Deprecated: Class Jetpack_Geo_Location is deprecated since version 14.3 with no alternative available. in /var/www/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114 croydonconstitutionalists – Croydon Constitutionalists
Local elections in London are due in May 2026. Reform UK are making inroads across the capital with some polls showing them leading in Bromley & Biggin Hill, and Croydon East constituencies, among others.
Join us on Wednesday 19th March for our drinks and conversation with Alan and Scott. We will be discussing where they are with their planning for the local elections and where Reform UK is more generally.
For drinks, a conversation and Q&A with Alan and Scott about the Reform UK local plans, come along Wednesday 19th March 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.
Mahendra Negi is the Reform UK candidate for the Alperton ward by-election on Tuesday 18 February in the London Borough of Brent. We spoke with Mahendra about his decision to stand.
“after four decades of experience working with Banks and IT services, I took voluntary retirement in 2022. I have since devoted myself to voluntary work across the community”
Can you introduce yourself to our readers, and tell us what made you decide to run?
My name is Mahendra Negi, and I am standing in the Alperton ward by-election for the London Borough of Brent. I live in Wembley, Brent and after four decades of experience working with Banks and IT services, I took voluntary retirement in 2022. I have since devoted myself to voluntary work across the community, volunteering within education, social services and the Metropolitan Police.
I have been on two educational panels and a Governor at three schools in Brent. Recently, I have also been elected to chair a Ward Panel for the Safer Neighbourhood Teams initiative. I am part of the Brent India Association and Brent Indian Community, and an active participant in various cultural activities, through Sanatan Charities, temples and SwamiNarayan sanstha.
As a volunteer, I have also had opportunities to participate in school visits to mosques and churches. These initiatives and my participation in the Brent Multi Faith Forum, enable me to contribute towards promoting inter-faith dialogue and harmony within our various communities.
What are the main concerns in the area? “The availability of fair and affordable homes for local families in Alperton and the abysmal tenant satisfaction rates of council tenants”
You’re the candidate for Alperton. What are the main concerns in the area?
The state and safety of our streets. The availability of fair and affordable homes for local families in Alperton and the abysmal tenant satisfaction rates of council tenants. The need for infrastructure to match the community’s needs with ongoing developments.
“The cost of living being compounded by council tax increases and waste across the council”
What do you see as the major issues more widely in Brent and if elected what do you hope to champion?
The cost of living being compounded by council tax increases and waste across the council. Much needed support for small local businesses and available parking.
For those eager to help, how can they get involved in the campaign?
Jerry Wraith writes to energy supplier OVO Energy Customer Care:
Thank you for your kind response to my email concerning the tragedy that is net zero. I have responded to your comments and apologise for the delay in this reply.
I am not convinced by your arguments and suggest that you, and OVO, rethink your net zero strategy, as I believe all your arguments are totally spurious and unsupportable. However, I understand that OVO (and probably all the other energy providers) are under pressure from various UK governments to support their catastrophic net zero policy. However, if OVO made a stand against it I feel sure this would be rewarded by vastly increasing your customer base, as the public would appreciate an energy company which is on their side and trying to reduce their costs.
“Net Zero is all about reducing emissions of CO2 which is not a pollutant“
Jerry’s response:
I sent my FOI to Milliband on net zero to OVO my energy supplier. This was part of their response. My comments are in bold and italics, with grateful thanks to Roger Arthur, CEng, MIEE, MIET, for his expert contributions.
The Bigger Picture: Why the UK’s Efforts Matter
I completely understand why the UK’s CO₂ contributions might feel small compared to the global total—it’s a fair observation. However, tackling climate change is a collective effort, and every country’s actions contribute to the larger picture. By leading the way in reducing emissions, the UK is setting an example
By destroying our economy?
Net Zero is all about reducing emissions of CO2 which is not a pollutant. In fact SO2 emissions have also been reduced in the process and that has increased the intensity of electromagnetic radiation hitting the earth.
and showing that transitioning to a greener economy is not only possible but can also come with major benefits, like cleaner air,
What cleaner air? We breathe out CO2!
“Many hundreds of thousands of UK jobs are being sacrificed on the altar of net zero, as industries move abroad, where they will cause higher global CO2 emissions than before“
improved public health,
One common objection to this argument is that decarbonization has other benefits—for example, reducing local air pollution. But consider the case of China, where life expectancy allegedly increased by 10 years from 1980 to 2020, even as fossil-fuel use increased by 700 percent. (Some of that owes to the reduction in indoor pollution due to cleaner cooking fuels like LPG, a fossil fuel.) Even the dirty Chinese coal plants had great benefits, since increased energy availability was much more important to most Chinese than cleaner air.
Also, if you check how many Death Certificates cite air pollution as the cause of death, you will find only one or two, while the numbers suffering from fuel poverty increased by around 67% between 2020 and 2023, impacting most on the vulnerable. Which do you think had the greatest impact on public health?
and job creation in growing industries like renewable energy.
Many hundreds of thousands of UK jobs are being sacrificed on the altar of net zero, as industries move abroad, where they will cause higher global CO2 emissions than before. China emits more CO2 in 11 days than the UK does in a year, but we are to spend £trillions to help the Chinese take away our industries and jobs. They and other big emitters are building 100s of coal fired power stations every year and they are clearly not following our so called lead.
It’s also worth noting that the UK’s leadership inspires other countries to take action.
Prove it! How many countries followed Starmer’s boast at COP 29 that we would reduce UK CO2 emissions by 81%? NONE! The USA is likely to abolish net zero when Trump gets into the White House, thank God!
The main momentum that is building up is in reduced growth, increased poverty and excess deaths, due to deranged net zero targets. More people are dying from cold than from excess temperature.
When countries commit to ambitious targets, it builds momentum on a global scale—something that’s essential for addressing a challenge as complex as climate change.
Again, prove it? Like India, China, and the USA for example? Look at the EU? Germany and France plus other EU countries are really struggling due to totally irresponsible and unnecessary net zero aims.
Addressing Your Specific Questions
a) What benefit is there to the UK, its citizens, and taxpayers by limiting its CO₂ emissions to 0.00072 ppm/annum, when the rest of the world is producing CO₂ at vastly greater quantities?
The benefits extend beyond just the numbers. By reducing emissions, we’re investing in cleaner air, which directly improves public health and reduces healthcare costs.
How dirty is our air now and how much cleaner will it be after emissions are reduced. Also see the comment above about the Chinese experience.
How much have UK healthcare costs reduced due to reduced CO2 emissions?
How many extra deaths have occurred in the UK due to extreme cold and the incapability of energy poverty people being unable to pay for their astronomical heating costs?
How many extra businesses have closed or gone abroad in order to survive by reducing their astronomical energy costs?
As indicated above, more people are suffering from health problems and dying from the cold, than from overheating. In fact, an average increase of ½ of 1 deg C would reduce the numbers dying, due to the cold.
At the same time, we’re building a stronger, greener economy. Renewable energy is now one of the UK’s fastest-growing sectors, creating jobs and making us less reliant on imported fossil fuels, which in turn shields us from volatile energy prices.
Not true! We are building a rapidly reducing economy. Industries and jobs are being exported to China which is building more fossil fuel powered stations as rapidly as possible. We have closed all ours down under instructions from the EU, which is now building hundreds of new fossil fuelled generating stations. Our current rate of growth is about zero and will probably reduce further. We are facing massive power cuts due to our reliance on intermittent renewable energy and are having to increase our reliance on imported energy.
Also, we don NOT have to import fossil fuels. The UK taxpayers have big reserves of coal and gas under our feet and gas in the North Sea.
b) What benefit is there to the UK, its citizens, and taxpayers by reducing its emissions from 0.00072 ppm/annum to 0.000137 ppm/annum?
“Our current rate of growth is about zero and will probably reduce further. We are facing massive power cuts due to our reliance on intermittent renewable energy“
Achieving this reduction shows the world that it’s possible to make meaningful progress while maintaining a thriving economy.
Again, NOT TRUE! See note above. This reduction is any case not achievable without completely destroying the UK economy. Maybe that is what you and the politicians really, really, want?
What are your estimates of the UK’s GDP now and after the reduction proposed taking into consideration the high cost of energy, the power cuts and the cost of importing most of our goods from China and elsewhere?
With regard to the high cost of energy: That’s because these guarantees are irrespective of how competitive the prices actually are in the energy market. For example, floating offshore wind was recently awarded an eye-watering strike price of £176 per MWh, even though the wholesale price for most of 2024 averaged £78.70 per MWh. Why would these renewable energy companies look to cut costs and become more efficient if they can rely on such cushy subsidies?
It also helps us remain competitive in the global race for green technologies, which are rapidly becoming essential industries of the future.
Not true. The green technologies are mainly imported. We get our wind turbines from Denmark and our solar panels from China. Our EV’s are ruinously expensive and are ticking time bombs ready to burst into uncontrollable flames at the moment their batteries develop a fault. In addition, they are so heavy that they must be making our pot holed roads even worse. Furthermore, they are being shunned by UK motorists and rightly so due to their cost and dismal trade in value! EV’s made in China are much, much cheaper than those made in the UK and the EU!
So, how much profit has the UK made from exporting green technology in the last 15/20 or so years?
What is the TOTAL amount of money in £billions/trillions the UK taxpayers have had to pay for “green” energy in subsidies over the last 15/20 years?
“In the past 150 years the warmest period was from 1880 to 1942 with many records from these years still standing today. The last two warm periods were during Roman times and from 750 to 1200 AD“
Plus, the reductions we make now help to mitigate the long-term costs of climate change—whether that’s through extreme weather, flooding, or other impacts that we’re already starting to see.
Nonsense! There is absolutely NO evidence that increasing CO2 causes extreme weather, flooding or other impacts like hurricanes, heatwaves etc. Rather the reverse is true as records show that these events have all been reducing over time!
Also, you can’t make such judgements based on short term trends. Global temperature trends run on for thousands of years and we are nearing an interglacial peak as we continue to emerge from an Ice Age. As seen, that peak is lower than many of the previous ones, which occurred long before the Industrial Revolution and we are about to enter a cooling period. The previous peak was higher and it occurred long before the Industrial Revolution.
More recently the last notable climate change was between 1500 and 1850, but since around 1870 there been no significant change. Global warming is when average temperatures increase but currently many places have seen a temperature decrease
In the past 150 years the warmest period was from 1880 to 1942 with many records from these years still standing today. The last two warm periods were during Roman times and from 750 to 1200 AD when it was a lot warmer than today.
The worst UK drought on record was in 1540 when half a million died, when CO2 levels were much lower than now.
Since the 1920s, the number of deaths due to extreme weather events has reduced by more than 90% – in spite of a four-fold rise in population – in parallel with increasing CO2 levels.
Just check what happened when human emissions fell due to Covid and Lockdowns, then decide for yourself. Total human related emissions fell noticeably, due to Covid and Lockdown, but CO2 content continued upwards, by record amounts. So, the reduction in human emissions had no discernible impact on the upward trend in CO2
The government should check Professor William Happer’s findings – that a 50% increase in CO2 levels would cause global temperature to rise by less than 1/10th of 1 deg C – and abandon UK net zero altogether. You should be lobbying them to do just that.
I understand your concerns about the scale of the UK’s contribution, but these efforts are part of a much larger, interconnected plan. Climate change affects everyone, and by acting together, we have a much better chance of protecting the planet for future generations.
NONSENSE! As stated above a 50% increase in CO2 will increase global temperature by less than 1/10 Deg C according to Prof, Emeritus William Happer of Princeton University. The current rate of CO2 increase is 2.4 ppm/annum (see my FOI request to Ed Milliband). Hence it will take 75 years for global CO2 (i.e. natural and human) to reach that level. Kindly detail how much damage a rise of less than 1/10th of deg C (97% of which is beyond human influence) will create for the earth after 75 years!
CONCLUSION
I sent you a detailed analysis of how small and insignificant the UK’s CO2 contribution to the global CO2 total really is, with references to my sources. Your response has been totally airy fairy with unsubstantiated claims which have absolutely no proof. Hence the OVO boasts about its green energy etc is total NONSENSE and not worth the paper they are written on. I note that you have not tried to refute my figures as they are clearly irrefutable!
I appreciate that OVO is probably complying with government (Conservative and Labour) directives, but your customers are paying extortionate amounts for their energy and destroying the UK economy, (as planned by them) in the process. You and OVO are supporting and perpetuating one of the greatest scams of modern life and should be doing the exact opposite. i.e. refusing to participate in deranged government demands to install smart meters, and inefficient and expensive heat pumps etc. All these demands are obviously making your customers energy bills much larger. You could start by making your customers aware of the unfair, unreasonable and unnecessary costs involved by detailing the total proportion of your customers bills that are simply subsidies for the “green” energy we are all having to pay for and are therefore totally divorced from the actual energy supplied!
However, if you and OVO are so keen on renewable energy I challenge you all to install smart meters and limit your company and personal electricity consumption, every hour, on a daily basis, to that proportion provided by renewables. Please let me know how you all get on with that scenario!
In the words of Prof Richard Lindzen:
“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.”
“China emits more CO2 in 11 days than the UK does in a year“
My tuppenceworth is back, on Wednesday 19th February upstairs at Whispers 5 High St, Purley.
You are the star!
This is your opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you and give your tuppenceworth. Each speaker will have up to 5 minutes to speak about an issue dear to their heart, followed by a short Q&A.
We ask all speeches are non-partisan and remind you the laws of slander still apply!
Come prepared or do off the cuff, this is your opportunity to exercise some free speech.
If you do have notes, we can publish to increase the reach of your ideas as we have for previous events.
Join us Upstairs, Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF on Wednesday 19th February, 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.
A satirical invective against early republicans, written by a Prime Minister-to-be, and suggested by Zack Stiling, which could easily be discharged against certain modern political speakers.
Published in “The Anti-Jacobin, or, Weekly Examiner was an English newspaper founded by George Canning in 1797 and devoted to opposing the radicalism of the French Revolution. It lasted only a year, but was considered highly influential” (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jacobin)
“This satirical poem contrasts two perspectives: a radical who espouses the ideals of the French Revolution and a pragmatic working-class individual. The speaker’s initial sympathy for the knife-grinder’s plight turns into contempt when he refuses to align with revolutionary sentiments.” (From https://allpoetry.com/The-Friend-Of-Humanity,-And-The-Knife-Grinder)
George Canning (1770-1827) & John Hookham Frere (1769-1846)
FRIEND OF HUMANITY: Needy Knife-grinder! whither are you going? Rough is the road, your wheel is out of order— Bleak blows the blast;—your hat has got a hole in’t, So have your breeches.
Weary Knife-grinder! little think the proud ones Who in their coaches roll along the turnpike- road, what hard work ’tis crying all day, “Knives and Scissors to grind O!”
Tell me, Knife-grinder, how you came to grind knives: Did some rich man tyrannically use you? Was it the ‘Squire? or Parson of the Parish? Or the Attorney?
Was it the ‘Squire, for killing of his game? or Covetous Parson, for his tithes distraining? Or roguish Lawyer, made you lose your little All in a lawsuit?
(Have you not read the Rights of Man, by Tom Paine?) Drops of compassion tremble on my eyelids, Ready to fall, as soon as you have told your Pitiful story.
KNIFE-GRINDER: Story! God bless you! I have none to tell, Sir, Only last night a-drinking at the “Chequers,” This poor old hat and breeches, as you see, were Torn in a scuffle.
Constables came up for to take me into Custody; they took me before the justice; Justice Oldmixon put me in the parish- stocks for a vagrant.
I should be glad to drink your Honour’s health in A Pot of Beer, if you will give me Sixpence; But for my part, I never love to meddle With politics, Sir.
FRIEND OF HUMANITY: I give thee Sixpence! I will see thee damned first— Wretch! whom no sense of wrongs can rouse to vengeance— Sordid, unfeeling, reprobate, degraded, Spiritless outcast!
Kicks the Knife-grinder, overturns his wheel, and exit in a transport of Republican Enthusiasm and Universal Philanthropy.
The Labour government is undertaking consultations to reorganise local government, part of which may mean the cancellation of local elections in Surrey. This has led to an extraordinary meeting of Surrey County Council to be held on 8th January 2025.
The Surrey Reform UK team have asked local supporters to write to their county councillors to reject the postponement of May 2025 elections, using text from the template provided below. With the meeting being held on the 8th January, time is of the essence. Whilst written for Reform members anyone based in Surrey could use the template. If you want to support democracy and local elections going ahead, please write out before the January 8th meeting.
RE: Extraordinary meeting of Surrey County Council to be held 8th January 2025
As a constituent and voter in your division, I would like to stress my concerns around the details and expectations of the above meeting. I shall not comment on the Governments Devolution and Local Government Reform proposals which the Council is asked to endorse.
My concerns are;
Deciding to postpone elections without consultation with ones constituents is flagrantly undemocratic.
The current crop of councilors have served their fixed term of office and will hold no democratic mandate from May 2025 onwards.
The proposed timeline for the completion of devolution by May 2026, in order to hold elections, is purely aspirational. There are no legally binding assurances with the actions of Westminster and their legislative calendars will now control the timelines of local democracy.
With no mandate for these changes in the current Labour Governments manifesto and current councilors having reached the end of the fixed term. The public has the right to elect a new crop of councilors who may better represent the views and wishes of their constituents.
In conclusion, I ask you to consider my concerns and vote to ensure County Council elections are held in May 2025.
Julie Carter who stood as an independent candidate in the 2024 general election and local by-election in Acton writes about how she responds to business not taking cash.
2025 has kicked off with more “no cash accepted” at my local shops in Chiswick – namely our chemist. After we had loaded up the counter with potions and balms. All priced higher than we could get elsewhere, but wanting to support local businesses, we immediately transferred our family prescriptions to a chemist further down the road. One that still takes notes with the sovereign on. When that establishment ceases to accept cash, we will find another that does. We won’t be bullied into a cashless society.
The following day I went to the local coffee shop and pub to inquire about their menu and both had same thing – No Cash!
“we had loaded up the counter with potions and balms. All priced higher than we could get elsewhere, but wanting to support local businesses, we immediately transferred our family prescriptions to a chemist further down the road. One that still takes notes with the sovereign on”
If you want to know and do more to help keep a cash alternative available, you can see the campaign at GB News, find out about ‘Keep It Cash Fridays’, and read more about the risk of losing cash and privacy here.
“A judicial review being brought by residents of the London borough will claim the LTNs should be “quashed” because the primary motivation behind them was “financial security … rather than environmental considerations”
In early December it was reported in the Telegraph that the High Court will hear that “Croydon council created six LTNs as a “revenue-raising exercise with no environmental benefits that unhelpfully dispersed traffic to surrounding roads”. The story is behind a paywall and received relatively little coverage.
They reported that the campaign group Open Our Roads were taking action so that “A judicial review being brought by residents of the London borough will claim the LTNs should be “quashed” because the primary motivation behind them was “financial security … rather than environmental considerations”.
It went on to say:
“The skeleton arguments also rely heavily on a Sunday Telegraph report from earlier this year in which Jason Perry, Croydon’s Conservative mayor, admitted he could not honour an election pledge to scrap the LTNs because “£20m of future income … would have to be replaced”.
“Legal papers, seen by The Telegraph, say that despite “considerable opposition” the council introduced LTNs because of the “anticipated income from enforcement fines” sent to motorists who enter roads closed to through traffic. The council anticipated raising just over £10m in three years”.
“Explaining how local authorities have no legal powers to use traffic measures to “raise revenue” it says that to do so is “tantamount to taxation”.
In response the council has said “we can confirm that the council introduced six Healthy Neighbourhood schemes as part of its priority to make Croydon a cleaner, safer and healthier borough”.
In his manifesto when running for Mayor, Jason Perry stated:
“Over the last eight years of Labour running Croydon Council a consistent theme has been that residents feel they are not being listened to. From planning to LTNs and council tax to housing repairs the feedback has been that Labour have simply implemented what they wanted without actually taking any notice of what we were all saying”.
With less than 18 months until new elections Mayor Perry will need to show how he is any different.
“As a reminder Croydon was the London Borough of Culture for 2023, but in the second half of 2024 over £257,000 was paid out from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre”
Spending continues
Whilst Section 114 notices have curbed some spending, Croydon Council has still found unnecessary ways to spend taxpayer money. We’ve written this year and last about Borough of Culture spending. As a reminder Croydon was the London Borough of Culture for 2023, but in the second half of 2024 over £257,000 was paid out from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre for amounts above £500.
We now have data for all of 2024 up to the end of November and this shows for amounts over £500 a total of £813,703.18 has been paid out this year from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre. No doubt many of the services provided were very good but that does not make them necessary. It is surprising how exactingly round many of the payments were. 12 payments were made for exactly £3,000.00, 7 for exactly £5,000.00, 6 for £10,000.00, 5 for £2,000.00 and 2 for exactly £40,000.00. Who were these payments made too? Well, we’ve listed what we can below but £171,356.72 were made to a “Non Commercial Supplier” and therefore the payee was redacted. This includes payments of £15,600.00 and £10,600.00 for which some further detail is surely in the public interest.
Funding for the 2023 borough of culture year came from a range of national, London wide and local sources, but when pensioners have their heating allowances withdrawn, ULEZ imposes costs on the drivers who can least afford them, and Croydon Council tax keeps rising at above inflation rates, how does the Mayor justify these payments?
“It is surprising how exactingly round many of the payments were. 12 payments were made for exactly £3,000.00, 7 for exactly £5,000.00, 6 for £10,000.00, 5 for £2,000.00 and 2 for exactly £40,000.00”
Borough of Culture Payment totals Jan-Nov 2024:
Payee
Total
Number of Payments
Redacted
£ 171,356.72
69
Talawa Theatre Company
£ 65,000.00
4
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LIMITED T/A The Circus
£ 60,628.00
3
Scanners Inc
£ 51,616.40
5
Double Take Projections LTD
£ 40,000.00
1
White Label Publishing Ltd
£ 35,788.60
12
Stanley Arts
£ 29,995.00
10
STRANGE CARGO ARTS COMPANY LIMITED
£ 28,410.00
2
Jen Kavanagh Ltd
£ 23,441.75
8
Sound Intervention Limited
£ 21,779.84
2
London Mozart Players
£ 19,922.00
3
Four Communications Ltd
£ 18,764.46
7
4 Wise Monkeys Ltd T/A Light Up Trails
£ 11,422.00
2
YeahPod Music
£ 11,250.00
2
Jonathan Samuels T/A Samprojects
£ 10,701.40
4
Contemporary Dance Trust LTD
£ 10,676.24
1
Profile Security Services Ltd
£ 10,395.52
7
The Brit School
£ 10,000.00
1
Sysco Productions Ltd
£ 9,793.00
1
Norwood JunKAction
£ 8,500.00
2
The Young Urban Arts Foundation Limited
£ 7,790.00
1
Continental Drifts
£ 7,200.00
3
Fool’s Paradise Ltd
£ 6,903.00
4
HURLYBURLY THEATRE
£ 6,750.00
3
Worldbeaters LTD
£ 6,690.00
2
HH Producties
£ 6,025.00
1
Bureau Of Silly Ideas Limited
£ 6,000.00
1
Croydon with Talent Ltd
£ 5,685.00
2
Good Wolf People Ltd
£ 5,000.00
1
Croydon Town Centre Bid
£ 5,000.00
1
ATELIER ARZU LIMITED
£ 4,930.00
13
Tiny Productions
£ 4,760.00
1
LYNNEBEC COLLECTIVE CIC
£ 4,700.00
2
New Addington Pathfinders Group_
£ 4,500.00
1
Drum the Bass
£ 3,800.00
1
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC
£ 3,600.00
2
Bishops Printers Limited T/A The Graphic Design House
£ 3,364.00
3
QWERKY ENTERTAINMENT LTD
£ 3,320.00
4
Finesse Foreva Ltd
£ 3,300.00
1
Pif-Paf Theatre Ltd
£ 3,290.00
2
Churchill Support Services Limited
£ 3,264.00
1
Llama Digital Ltd
£ 3,240.00
1
The Poetry Takeaway Ltd
£ 3,100.00
1
Beeja
£ 3,000.00
1
Bold Mellon Collective C.I.C.
£ 3,000.00
1
Hoggs Hospitality Ltd
£ 3,000.00
1
Premm Design Limited
£ 2,681.50
2
Levantes Dance Theatre Ltd
£ 2,400.00
1
Digital Drama Productions Ltd
£ 2,250.00
1
Clocktower Cafe Ltd
£ 2,171.50
2
Savvy Theatre
£ 2,000.00
1
The Enriched Kids CIC
£ 2,000.00
1
SDNA LTD
£ 2,000.00
1
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.
£ 2,000.00
1
Zip Design Ltd
£ 1,950.00
1
Rap Therapy
£ 1,950.00
1
Bainbridge Conservation Ltd.
£ 1,616.00
1
Desireé Kongerød McDougall T/A An Act Above
£ 1,590.00
1
Amanda Smethurst Consultancy
£ 1,500.00
1
Cat and Hutch
£ 1,300.00
1
Autistic Community Hub CIC
£ 1,200.00
1
Herbe Walmsley
£ 1,200.00
1
Reaching Higher
£ 1,100.00
1
Glorious Gazebos Ltd
£ 1,084.08
1
Croydon Voluntary Action
£ 985.00
1
Slide Dance
£ 900.00
1
Universal Artists Agency LTD
£ 750.00
1
Dhol Academy LTD
£ 750.00
1
A Due Bus Ltd
£ 750.00
1
The Andy Copps Company Limited
£ 700.00
1
Glenn Foster Photography
£ 675.00
1
Atalian Servest
£ 667.97
1
Oyinkansola Gabriel
£ 625.00
1
Zoo Co Theatre Ltd
£ 600.00
1
Kerala Cultural and Welfare Association
£ 600.00
1
LadyLaird
£ 550.20
1
Croydon Natural History &
£ 505.00
1
Croydon Minster Church_
£ 500.00
1
Purley BID
£ 500.00
1
Age Uk Croydon
£ 500.00
1
Cutting Edge Design Ltd
£ 500.00
1
TOTAL
£ 813,703.18
238
“With the spending taps seemingly flowing at the borough HQ once again, surely those in charge at the council won’t be able to justify another bumper Council Tax rise”
As if this wasn’t enough after a resting period, we have seen an unwelcome return to payments from the Culture Growth Fund. This was used by the previous Labour administration for many of their wasteful projects. The 65 payments over £500 made to the end of November 2024 totalled £318,696.03 and the totals by payee are listed below.
Payee
Total
Number of Payments
Redacted
£55,625.98
21
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC
£38,000.00
1
FESTIVALS AND EVENTS INTERNATIONAL LTD (FEI)
£35,715.00
3
ARTANGEL TRUST (THE)
£23,051.00
1
Think Events (London) Ltd
£18,200.00
1
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.
£15,199.00
1
Door 22 Limited
£14,630.00
3
Beeja
£14,050.00
1
Giant Cheese Limited
£13,200.00
1
Learn to Dream Ltd
£13,009.95
2
WIGGLE WONDERLAND COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY
£12,750.00
2
Sound Diplomacy Limited
£10,000.00
1
Emergency Exit Arts
£7,550.00
1
K4 Medics Ltd T/A K4 Medical Services
£7,395.00
3
London Calling Arts Ltd
£6,562.50
2
Stuco Design Limited
£5,950.00
2
Premm Design Limited
£4,720.00
2
Continental Drifts
£3,460.00
1
Browne Jacobson LLP_
£3,275.80
3
Zip Design Ltd
£2,975.00
2
Vauxhall City Farm Limited
£2,792.00
1
Stanley Arts
£2,500.00
1
HandMade Theatre
£1,300.00
1
TGTM Ltd
£1,195.00
1
Four Communications Ltd
£1,000.00
1
Caroline Vallance t/a Caroline Coates
£960.00
1
Profile Security Services Ltd
£904.80
1
Clocktower Cafe Ltd
£797.50
1
Jen Kavanagh Ltd
£700.00
1
LadyLaird
£627.50
1
Norwood JunKAction
£600.00
1
Total
£318,696.03
65
We can only hope that Croydon Councils New Year’s Resolution will be to move to sensible tax and spend. With the spending taps seemingly flowing at the borough HQ once again, surely those in charge at the council won’t be able to justify another bumper Council Tax rise.
Sam Bidwell on how we can really revive British industry.
“By the late 19th century, Britain was falling behind the United States and Germany. GDP growth slowed to less than 1% between 1899 and 1914”
People across the political spectrum say that the UK needs an industrial strategy. In fact, it was industrial strategy that killed our industry in the first place – Attlee is more to blame than Thatcher.
According to the popular narrative, British industrial decline started in the 1970s and 1980s, as free trade and neoliberalism shifted us towards a more globalised economy. Today, advocates of industrial strategy argue that Government needs to intervene to redress the balance.
In fact, Britain’s relative industrial decline starts much earlier. By the late 19th century, Britain was falling behind the United States and Germany. GDP growth slowed to less than 1% between 1899 and 1914, while productivity growth fell by two-thirds between 1871 and 1914.
Though it had led the way on industrialisation (more on this later), the UK couldn’t compete with the mass production of the US and Germany. Britain had fewer natural resources and a more skilled workforce, while American firms could rely on cheap resources and cheap labour.
Britain’s relative industrial slowdown was accelerated by the Great Depression. Heavy industry declined by a third between 1929 and 1930, with unemployment doubling from 1 million to 2.5 million. In cities like Glasgow, unemployment rose as high as 30 percent.
“In the Midlands and parts of the south, industry boomed in the 1930s – with specialisms in automobiles and household electrical goods. In 1936, Leicester was actually the second-richest city in Europe”
The decline was particularly acute in the industrial areas of Britain’s Victorian heyday, such as Lancashire, Yorkshire, South Wales, and Scotland. Coal production in Lancashire fell by 43%. Ship production in the north-east of England fell by 90% between 1929 and 1932.
But that didn’t mean that industry was declining everywhere. In the Midlands and parts of the south, industry boomed in the 1930s – with specialisms in automobiles and household electrical goods. In 1936, Leicester was actually the second-richest city in Europe.
It was true that Britain couldn’t compete with the mass production of the US and Germany – but it could lead the way again on high-quality, high-skilled industry. The social effects were incredible – between 1923 and 1937, Birmingham’s workforce grew at double the national rate.
“The Attlee government saw the success of the Midlands as damaging to traditional industrial regions. In 1945, it passed the Distribution of Industry Act”
From 1911-1954, the West Midlands grew its economic output faster than any other region of the country – by the 1960s, Birmingham wages were higher than in London. Nearby Coventry fared similarly – in 1953, it had an unemployment rate of 0.8%. British industry was back.
And then came the industrial strategists. The Attlee government saw the success of the Midlands as damaging to traditional industrial regions. In 1945, it passed the Distribution of Industry Act, which aimed to push development away from ‘congested’ areas like the Midlands.
The Government required that any factory set to be opened or expanded in a ‘congested’ area would be reviewed by the Board of Trade – which would aim to push industrial development back to places like Lancashire and South Wales. The results were predictable – and depressing.
“In 1946, the West Midlands Plan set Birmingham a population target lower than its current population. In 1964, Harold Wilson restricted the development of office space in Birmingham for 20 years”
Of the ‘Industrial Development Certificates’ rejected by the Board of Trade, just 18% actually relocated to declining industrial areas. 49% of refused projects downsized their ambition to avoid government oversight. 31% of projects were scrapped entirely.
For every job re-directed to old industrial areas, several more were prevented. In 1946, the West Midlands Plan set Birmingham a population target lower than its current population. In 1964, Harold Wilson restricted the development of office space in Birmingham for 20 years.
“Forcible relocation of growth, and subsidy for declining industries, left British industry inefficient and uncompetitive”
Industrial strategy also meant subsidising inefficient ‘old’ industries, such as coal and steel, at the expense of new industries, such as cars and household electrical products. The nationalisations of the 1940s and 1960s were designed to preserve old industry at all costs.
Forcible relocation of growth, and subsidy for declining industries, left British industry inefficient and uncompetitive. The burgeoning ‘advanced manufacturing’ boom of the 1930s was killed by the nostalgic, backwards-looking industrial strategy of the late 1940s.
These inefficient and expensive controls were eventually lifted by the Thatcher governments. Yes, British industry did shrink in the 1980s. But if it had been allowed to adapt, improve, and emerge organically in the previous decades, it would have remained competitive.
“we shouldn’t try to decide where industry ought to be based on pre-conceived ideas about where growth “should” happen. Industrialisation completely changed Britain’s economic geography”
If we actually want British industry to succeed, we shouldn’t follow in the footsteps of the 20th century industrial strategists. We should learn from the conditions which birthed British industry in the first place – which actually means less government control, not more.
First, we shouldn’t try to decide where industry ought to be based on pre-conceived ideas about where growth “should” happen. Industrialisation completely changed Britain’s economic geography – cities like Liverpool and Manchester barely existed before the 18th century.
People were able to move to where economic opportunity emerged – and the we didn’t try to direct that growth. Today, that means liberalising our housing market – allowing housing supply to emerge where people want to live, not where the Government thinks that they should live.
“Our current regulatory environment punishes companies that trial new products here, with lengthy processes of consultation, review, and assessment. Instead, we should be removing regulatory blockers”
Second, we should embrace and encourage investment in innovation. The Industrial Revolution was driven by investment in new technologies designed to reduce dependence on high-cost labour – such as Watt’s steam engine, which could do the work of 21 manual labourers.
Our current regulatory environment punishes companies that trial new products here, with lengthy processes of consultation, review, and assessment. Instead, we should be removing regulatory blockers – and reducing tax on innovative firms in cutting-edge fields.
Third, we should make it easier to build the infrastructure that powers industrial growth. In 1846 alone, Parliament approved around 9,500 miles of private railway construction, the equivalent of 63 HS2s. We must relax planning rules around major infrastructure projects.
Fourth, we must address energy costs. The Industrial Revolution was powered by cheap coal – low energy costs kept industry competitive. Today, the UK has the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world – killing businesses in energy-intensive sectors such as steel.
“The Industrial Revolution was powered by cheap coal – low energy costs kept industry competitive. Today, the UK has the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world”
This also has enormous implications for our ability to host AI infrastructure, which is similarly energy-intensive. If it wants British industry to compete, the Government should make energy cheap – particularly by bringing down construction costs for nuclear energy.
Finally, we should not try to direct the economy based on what we think industry “should look like”. We should not be picking winners – whether sectors, businesses, or regions of the country. This will be expensive, and it won’t work – as 20th century industrial decline shows.
