, grand plans, and great initiatives.  I’m sure if you just get out of their way, you will find many willing to invest in our great town.

Coming together to ensure there is never another lockdown

My tuppenceworth speech by Mike Swadling

“It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.”

Solidarity, the Polish Trade Union, brought 10 million people together.  It survived a period of martial law imposed to crush it and helped bring about the downfall of their Communist government.  On November 9, 1989, it was announced that starting at midnight, citizens of East Germany were free to cross the country’s borders. East and West Berliners flocked to the wall.  As the border guard in charge frantically called his superiors, they gave no orders.  Overwhelmed he gave the command to “Open the barrier!”.  Both of these serve as a reminder that by coming together people can achieve the seemingly impossible.

Mahatma Gandhi, said “Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state, shares in its corruption and lawlessness.”

The Reverend Martin Luther King said, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Or as Aristotle put it “It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.”

“We need all of those who objected to any part of lockdown to come on board.  We don’t need to insist on total agreement or compliance, after all we are not them”

I’m not sure if we can stop a future lockdown.  My suspicion is government will be reluctant to impose another full lockdown.  They will instead salami slice our freedom away with the imposition of more and more restrictions that never fully disappear.  These will be much harder to oppose as each one will be minor and have some alleged practical argument in favour of it.  Whilst we may not be able to stop them, we can disobey them.   

We need to build a polarity if not a majority.  We need all of those who objected to any part of lockdown to come on board.  We don’t need to insist on total agreement or compliance, after all we are not them.  We are the free, we are the people who believe in live and let live.  

“we must once again, be not only free, but free from the fear of more government restrictions”

That means we will often find ourselves arm in arm with those we disagree with, and with whom we share little common ground.    But the common ground we have, the area we can agree on, and the way we build a group large enough to oppose lockdowns, is by banding with those who all agree we must once again, be not only free, but free from the fear of more government restrictions.

We should never try to impose this on others, we may need sometimes to follow the rules and pick our battles.  We should also never mock those who follow the rules.  Instead, we can simply go about our lives as a free people regardless of what government says or others do.

If the restrictions come again, we can meet in the park as many have, or better still pop round to each other’s homes.  If you can go into work, go in.  We can meet-up on public transport or at the supermarket.  With the exception of medical environments, refuse to wear a mask.  We can’t go to the pubs if they are closed but bring a bottle and you are all welcome around mine for drinks.

We need to build networks of the widest set of people. Not those who agree with us 100%, but who agree on this one issue.  In May we organised a hustings of otherwise disparate political parties who were all pro freedom and anti-lockdown.  Despite their differences, on this overwhelmingly important issue, they agreed and came together.  We must all do that, find that common ground with as many as possible, and defy anyone that ever tries to lock us down again.

My Tuppenceworth 2nd August – Speeches and Photos.

Our second My Tuppenceworth turned out to be another great free speech event.  We had 8 speeches on the night from 5 speakers, each followed by a lively Q&A.  Where people have shared their speeches, we have published and linked to them below.

The first half of the evening was on the topic of “How do we ensure there is never another lockdown?”.  The following people spoke on the subject:

  • Mike Swadling – speech
  • Cllr. George Pender
  • Zack Stiling – speech

Our freestyle speakers and speeches were:

Photos from the evening:

Croydon Pride 2022

By Mike Swadling

“You might wonder did we get value for money?  Well Croydon’s politicians who got to speak to the assembled crowd certainly came across as if they thought so.  As an attendee I was less convinced”

The first Pride rally in London took place on 1st July 1972.  That means this year’s Pride events are not only the first big events since 2019 and the hiatus of lockdown they also commemorate 50 years since that first U.K. event. 

Croydon has hosted its own Pride event since 2016 when the first march went to Surrey Street, and we enjoyed a Council (Taxpayer) funded (to the tune of £30,000) party.  Since then ambitions have increased, and in 2018 Croydon Pride moved to Wandle Park, where it was hosted again in 2019 at a cost of £65,000 to local taxpayers.

You might wonder did we get value for money?  Well Croydon’s politicians who got to speak to the assembled crowd certainly came across as if they thought so.  As an attendee I was less convinced my taxes subsidising the over £5 a pint drinks in a cordoned off area for Pride was the best use of funds.  Of course, a few months later Croydon issued its first of two Section 114 notices, declaring de facto bankruptcy.  Money that could have been spent on social workers protecting the most vulnerable children in the borough was instead spent subsidising my weekends entertainment.  I didn’t want you to subsidise my weekend, I would rather the council spend the money on at-risk kids.

“Libraries have gone part time, Purley Leisure Centre is still closed, hundreds of jobs were lost, cuts were made to the anti-social behaviour team, yet still Croydon in 2022 appears to have found funds to sponsor Croydon Pride”

We’ve had two years of cuts to services and council scrutiny of budgets from central government.  Libraries have gone part time, Purley Leisure Centre is still closed, hundreds of jobs were lost, cuts were made to the anti-social behaviour team, yet still Croydon in 2022 appears to have found funds to sponsor Croydon Pride.  Now you might expect at this point I would state how much taxpayer funding had gone to Croydon Pride.  Ideally, I might even be able to point you to a press release stating Croydon’s sponsorship but alas no.  Despite Croydon being listed as a sponsor no record as I write this can be found of what funds are being paid from Croydon taxpayers for the 2022 Croydon Pride.  I again attended the 2022 Croydon Pride and was more than happy that private companies choose to advertise to offset the costs of the event.  This is exactly how these events should be paid for, by the market.  If people think this is worth sponsoring, if they want to be associated with the event, let them pay for it.

“At a time when people are struggling to pay their energy bills, why should Croydon taxpayers on minimum wage be forced to subsidise anyone’s weekends entertainment?”

The average household income in Croydon is £37,000 p/a, which with an average property price to buy at £387,767 and a median rent of £1,450 pcm, it’s not clear why working class Croydonians should subsidise what is clearly a very middle class event.  At a time when people are struggling to pay their energy bills, why should Croydon taxpayers on minimum wage be forced to subsidise anyone’s weekends entertainment?  Especially when front line services are being shut down.

An afternoon spent in glorious sunshine listening to music, I very much enjoyed Croydon Pride 2022.  I hope next year I can enjoy it more, knowing the event isn’t funded by forced subsidy from taxpayers and isn’t taking much needed funds from front line services.

Once I have been able to confirm the Croydon subsidy, I will of course let you know.

Sat too long here for any good you have been doing

Image: U.K. Prime Minister, OGL 3, via Wikimedia Commons

“At the time it was often remarked he was one of only two politicians in the country who could stop traffic and would have cheering crowds wherever he went – the other being Nigel Farage”

During the 2008 London Mayoral election campaign my local paper, The Croydon Advertiser, asked a series of questions of then-Mayor Ken Livingston and Conservative candidate Boris Johnson about issues in the borough. Ken’s answers were as I recall perfectly adequate, but Boris’ I remember thinking at the time were written as if he had been a lifelong resident and his heart would always be in the town. Eight years later reading Zac Goldsmith’s answers to a similar set of questions, I thought he came over as if he had never been to the borough, had no intention of ever visiting, and the best we could hope for was he might mention the place to his staff in passing. Why am I writing about this? Well, it was clear Boris knew how to get a crowd onboard. Also, with Croydon being one of those outer London boroughs, a Conservative Mayoral candidate needs to pile on the votes to have any hope of winning. In stark contrast to the next Tory candidate, he or his team knew this interview mattered.

By the time Boris left office as Mayor, he had returned to parliament and was the leading light of the Vote Leave campaign. At the time it was often remarked he was one of only two politicians in the country who could stop traffic and would have cheering crowds wherever he went – the other being Nigel Farage. He delivered, at least in part, Brexit. The man who broke the Red Wall to win a stonking majority in the end simply ran out of steam.

“A policy started no doubt with the best intentions, stole our freedom, crushed our economy, set a precedent which future governments may reuse, was implemented by this megalomaniac who partied while the locked-down people suffered”

What will be Johnson’s legacy? My personal view is I believe him to be the worst Prime Minister in British history. Johnson was the man who placed in a form of house arrest sixty-seven million healthy people based on a computer model. The evidence from Sweden, and across the United States where similar states had radically different lockdown policies shows his withdrawal of our freedom didn’t save any lives. Indeed, the economic calamity, social impact and changes to our lifestyles may well be responsible for the ongoing increase in excess deaths. A policy started no doubt with the best intentions, stole our freedom, crushed our economy, set a precedent which future governments may reuse, was implemented by this megalomaniac who partied while the locked-down people suffered. However, I am aware, all too many were willing to accept lockdowns. So how do I believe he will be more generally viewed?

Boris campaigned in 2019 to “Get Brexit Done”. In that election he not only saw off the threat of Corbyn, but he also cemented a new Conservative coalition that broke the Red Wall and enabled us to retain our nations democratic traditions by delivering Brexit. It’s worth thinking through a counterfactual on delivering Brexit. Boris was handed Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement. He had two choices, make the best of that, or scrap it and try to get a more complete Brexit deal through a Remain voting parliament. With new parties being formed to stop Brexit, the Supreme Court and the House of Commons Speaker doing all they could to block the will of the people, Boris had little choice but to plough on with the deal he had. Once he had won that eighty-seat majority on a manifesto that included that deal, he had little choice but to deliver it. The Remain crowd arguably lost because they would accept no compromise. Their attempts to stop any form of Brexit meant we had to, at least for Great Britain, fully leave. Boris making the best of the cards he had been dealt, with help from the Brexit Party standing down candidates, took the only practical steps available to get us out of the European Union.

“The children of the middle classes are increasingly voting Labour following their university educations, the Tories need working class voters to stay focused on cultural rather than economic issues”

In winning that majority, Boris oversaw the completion of a journey that had been taking place for some years. Working class voters, who had traditionally voted Labour, moved from voting on predominantly economic grounds to more cultural and specifically patriotic grounds. Many of these voters had moved to the Conservatives, via voting UKIP or Brexit Party. With the Brexit Party stood down and UKIP imploded, Boris’ Conservatives rather than Brexit-betraying Labour became their natural home. At the time of writing, voting for the next leader is about to get underway. Whoever wins needs to retain that coalition of suburban and country middle class, and patriotic working-class voters for the Conservatives to win the next election. The children of the middle classes are increasingly voting Labour following their university educations, the Tories need working class voters to stay focused on cultural rather than economic issues. To secure this the next Prime Minister should act on the following:

  • Immediately ease the cost-of-living crisis by suspending or better still removing Net Zero targets and reducing environmental obligations and VAT on energy bills.
  • Get the economy going, by cutting taxes, speeding up the opening of free ports and opening fracking sites.
  • Stop the cross-channel traffic of illegal immigration. No government can claim competence when it can’t even defend our sea border.
  • Take a stand for free speech. Most areas of the culture war are a minefield, the Conservatives don’t want to be seen as the nasty party, but they can take a stand for free speech. In doing this they can pitch themselves as standing up for the little guy against the social media giants of Silicon Valley, which will resonate with direct speaking working class voters and older voters who grew up proud we were part of the free world.

Failure to act to retain the new coalition will not only see the Conservatives leave office at the next election it will destroy what little is left of Johnson’s legacy.

This article originally appeared in the Blacklist Press, Free Speech bulletin 18th July 2022.