On the 22nd July PopCon’s Mark Littlewood spoke with Dr. Arthur Laffer who influenced the economic thinking of great leaders including Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and the man who the “Laffer curve” is named after.
The Laffer curve illustrates the relationship between the rate of taxation and the resulting government revenue. We’ve written about the curve as it related to events after Liz Trust and Kwasi Kwarteng were ousted in the autumn of 2022, and as part of a debate in Coulsdon in 2019. The curve shows how lower tax rates can result in higher tax revenue. The Tax Reform Council have a useful page displaying Global evidence: cutting income tax brings in more revenue.
A funny, enjoyable and fascinating interview that discusses the curve, many of Dr. Laffer’s experiences with major political figures and a history of economic changes. Watch the video below:
The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) was setup to speak for ordinary taxpayers fed up with government waste, increasing taxation, and a lack of transparency in all levels of government. They fight to reform taxes and public services, cut wasteful spending and speak up for British taxpayers. Locally the TPA has campaigned to highlight some of the disastrous policies of Croydon Council.
Join us on Wednesday 18th September for our drinks and conversation and with Joanna Marchong the Investigations Campaign Manager at the TPA. We will discuss her role, the work of the TPA, and upcoming concerns for taxpayers. Joanna can also be found on X/Twitter at https://x.com/marchong_joanna.
For drinks, a conversation and Q&A with Joanna about the TPA and taxpayer concerns, come along Wednesday 18th September at 7pm
This is 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.
“Ships with goods from around the world, particularly from across the British Empire, were onshored and processed here. By 1900, London’s docks were the busiest in the world”
Once home to the largest port in the world, London’s Docklands had fallen into disrepair by the 1970s. Today, the Docklands is one of London’s most modern, attractive areas, home to a leading financial district and even an airport.
Throughout the 19th century, London’s Docklands grew rapidly, starting with West India Docks in 1802. Ships with goods from around the world, particularly from across the British Empire, were onshored and processed here. By 1900, London’s docks were the busiest in the world.
In March 1909, the separate docks were consolidated under the control of the Port of London Authority, which was responsible for management of the docks. Tens of thousands of people were employed here, and at nearby mills and factories which depended on the Docklands.
During the Second World War, the Docklands were heavily bombed in an effort to cripple Britain’s international supply chains. Much of the area’s infrastructure was destroyed, including almost 1/3 of the area’s housing. Still, the Docklands saw a brief resurgence in the 1950s.
“London’s docks were unable to accommodate the larger vessels needed for modern container shipping, and the shipping industry moved to deep-water ports like Tilbury”
Then came the shipping containers.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, shipping companies came to rely on a standardised system of shipping containers, which could be loaded and unloaded at most major global ports. This new system relied on larger vessels, and fewer human labourers.
While containerisation made international shipping cheaper and more efficient, it was terrible for the Docklands. London’s docks were unable to accommodate the larger vessels needed for modern container shipping, and the shipping industry moved to deep-water ports like Tilbury.
Between 1961 and 1971, almost 83,000 jobs were lost in the Docklands. By 1980, all of London’s docks had finally closed, leaving behind about 8 square miles of derelict land in East London. Almost all housing in the area was council owned, and crime grew rapidly.
“Ward claimed not to have a master plan – “instead, we have gone for an organic, market-driven approach, responding pragmatically to each situation.”
In 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher came to power. She charged her Environment Secretary, Michael Heseltine, with addressing the decline of Britain’s post-industrial urban areas, including Docklands. Some members of her cabinet proposed to abandon the Docklands entirely.
Instead, Heseltine pursued a radically different approach. In 1981, he created the London Docklands Development Corporation, charged with spearheading a market-led revival of the Docklands. All local planning powers were handed to LDDC, despite protests from local councillors.
Planning decisions in the area would be made by LDDC. It received an initial grant of £80 million p/a, and in 1982, Heseltine created the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone, with no land tax, no planning restrictions, a 100% tax write-off on capital costs and a 10-year tax holiday.
The man in charge was Reg Ward, who was appointed CEO by Heseltine. The supremely pragmatic Ward claimed not to have a master plan – “instead, we have gone for an organic, market-driven approach, responding pragmatically to each situation.”
The first few years of LDDC were spent attracting investment for new riverside housing, bringing in small-scale industry (like Billingsgate Market in 1982), and opening up new office space. The proximity of Docklands to the City made it an attractive second site for businesses.
Derelict land was cleaned up and sold to developers, while the absence of local planning hurdles made the area attractive for private businesses looking to invest. By 1986, the LDDC had spent around £300m of public money, but had attracted £1.4 billion in private investment.
“DLR opened in 1987, under-budget and ahead of schedule, with subsequent expansions between 1991 and 1994”
In 1982, Ward commissioned the new Docklands Light Railway (DLR), which would make it easy to get from Docklands to central London. Running mostly on disused railway lines, DLR opened in 1987, under-budget and ahead of schedule, with subsequent expansions between 1991 and 1994.
In 1983, Ward began pushing for an airport on one of the old quays, which would cater to business travellers looking to make short-haul flights between London and Europe. Operations at London City Airport would begin in 1987.
Ward’s greatest success came in 1985, when Ward met for lunch with American-Swiss financier Michael von Clemm. Von Clemm was interested in opening a restaurant in the area – but upon visiting, realised that Docklands would be a prime location for office space.
“Canary Wharf accounts for 67,000 finance sector jobs, putting it ahead of Frankfurt as a banking centre”
Ward worked with Von Clemm to draft a proposal for a new business district, taking advantage of the area’s lack of red tape. In 1988, the project was sold to Canadian developers Olympia & York, with the first buildings finished in 1991. This development is known as Canary Wharf.
Canary Wharf accounts for 67,000 finance sector jobs, putting it ahead of Frankfurt as a banking centre – and it’s no longer an office monoculture. Count in the hotels, shops and restaurants, and Canary Wharf employed around 120,000 people, pre-pandemic.
The LDDC began a staged withdrawal in 1994, and was formally wound up in 1998. Planning powers were handed back to local councils, and the area’s special tax incentives were gradually rolled back. But what Heseltine, Ward, and others had achieved was incredible.
Once-derelict Dockland had been revitalised, with attractive riverside housing, a shining new financial district, an airport, and a local transport system. For most of its history, LDDC managed to do this almost entirely by attracting private investment.
LDDC even managed to reverse a population slump in the area that had begun in the early 1900s, encouraging upwardly mobile ‘yuppies’ to take their first step on the property ladder in the attractive riverside communities of the Docklands.
“decline is not inevitable – with ambitious, pro-growth policies, we can achieve incredible things”
What can we learn from Docklands?
First, that decline is not inevitable – with ambitious, pro-growth policies, we can achieve incredible things.
Second, that areas perform best when govts allow their natural strengths to flourish – such as Docklands’ proximity to London.
Third, LDDC shows us the limits of localism. Local government figures, including Greater London Council Leader Ken Livingstone, hated Docklands. Critics said that LDDC was elitist and undemocratic – after all, it had the power to ignore local wishes entirely.
While the localism of the 1960s and 1970s had created poverty and decline, the efficiency and ambition of LDDC turned Docklands into one of Europe’s leading financial centres. Clean, modern, and full of potential. A sparkling sign of what is possible if we dare to dream.
“What I’m saying is, I think only an idiot would vote for me.”
That could have been Rishi Sunak’s general election campaign strategy”
2024 was in many ways the ‘none of the above’ election. In the classic 1985 movie Brewster’s Millions, Richard Pryor’s character say’s
“I figure voting for Salvino or Heller is just as silly as them running for office, which is just as silly as me running for office. The only thing that’s silly is the power of the people’s vote. And I think the people should use it to vote for… None of the above.”
He’s asked, “Mr. Brewster, are we to understand that you actually don’t want anyone to vote for you?”
And answers, “What I’m saying is, I think only an idiot would vote for me.”
That could have been Rishi Sunak’s general election campaign strategy, and judging by voter turnout it could have also almost been Labour’s
It came as a surprise to me to learn that ‘none of the above’ is a popular international option, which includes ‘none of the above’ on ballots as a standard option, in Argentina, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Spain, Kazakhstan, Switzerland, Uruguay and the US state of Nevada.
“Comparing 2024 votes to the average of the previous three elections, the total votes were down 9%. The Labour’s vote was down 10%. The Tory vote was down 47%”
We should acknowledge that 54.7% of the vote went to the Conservatives and Labour. But in many ways the big winners of the election were anyone out of power. We saw in Scotland the SNP get pushed back, and across England and Wales the Greens, Reform and independent MPs doing particularly well.
We are Democrats. Labour won a stonking majority, and they now have a mandate to govern. But, it’s clear they’ve not gained a popular mandate. I’m hardly the first to say it, and although half the people here might not really remember it, this isn’t Labour’s win in 1997.
Comparing 2024 votes to the average of the previous three elections, the total votes were down 9%. The Labour’s vote was down 10%. The Tory vote was down 47% compared to the last three elections. Reform was up 6% on 2015. 2015 being the obvious comparison with UKIP. The Lib Dems were up 24% and the Greens were up 123%.
What happened locally? It’s hard to make a direct comparison in Croydon due to the constituency changes. Those that don’t know, Streatham came into Croydon North. and Croydon has increased in population. But roughly what’s happened? In 2015, 2019 and 2024, I’ve left out 2017, because it really was quite an anomaly. Elections have had virtually the same number of voters, despite big increases in population and for this last election adding Streatham into that mix.
“Reform’s vote is locally, back to the same level UKIP received in 2015. This was achieved with no ground game and barely visible candidates, which suggests there’s some room for growth”
Compared to the last election in 2019, the Conservative vote has dropped by 12.2%, but Labour’s has dropped by 1.2%, again despite adding Streatham, which is a predominantly Labour area. The LibDem vote was basically a wash between now and the last election. The big changes were the Greens up 27.6% on 2019 and Reform up 54.9%, of course Reform didn’t run in Croydon South in 2019.
Reform’s vote is locally, back to the same level UKIP received in 2015. This was achieved with no ground game and barely visible candidates, which suggests there’s some room for growth. Much as it pains me to say this, the real success story was the Greens, who basically achieved a 75% higher vote than they did in 2015.
I believe the Greens are the ‘none of the above’ vote for many people who don’t know what their actual policies are. The local elections were held in 2021, which included the delayed locals from 2020, where the first local elections in many areas since the high point of UKIP. In ward, after ward, after ward, the UKIP vote went down, basically because they didn’t stand a candidate, by exactly the same amount as the Green Party vote went up. Now, this may be because of a particular demographic change in the area. It may be because the people that wanted out of Europe also wanted net zero. It may also be because they were voting for ‘none of the above’ in 2015 and they were voting for none-of-the-above in 2021. In saying this I acknowledge as someone who stood for UKIP, many may have voted for the party, primarily as they represented at the time ‘none of the above’.
Croydon, though, is still largely a two-party town. 73% of the total vote. But these same two parties saw their vote go down by 23,000 over the last election, whilst other parties’ votes went up by 22,000.
“if you deliver on your promises you can win. This may have also been a dig at some senior people in his party, but it could be rather a positive sign of what we need politicians to do”
Fewer people are voting, more are tactically voting, and more are voting for smaller parties. I think it’s reasonable to assume people are voting with more knowledge rather than just voting for the traditional red or blue party.
Here in Croydon South, Chris Philp pulled out an unexpected result and won. His vote went down, and there looks like an awful lot of tactical voting, but still Chris prevails as a local Conservative. On the night, he put it down to delivering on his promises locally, which included DEMOC, and planning. On the night he also asked Mayor Jason Perry to commit to the Purley Pool. He said, basically, if you deliver on your promises you can win. This may have also been a dig at some senior people in his party, but it could be rather a positive sign of what we need politicians to do. Hopefully it catches on for the future.
“the first post-lockdown election, and I don’t actually remember anyone talking about the lockdown at all, despite it being perhaps the most significant thing since the war that’s happened in this country”
In August 2020, among one of many versions of lockdown, I wrote about the need for a political party to run on a ticket of liberty. My article started by saying the line, ‘Growing up in the 80s it was common to hear “I can say what I like, it’s a free country”’. But that’s really not felt true for some years now, has it?
Now, we’ve had an election, the first post-lockdown election, and I don’t actually remember anyone talking about the lockdown at all, despite it being perhaps the most significant thing since the war that’s happened in this country. I no longer think a freedom-focused party is the best way forward. People are used to voting for smaller parties, which was a really interesting point of note out of the election, but Reform has stepped up as the overwhelming front-runner among liberty-minded people.
You may not think of Reform as a libertarian party, but it is the standout party in that space. I don’t think there’s room for anyone else. The election has seen a rise in the enemies of freedom, the Green Party and independent candidates, who stand for the absolute antithesis of freedom. Of course, overall, it was a big win for Labour, and they now have a huge majority in government.
What’s the landscape we’re now facing? Well, there’s no money. We had the King’s speech today, and from what I could see they didn’t really plan to spend a lot of money in it. So, they’re going to focus on that other socialist passion – Control.
“There’s going to be a need for a freedom-focused campaign, because the socialist in power will want to control us, especially because they can’t spend any more of our money”
I wrote this before the King’s speech, and for those of you that have looked through what’s happening, it’s clear that Labour are focus on control. There’s going to be a need for a freedom-focused campaign, because the socialist in power will want to control us, especially because they can’t spend any more of our money, as there ain’t none. To build a campaign you need a bit of a gap in the market, you need an opportunity. You need people to think about the fact that freedoms important to them, and you need something that motivates them.
If there was a voter’s equivalent to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it might start with economics and some basic safety. Blair got this right, there was no gap in the market to push back against some of Blair’s reforms, because frankly we were rich and safe under Blair’s government most of the time. He didn’t allow that gap in the market to exist. Sir Keir will allow that gap, we are not rich, and we are not safe. Indeed he’s already doing some things to ensure we will be less rich and less safe.
So that creates an incentive, a push, a drive, for people to say, what’s going wrong here, what can we do? Let’s look at what he is and isn’t doing:
he’s doing nothing on housing, which is for a certain generation at least, the single biggest impact in terms of wealth and concern for people,
he’s making Britain a clean energy superpower – which is going to make us poorer,
and of course he’s taking back our streets by releasing prisoners.
If you look at some of their plans for liberty, in their manifesto, they want to close the gender pay gap, that sounds fine in and of itself, but of course that means telling you how to run your business.
They’ve got a promise to introduce mandatory disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting, again telling you how to run your business, taking away your options and opportunity. They want to shift the negative attitudes around diversity, equity, and inclusion. Interesting timing as you may have seen that Microsoft are closing their in-house DEI department today.
Shifting negative attitudes, if you’ve made a manifesto commitment to that, I’m not sure that you’re talking about changing people’s attitude by doing something different. I think you might be talking about them forcing a change in people’s attitudes, again another massive impact on people’s freedom. They’re banning conversion therapy, the therapy is I think a rather ridiculous thing, but again it’s a freedom, it’s a choice, it’s people’s religious expression, it’s people’s right to air their personal views, that’s being taken away. We also know this Labour party was massively sympathetic to lockdowns and taking pretty much all our freedoms away, and they are very sympathetic to ID cards. Again, this creates an opportunity to campaign for freedom.
“What do we need to do? I think we need a minimum viable product for freedom”
What do we need to do? I think we need a minimum viable product for freedom, a minimum set of things that most of us can agree on and work towards. I would propose it to be:
free speech,
the rule of law,
democracy,
evolution of power from the centre,
and value for money from what the government does spend money on.
For the last one, no matter what you think the government should spend on or not, I’d hope we’d all agree we ought to get value for money from it.
On line’s important and useful, but it can’t be replaced by real world activity. If you want to grow a movement, sending people down the rabbit hole of clicking on the same links all of the time and getting the same things presented back is not the way to go. You need to get out to the real world and reach out to new people.
We need street stalls, leafleting at stations, leafleting at schools. I wrote back in 2000, 5,000 leaflets, colour double-sided, A5, decent weight of paper, it’s £100. This is not cheap, but it’s not generally unaffordable. Even cheaper is a press release which is free. All you need to do is write to your local democracy reporter. If it’s good enough for the pizza firm, it’s good enough for us.
Focus on local issues if you can, partner with national groups, but frankly do something. If we can’t partner with a national group, we will just do it ourselves. We will get our own things out, we will start putting something in people’s hands to say, do you want to be told what you can and can’t say? Do you want to be told what you can and can’t do? Two years ago, I’m not sure people would have listened to us, but that can change with the new government.
Labour came to power with their largest majority since 1997, we have the lowest number of Conservative MPs ever, and the SNP has been pushed back in Scotland. The SDP ran their highest number of candidates since the 80s, and we have increased independent, Green, and Reform MPs. Now we ask the candidates, General Election 2024 – How was it for you?
Join us on Wednesday 21st August for our drinks and conversation with a panel of local candidates. We will be asking about the campaign, their experiences and thoughts on what happens next.
Confirmed Panel:
Marian Newton, Reform UK candidate for Lewisham West and East DulwichVinayak Malhotra, Reform UK candidate for Croydon WestDamon Young, SDP Candidate for Epsom and Ewell
For drinks, conversation, panel discussion and Q&A asking General Election 2024 – How was it for you? Come along Wednesday 21st August, Whispers Purley at 7pm.
This is 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.
Birmingham used to be one of the world’s greatest cities. From 1954-64, service businesses around Birmingham grew faster than any other part of the country. In 1961, West Midlands households earned more on average than any other British region. This is how we ruined it…
“By 1900, Birmingham had more miles of canal than Venice. Between 1923 and 1937, the city’s population grew nearly twice as fast as the national average”
The West Midlands was one of the cradles of the Industrial Revolution. The region was the birthplace of the steam engine, while Birmingham itself was regarded as one of the world’s foremost cities. In 1890 it was described by Harper’s as “the Best-Governed City in the World”. By 1900, Birmingham had more miles of canal than Venice. Between 1923 and 1937, the city’s population grew nearly twice as fast as the national average. The compact cavity magnetron, indispensable for radar, was invented there in 1940.
But Westminster viewed this growth as a threat to other regions. The Distribution of Industry Act 1945 sought to slow industrial growth in ‘congested’ areas like the Midlands, and push it towards declining industrial cities in Northern England, Wales, and Scotland. The Act gave the Board of Trade veto power over planning applications for factories of a certain size, and created “development areas” in which the Government was charged with managing industrial estates. Walter Higgs MP, speaking during the debate:
“local government was obliged to achieve a target population of 990,000, lower than its actual 1951 population of 1,113,000”
In 1946, the Government commissioned the West Midlands Plan, which attempted to constrain Birmingham’s growth – local government was obliged to achieve a target population of 990,000, lower than its actual 1951 population of 1,113,000.
The Government wanted Birmingham to shrink.
In 1947, the Town and Country Planning Act created Industrial Development Certificates (IDC). A company had to obtain an IDC if it wanted to expand an industrial plant beyond 5,000sq ft. This gave Government control over where industry could and could not be built.
“From 1951-61, Birmingham created more jobs than any city but London, with average unemployment less than 1%”
These restrictions constrained the city’s industrial growth – but despite these controls on heavy industry, there was relatively little regulation of service businesses. From 1951-61, Birmingham created more jobs than any city but London, with average unemployment less than 1%.
“in 1964, the incoming Labour government declared Birmingham’s growth “threatening”
However, in 1964, the incoming Labour government declared Birmingham’s growth “threatening”. It restricted the development of new office space for almost two decades through the Control of Office Development (Designation of Areas) Order 1965.
And in 1975, plans for a West Midlands Green Belt were finalised, stifling the city’s housing growth. After decades of success, the Government had made it harder than ever to build new factories, new housing, and new offices in Birmingham.
The result? In the 1980s, Birmingham’s economy collapsed, with unprecedented levels of unemployment and outbreaks of social unrest. This wasn’t the result of neoliberalism – anti-growth regulation left the city vulnerable to global economic shocks.
“We have a tendency to describe fast-growing regions as “overheated” (see: modern London) – this is a dreadful instinct”
What can we learn from Birmingham?
1. We have a tendency to describe fast-growing regions as “overheated” (see: modern London) – this is a dreadful instinct. Where a local economy works, Government should enable it to flourish, rather than seeking to spread that growth thinly.
2. Britain’s regional inequality is a product of regulation, not big business. Without the above regulations, Birmingham would likely still be a thriving second city. If we want to “level up” the rest of the country, we should liberalise planning and provide cheap energy.
3. Industrial strategies don’t work. For every good example of industrial strategy, there are five examples of expensive failure. Instead of trying to direct growth, Government should be aiming to create conditions in which growth can occur naturally.
“I sat down in February ‘24 to begin to discuss how we would go about things. The SDP in Coventry did not exist at that time”
Some reflections on the 2024 campaign. Like many of you, I’ve bemoaned the capabilities of many of our MP’s. The nadir for me came in 2019 when Jeremy Corbyn parachuted a young lady with several years’ experience working at Primark into the safe Labour seat of Coventry South
In 2023 I met William Clouston of the SDP and over the next 12 months we had dozens of conversations and I became convinced that standing on the side lines was no longer an option. My wife was concerned about potential reputational damage as UK politics appears like a piranha tank. But around January 2024, I decided that I was going to take the plunge. My oldest friend and now parliamentary agent, Paul Crilly, and I sat down in February ‘24 to begin to discuss how we would go about things. The SDP in Coventry did not exist at that time.
Our politics were moderate. We both believed that if you worked 40 hours a week 46 weeks a year you want to be able to afford a modest home of your own. We felt that the government should be competent and not expand its scope beyond what it was capable of delivering successfully.
“As we are experienced construction professionals, neither of us can wrap our heads around the ludicrous costs and time delays of major UK Infrastructure projects like HS2 and Hinckley C”
We’ve both experienced terrible healthcare with the NHS but continue to believe in the principle of a single payer, free at the point of use health service. Neither of us care if it’s a black cat or a white cat so long as it catches mice – we hold no theological views on the NHS. As we are experienced construction professionals, neither of us can wrap our heads around the ludicrous costs and time delays of major UK Infrastructure projects like HS2 and Hinckley C. We are convinced we can do better. We see massive waste on big sites which no politician discusses.
We both believe that natural monopolies belong in the state sector as regulatory capture is unavoidable given the asymmetry of resources (I.e. accountants and lawyers) between the owners and the regulator. Begging the French to build our nuclear power stations is embarrassing. We were on opposite sides of the Brexit referendum, but both agreed that the result should be respected.
My own view is that with the rapid acceleration of technologically driven change it is even more important that our government is flexible and responsive to voters. And that brings me back to our representatives who are, in aggregate, simply not up to the job. Would you hire our current MP for any serious job? I doubt it. We may not win this time, but we will put down the roots of a winning organisation having gone from 0 to 15 volunteers.
“Just by being on the campaign trail and being visible has changed the calculus for people who are trapped in the Labour party but who vehemently oppose many of its trendy shibboleths”
After the holidays, we’ll start to build for the next phase. We’ll build our social media presence across all four major platforms. We’ll create a Coventry wide SDP structure, contribute to the creation of national policy and locally we’ll recruit and start to train our members.
Just by being on the campaign trail and being visible has changed the calculus for people who are trapped in the Labour party but who vehemently oppose many of its trendy shibboleths. I would be disappointed if we are not 50 people by Christmas and that is just the beginning. The public has responded positively to our common-sense proposals. The British people are fair minded and generous, but they have limits and those are being tested. They want cheaper housing, cheaper energy, more training, better paid and higher skilled jobs.
“Many, far too many, maybe as many as 20-25% have given up on politics altogether. This is an indictment of our political class and our elites who’ve become tone deaf to the messages sent”
Having held more than 4000 one-to-one conversations my assessment is that the public want an effective state that can get things done and struck off the ‘to do’ list. They are sympathetic towards LGB rights but reject broader identity politics and don’t want to be told what to think.
Many, far too many, maybe as many as 20-25% have given up on politics altogether. This is an indictment of our political class and our elites who’ve become tone deaf to the messages sent with increasing vigour by the population, contrast this with Denmark.
Politics which offers cheap energy through a new fleet of British designed, British built nuclear power stations regulated through an ‘underwriter certification’ system rather than the unfit for purpose ALARA principle will lay the groundwork for a renaissance of UK manufacturing.
Just last week Britain’s richest man and our leading industrialist Sir Jim Radcliffe warned of the deindustrialisation of Europe due to costly energy. We can’t run an industrial society without cheap dispatchable energy and if it’s not to be fossil fuels, then it has to be nuclear. We are proposing that a new school of Nuclear Engineering, Design and Regulation is established at Warwick University in Coventry South to lead our efforts to deliver rapidly on this urgently needed capacity. We need to treat this like the Mulberry Harbour or the Manhattan Project.
Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will take 20% of US electricity by 2027 and if we want to stay competitive, we’ll need to INCREASE our grid capacity and ensure its stability. We’re currently co-leading the world in AGI but if we don’t have cheap energy, we’ll become an also ran.
In the 1950s, 60s and 70’s both parties delivered 500k homes a year for a population of 50m souls. We need to get the state back into building houses and simultaneously getting a grip on mass immigration without which no amount of building will eliminate the backlog for 75 million souls. Building creates British jobs, British apprenticeships and British high-weight, low-value products that need to be produced locally. This plus cheap energy will help spur our re-industrialisation. Young people with no stake in society won’t abide by or respect our norms or rules.
They need affordable housing and energy to start families and prevent demographic collapse which in used to justify more immigration or Human Quantitative Easing (HQE) but ignores the externalities bourn overwhelmingly by working class British communities. There’s a general acceptance of controlled immigration that makes us richer but real anger at the mess we’re currently in which has delivered the population of six Birmingham’s in ten years.
I got into this because I’m not willing to accept the country we are leaving to our children. I hope and pray we are not too late.
