With a general election in Canada being held on April 28. Alex Joehl is the Libertarian Party candidate for the riding of Langley Township-Fraser Heights. We spoke with Alex about his decision to stand.
“I feel strongly that there should be a principled, liberty candidate on every ballot in the country… I can at least give the voters of Langley Township-Fraser Heights that option”
Can you introduce yourself to our readers, and tell us what made you decide to run?
I’m a husband and a father, but when you do a Google search of my name they call me a Politician.
I studied Journalism after high school, and though I no longer work in the media industry, my time at college helped shape who I became as a young man. After learning about this history of western economics and philosophy I began to realize that I was a Classic Liberal and immediately began to seek out a political party that shared my views.
I found the Libertarian Party of Canada and in 2008 I ran for office for the first time, under the LPoC banner in Surrey-North. I finished sixth out of nine candidates, garnering 347 votes (1%), and I was hooked on the democratic process. Only by putting myself on the ballot could I guarantee that there would be an option I could vote for in good conscience.
Since then, I’ve run federally three times, provincially three times, and ran locally for Mayor, for Councillor, and for School Board Trustee. I’ve never been elected but that has not deterred me. In 2023 I was selected to be the Leader of the British Columbia Libertarian Party (provincial). Even though we did not elect any candidates, we had the fourth-highest vote total of all parties.
I decided to run this time around because, well, somebody has to. I feel strongly that there should be a principled, liberty candidate on every ballot in the country, and while I can’t do that on my own, I can at least give the voters of Langley Township-Fraser Heights that option.
“Langley is one of the fastest growing municipalities in the country, so naturally a lot of the concerns revolve around infrastructure”
You’re the candidate for Langley Township-Fraser Heights. What are the main concerns in the area?
This is a brand new Electoral District this year. It encompasses a large portion of the Township of Langley and party of Surrey north of the Trans Canada Highway.
Langley is one of the fastest growing municipalities in the country, so naturally a lot of the concerns revolve around infrastructure. As the region grows in population the access to healthcare has not increased, and our public monopoly on healthcare has garnered horrific results, with thousands of Canadians dying each year while waiting for diagnostic tests, for treatments, or even just to see a specialist.
“the governments’ incessant deficit spending puts the nation further into debt, while also inflating the money supply”
Finances are a hot topic obviously — it is very difficult (if not impossible) to purchase a home without some sort of “Bank of Mom & Dad” contribution. Many people are struggling to keep up with their bills — Two-thirds are $200 away from not being able to meet their monthly commitments, and Canada has the highest personal debt in the Western world. Meanwhile, the banks keep benefiting from fractional reserve lending, watering down people’s purchasing power, and the governments’ incessant deficit spending puts the nation further into debt, while also inflating the money supply.
Yet, all we hear about in the news is Tariffs, Tariffs, and more Tariffs, as the U.S. president is challenging our economy with his protectionist policies. Yes, these are important to discuss, but Canadians are being harmed much worse in more ways that we can actually control and undue.
What do you see as the major issues more widely in Canada and if elected what do you hope to champion?
Canadians need to wake up to the source of all of our struggles – the Bank of Canada tinkers with our economy with artificial interest rates and enabling government overspending by monetizing their deficits. And the private banks thrive within the environment that allows them to add to their balance sheets without deposits to back up the credit they lend out.
“our healthcare system is broken, and we need to immediately make it legal for Canadians to obtain the best care they can acquire”
Meanwhile, our healthcare system is broken, and we need to immediately make it legal for Canadians to obtain the best care they can acquire. Canadians should not have to leave the province, or the country, to get timely, appropriate care for their maladies. Currently only a select few — which includes the federal police force and prisoners — are allowed to access healthcare outside the public system. I want to extend that to all Canadians by scrapping the Canada Health Act and extending what the province of Quebec won in the Chaoulli v. Quebec court ruling to the rest of the provinces.
I’d love to see tax reform because, after all, Taxation is Theft, our Foreign Policy needs to be drastically scaled back, and Firearms Rights need to be addressed.
But we can’t fix those other problems when our ability to save and pay for things are being challenged by government policy and people are dying waiting for a doctor visit.
“I am always looking for volunteers to help evangelize the message of liberty with me, so if anyone has some time to share, get in touch”
How can people find out more or get involved in the campaign?
This 2025 federal campaign will be finished as fast as it started. The new Prime Minister called an election and allowed for the smallest window for the campaign. There will only be three weeks between when I am confirmed as a candidate and the final election date.
Visit my website www.AlexJoehl.com for some unique content, and there you’ll find other was to contact me, including email and my social media accounts.
I am always looking for volunteers to help evangelize the message of liberty with me, so if anyone has some time to share, get in touch with me and we can figure out how you can assist! Donations will not be accepted this time around, but hopefully a future campaign will be set up early enough to fundraise and mobilize some freedom fighters.
With a general election in Canada being held on April 28. Justin Leroux is the Libertarian Party candidate for the riding of Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. We spoke with Justin about his decision to stand.
“I refuse to stand by while families suffer and the promise of our nation crumbles. For me, running is not just a choice—it’s a civic duty”
Can you introduce yourself to our readers and tell us what made you decide to run?
My name is Justin Leroux. I was born in Sudbury and raised in North Bay from the age of seven. I completed high school there and studied World Religions and Philosophy at university, initially preparing to become either a priest or a pathologist.
During high school, I completed a priestly assessment at the request of our Bishop. Although I passed, he encouraged me to gain more life experience and truly learn what I wanted to understand. That led me to study the essence of what it means to be human—through both spiritual and secular perspectives. Toward the end of my first year at university, I felt called to serve in the funeral profession, so I moved to Toronto to study at Humber College and began working at one of the city’s historic funeral homes, serving families of all cultures and beliefs.
I’ve since worked across Ontario, including as an assistant manager in Midland and later managing three funeral homes near New Liskeard. My time in funeral service was always centred on advocacy—supporting grieving families through hospitals, with municipalities, and sometimes even in discussions with medical professionals.
Following a back injury, I transitioned into IT services. Today, I run my own consulting business, helping funeral homes modernise and adapt to an ever-changing world. But throughout my life—whether in the funeral profession or IT—I’ve always noticed inefficiency, injustice, and above all else… waste. The sheer amount of it in our government is staggering. Our country throws money at problems it often creates, while families here at home go hungry, neglected.
I realised that so many of the issues we face are the result of artificial dependencies created by government overreach. I’ve lived by libertarian principles long before I even knew there was a name for them. I’m running because I cannot watch Canada continue down this road. I refuse to stand by while families suffer and the promise of our nation crumbles. For me, running is not just a choice—it’s a civic duty. When good people stay silent, the status quo persists. I want to be part of the solution.
“the cost of living has skyrocketed. In just a few years, prices have risen so dramatically that to call it “inflation” feels like a disservice to the lived reality of our people”
You’re the candidate for Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt. What are the main concerns in the area? This riding covers a vast geographic area and many diverse communities—farming villages, mining towns, and places that once thrived on forestry but are still reeling from the closure of their mills.
Despite the diversity, the concerns I hear across the riding are remarkably consistent.
Affordability is top of mind. Whether it’s groceries, petrol, baby formula, or heating fuel, the cost of living has skyrocketed. In just a few years, prices have risen so dramatically that to call it “inflation” feels like a disservice to the lived reality of our people. Residents are working harder than ever but falling further behind.
Housing is another major issue—both in availability and cost. In smaller communities, housing stock is limited, and in larger centres, it’s simply unaffordable. Young families are priced out of homeownership, and even renting can feel like a monthly gamble. Government intervention has made things worse, not better—artificially driving demand while restricting supply through red tape and regulation.
Mining and natural resources are the backbone of our region’s economy, yet federal policy often works against us. Punitive tariffs and excessive regulation discourage local investment, restrict our competitiveness, and allow foreign interests to benefit from resources we should be refining and utilising here in Northern Ontario. We need to stop handicapping our own industries in the name of political optics.
Lastly, there’s a deep frustration with bureaucracy and disconnection. Many residents feel abandoned by Ottawa—governed by decision-makers who have never set foot in our communities. It’s time for a local voice that understands not just our challenges, but our potential.
What do you see as the major issues more widely in Canada, and if elected, what do you hope to champion? Across Canada, we’re facing a crisis of identity. We’ve lost sight of individual responsibility and community-based solutions in favour of sprawling bureaucracy and centralised control. We’ve traded freedom for promises of security—and now find ourselves with neither.
“If elected, I will champion policies that decentralise power, cut waste, and restore individual freedom and accountability“
Healthcare is failing—not because of a lack of money, but because of how it’s managed. The system rewards waiting and inefficiency. Housing is unaffordable—not because of capitalism, but because of regulation, land mismanagement, and inflationary monetary policy. And most tragically, our children are inheriting debt and restrictions instead of opportunity.
If elected, I will champion policies that decentralise power, cut waste, and restore individual freedom and accountability. That includes:
Ending corporate welfare and foreign aid while our own people struggle
Repealing unnecessary regulations that make housing and small business unaffordable
Defending medical freedom and bodily autonomy
Introducing real monetary responsibility—balanced budgets and sound fiscal planning that will lead to eliminating the income tax
Empowering communities, not Ottawa, to solve local issues
Fighting for our First Nation Communities – They deserve to be free from an Ottawa that is oppressive and prevents their autonomy and freedoms in Canada. Some communities are still being stone-walled for valid land claims from the 1990s. That is unacceptable.
“I welcome all feedback, even from those who may not agree with everything I stand for. That’s the beauty of liberty”
How can people find out more or get involved in the campaign? You can visit nickelbeltlibertarians.ca to learn more about my campaign, platform updates, and upcoming events.
If you’d like to volunteer, share your concerns, or simply have a conversation, there are contact forms available on the site—and I welcome all feedback, even from those who may not agree with everything I stand for. That’s the beauty of liberty.
At the moment, I am few signatures short for my nomination in our riding, I have a way for people to send their signature or collect signatures from others at – Nomination – Nickel Belt Libertarians.
Together, we can restore freedom, responsibility, and dignity in our communities.
David Bettney is the SDP candidate for Mayor of Doncaster. We spoke with David about his decision to stand.
“I am a former Regimental Sergeant Major who served 22 years in the British Army, and for the last 15 years I have been building and running successful companies”
Can you introduce yourself to our readers, and tell us what made you decide to run?
My name is David Bettney, and I am a former Regimental Sergeant Major who served 22 years in the British Army, and for the last 15 years I have been building and running successful companies (Construction, Logistics & Security) in the Middle East, employing over 350 people.
I decided to run for Doncaster Mayor, as I ran as South Yorkshire Mayor last year, and I came 3rd in the Doncaster area, beating the Lib Dems and Green’s vote combined.
“my top priority is to generate well paying jobs, to give Doncaster a much needed cash injection”
You’re the candidate for Mayor of Doncaster. What are the main concerns in the area?
There are many concerns, with freezing pensioners and antisocial behaviour, being very high up on the list (and I have a school’s program, to go into the schools and talk to the kids, about how I, and others from disadvantaged backgrounds, achieved a lot in the forces with the right mentors, and how can play a huge part in making our city a great place to live). But my top priority is to generate well paying jobs, to give Doncaster a much needed cash injection.
“We have become a giant NGO, without asking the people first, if they actually want to sponsor the world’s inhabitants to come here”
What do you see as the major issues more widely that if election you would use the profile of the role to champion?
The wider issues would be to use the platform to stop the invasion on the South coast, and remove anybody here illegally, just the same as British citizens face when abroad if they have incorrect or no paperwork. We have become a giant NGO, without asking the people first, if they actually want to sponsor the world’s inhabitants to come here and live on our small island!
It’s simple, we either choose to use the law or we become lawless 🙁
How can people find out more or get involved in the campaign?
Jerry Wraith writes notes on annual CO2 emissions for the UK.
“the UK’s insane drive to achieve net zero must be abandoned forthwith, as it is ruining the UK economy at a cost of £trillions, for virtually no effect at all”
SUMMARY
The average annual global increase of CO2 emissions from 2017 to 2022 was 2.4 ppm (parts/million)
The human element of that was allegedly 3%, or 0.072 ppm/annum
The UK’s contribution, assumed to be at a further 1%, is then 0.00072 ppm/annum
A global, (i.e. natural and human) rise in CO2 of 180 ppm from the current level of 420ppm to 600 ppm results in a temperature difference of only 0.396°C, and it will take 75 years for the current global output of CO2 to reach that level at 2.4 ppm/annum, and 190 years to reach 1 ºC.
The human element of that temperature increase is allegedly 3%, so the human contribution to the temperature increase would be 0.012°C over 75 years or 0.00016°C/year
The UK’s contribution at 1% of the total human element would be 0.0000016°C/year
Hence, it will take the global human element 6,250 years to add 1°C
It will take the UK 625,000 years on its own to add 1°C to the global total
The global temperature rise from the pre-industrial level to the present day was only 0.05 °C so claims on the UK for “reparations” due to the “damage” caused by the Industrial Revolution, which are probably much less than 0.015 °C for the total human input are total nonsense and must be vigorously rejected. Also, the UK’s insane drive to achieve net zero must be abandoned forthwith, as it is ruining the UK economy at a cost of £trillions, for virtually no effect at all.
In addition, Roger Arthur, C.Eng., MIEE, MIET, has pointed out many times the total stupidity of relying on wind and solar means due to their unreliability and the cost of having to provide reliable back up supplies from fossil fuel sources. He is also an expert at describing the difficulty of providing the materials, manpower and money required to cope with establishing a net zero environment and has confirmed that the UK does not possess the materials, trained manpower or the money to achieve net zero by 2050.
DISCUSSION
According to Our World in Data (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions), in 2023, the worldwide CO2 emission was 37.79 billion tons, while for the UK, it was 305.15 million tons. This is the format always quoted by the powers that be and climate fanatics as it appears to be an enormous figure. It is a big figure, but in terms of the total annual human global amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere of 37.79 billion tons it is infinitesimal. In other words, in 2023, the UK contributed about 0.8% to the worldwide CO2 emission.
However, a much more realistic and useable figure for CO2 emissions, is to quote the global concentration of CO2 in parts/million, (ppm). The Moana Low observatory confirmed that the global CO2 level,
in 2017 was 405 ppm,
in 2022 it was 417 ppm and,
in 2024, about 420 ppm.
This means that the average annual global CO2 increase from 2017 to 2022 was 2.4 ppm, from 2022 to 2024 it was about 1.5 ppm and between 2017 and 2024 it was 2.14 ppm. This hardly shows a massive annual global increase in CO2, rather the reverse! Also, bear in mind that this increase comprises the natural global output plus that of nearly 200 nations of which the human element amount was allegedly only 3% of the global total, or 0.072 ppm/annum. We are therefore talking about extremely small annual increases of CO2 by humans. Although the UK contribution in 2023 was 0.8% of the world total it is assumed to be 1%, for the purposes of this note. This therefore gives the UK’s annual CO2 contribution as 0.00072 ppm/annum.
The figure of 0.00072 ppm is indisputable, but its implications will possibly not mean much to the average man/woman in the street. The main concern about rising CO2 is the mistaken and manufactured belief that increasing CO2 levels by humans are dangerously increasing global temperatures. Hence, we must look at how much increasing CO2 really increases global temperatures.
Firstly, it is a proven fact that increasing levels of CO2 have a reduced effect on global warming due to the effects of CO2 saturation. See Professor Happer and Dr van Wijngaarden’s, graph in Figure 1 below.
So, what effect on global temperature does the annual human CO2 level of 0.072 ppm and the annual UK contribution of 0.00072 ppm have on global temperature? This is difficult to analyse accurately as Prof. Happer’s graph is not very helpful in this respect as small increases in the CO2 level cannot be easily or accurately established from his graph, particularly as the graph is tending to be asymptotic at higher levels of CO2.
But by expanding the graph and by careful measurements it is possible to establish that the temperature increase at a CO2 level of 420 ppm is 5.2118 °C and the temperature increase at 600 ppm is 5.514 °C.
Therefore, a global rise in CO2 of 180 ppm results in a temperature difference of only 0.396°C, and it will take the global output of CO2 75 years to reach that level at 2.4 ppm/annum, and 190 years to reach 1 ºC.
(N.B. Compare that figure with the predictions by 383 out of 843 lead authors of the IPCC’s reports for their estimate of the how much human global warming there would be at the end of the century, i.e. 75 years away! The so-called IPCC’s expert’s answers ranged from 1.5 ºC to 5 ºC. Hardly a “consensus” even within the IPCC!)
“no amount of increasing taxation on aviation, the push to EV’s, heat pumps etc., etc., is going to affect the 97% of annual CO2 produced naturally”
However, the insane rush to net zero can only be concerned with the human production of CO2. Obviously, no amount of increasing taxation on aviation, the push to EV’s, heat pumps etc., etc., is going to affect the 97% of annual CO2 produced naturally. Hence, we need to look carefully at the 3% human level of CO2 produced globally and the UK’s contribution to that total.
Firstly, it must be noted from the graph above that the pre-industrial global CO2 level was 280 ppm. This has increased to about 420 ppm in 2024 a rise of 140 ppm from about 1760 or about 0.54 ppm/year. This rate of increasing CO2 is being used to fuel the panic stricken claims regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW, caused by human activity, mainly by the use of fossil fuels.
However, readings off the Happer graph show that the global temperature increase at 260 ppm was 4.614 °C and was 5.118 °C at todays level of 420 ppm. Hence, there was only a 0.504 °C rise in temperature over the 264 years or about 0.002 °C/annum. A 0.5 °C global rise over 264 years hardly counts as a catastrophe especially as the human element was probably much lower than the 3% currently assumed. Hence, claims on the UK for “reparations” due to the damage caused by the Industrial Revolution, which are probably much less than 0.015 °C for the total global human input are total nonsense and must be rejected.
More recently, the Moana Low observatory readings show that the temp increase at 600 ppm is about 5.514 ºC and 5.115 ºC at today’s 420 ppm. This gives us a temperature rise of 0.399 ºC for a 180 ppm increase of CO2. Hence, the human element of this amounts to 0.012 ºC. This therefore means that the global push to achieve net zero will, over 75 years, only reduce global temperature by a maximum of 0.012 ºC at an annual rate of 0.00016 ºC. At this rate it will take 6,250 years for the current global output to increase global temperature by 1 ºC. Hence,
THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS!
“the UK’s contribution to the so-called “global warming” and the “climate crisis” is clearly an even more trivial addition to a trivial global amount”
The UK contribution at 1% of the annual global human output would be 0.00012 ºC and it would take the UK more than 625,000 years to add 1 ºC to the global total on its own. Thus, the UK’s contribution to the so-called “global warming” and the “climate crisis” is clearly an even more trivial addition to a trivial global amount.
Hence, a CO2 concentration rise to 460 ppm from 280 ppm has little effect, (i.e. less than 0.5 °C) on the world’s so-called global warming. In addition, Happer’s graph shows that there will be a negligible effect on global warming if the CO2 level increases to 600 ppm, the extremity of his graph. It will take the world as a whole (600 – 420) ÷ 2.4 ppm/annum = 75 years to reach 600 ppm at an annual increase of 2.4 ppm. This again confirms that there is NO immediate crisis concerning rising CO2 levels.
Furthermore, if the global level does reach 600 ppm this will be highly beneficial to the world’s population due to its beneficial effect on increasing world food production.
The above analysis has been based on Prof.Happer and Dr van Wijngaarden’s graph. It is interesting to note that their results are confirmed in principle by the IPCC as shown in FIGURE 2 below. This is based on IPCC published information defining the effect on global temperature with increasing CO2. This graph is copied from Gregory Wrightstone’s excellent book, “Inconvenient Facts, The science Al Gore does not want you to know”, as it confirms the shape of the H&vW graph in Figure 1 above. However, it appears from the graph that it gives higher temperature’s than the H&vW graph. Hence, an independent technical assessment of both systems must be carried out which is backed up by test results. It is not feasible to do a comparison between the two graphs at this stage as the IPCC graph starts at 100 ppm and lower concentrations are likely to give much higher results for the temperature increase.
“China emits more CO2 in 11 days than the UK does in a year. There is no point in “leading” if other big emitters are NOT following”
COMMENTS
I am indebted to Roger Arthur, C.Eng., MIEE, MIET, for the following comments. He has over 30 years Power Systems experience, including the design and commissioning of large power projects around the globe and has repeatedly pointed out the risks of continuing along the net zero path. This increases the risk of power cuts, while leaving the UK over dependent on Wind and Solar which produce negligible power for days in a row – all of which, including gas, are more expensive in £ per TWh of energy delivered, than are SMR (Small Modular Reactors), which can be made in the UK.
Apart from building SMRs to carry the UK grid base load (of around 25GW) which cannot be carried by those farms, we need to stop subsidising solar and offshore wind farms now, to utilise our own energy resources and to increase our gas storage from 12 days, to at least 50 days. At present we would be quickly brought to our knees in the event of war.
He also points out that China emits more CO2 in 11 days than the UK does in a year. There is no point in “leading” if other big emitters are NOT following but are taking over our manufacturing base. In any event, it should be clear that the sun is the principal driver of global temperature, to which CO2 is a follower.
Global temperature has risen by around 8°C since the last interglacial trough, which occurred around 20,000 years before the Industrial Revolution. To extrapolate backwards based on around 200 years of history – to validate IPCC models while ignoring factors other than CO2 was naive in the extreme.
Human CO2 emissions fell during lockdowns but the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 went up and it should be clear that the impact of human (never mind UK) emissions is infinitesimal.
Business professionals would not have begun a project like net zero, without a thorough costing and a cost benefit analysis. But the Climate Change Act was put into law, committing millions to misery – without asking them – in a form of taxation without representation. That was gross negligence, and the Act must be repealed as a priority, before even more die from poverty.
Finally, he has confirmed that the UK does not possess the materials, trained manpower or the money to achieve net zero by 2050. The UK’s insane drive to achieve net zero must be abandoned forthwith, as it is ruining the UK economy at a cost of £trillions, for virtually no effect at all.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The UK economy is being decimated and destroyed by the Labour Party, and allegedly fully supported by the Conservative, Lib Dem and Green Parties to give the world an “example” to follow. Unfortunately for us, the rest of the world is not so incredibly stupid as to take any notice, so the UK is well and truly on its own up a blind and destructive dead end!
2) In addition, Roger Arthur, C.Eng., MIEE, MIET, has pointed out many times the total stupidity of relying on wind and solar means due to their unreliability and the cost of having to provide reliable back up supplies from fossil fuel sources. He is also an expert at describing the difficulty of providing the materials, manpower and money required to cope with establishing a net zero environment.
3) Roger Arthur has confirmed that the UK does not possess the materials, trained manpower or the money to achieve net zero by 2050.
4) Hence the UK achieving net zero is blatantly impractical, unachievable, catastrophically expensive and ineffectual and must be abandoned forthwith.
Resume
Born: 16/08/1938 in Khanspur, NWFP, India
Education: King Edward VI Grammar School, Southampton
Northampton College (now City University) BSc in Aeronautical Engineering
BAe Engineering, Wind Tunnel engineer and Aerodynamics Office
4 Years in New Zealand with NZ CAA, Wilson and Gollin and Air New Zealand
Worked in Westlands Helicopters, Yeovil
30 years as a Hovercraft Design Surveyor and then Aircraft Design Surveyor, managing UK certification programmes of new aircraft before acceptance on UK aircraft register.
Retired 31/08/1998.
12 years in the RNR retiring as a Lt Cdr. RNR.
Married, with two children and three grandchildren.
The weekend of Saturday 22nd and Sunday 23rd March 2025, saw the Third Margaret Thatcher Centre Freedom Festival held at the University of Buckingham.
“Why do Conservative governments abandon their principles in office“
The festival consisted of a day and half of keynote addresses, panel discussions and a gala dinner with Lord David Frost speaking.
Many good points were made, and interesting discussions held. Mahyar Tousi also posted a clip about one of the speeches on YouTube. Listed below are some of our slightly random take aways from the weekend:
‘the entire budget of the Foreign Office is a rounding error in the DWP’
The first panel discussion was a favourite with James Price, Giles Dilnot and Reem Ibrahim discussing Free Trade. A discussion where everyone had interesting points, and it was easy to agree with some of what all said.
Lord Young of Acton (Toby Young) gave a keynote address and asked ‘Why do Conservative governments abandon their principles in office’
Why was Margaret Thatcher the exception?
Speaking about the lockdown, Lord Young pointed out that the UK plan was indeed taken up, just not by the UK, but by Sweden.
He went on to also say that the Government Report of April 2020 showed an expected and additional 185,000 deaths due to the NHS moving to emergency care only, when we locked down expecting to save at most 200,000 lives. Toby also said:
‘Lessons aren’t learnt they are abandoned’
‘Sometimes the best path is to do nothing’
Finally Toby talked about his current major concern with the Employment Rights bill which extends the requirement to protect employees from harassment by third parties, including overheard conversations – The Free Speech Union now have a campaign for this to Say No to ‘Banter Bouncers’.
“Sometimes the best path is to do nothing”
Allison Pearson spoke about the investigation by the police into her tweet. She mentioned how the Police Report was leaked to the Guardian. Also, that the ‘NCHI reversed the burden of proof, you are no longer innocent until proven guilty, and that ‘Police who won’t come out for a burglary will come out for this’.
Allison went on to announce that she is instigating legal proceedings against Essex Police and the Polcie Commissioner Robert Hurst.
“Police who won’t come out for a burglary will come out for this”
In a panel discussion on Cheerfulness & The Culture War, Emma Trimble (née Webb) wared against ‘the right falling into a purity spiral’, this became a reasonable often repeated and timely thought. On the same panel Mark Littlewood talked of ‘a conservative movement, whatever your political party is’. Mark also talked about the need to ‘reset Britain to pre-Blair 1997’. Tim Scott also on the panel pointed out that ‘we also have to be honest about the things that are good’. Emma also pointed out that we need to get rid of the Supreme Court.
In a Panel about the rule of law Dr Bryn Harris of the Free Speech Union pointed out that ‘free societies don’t regulate what people say at work’.
In the next panel on Academic Freedom, Professor Eric Kaufmann talked about the need to get funding to support right wing views in universities.
The evening finished with a gala dinner with Lord David Frost in which special awards were given to Allison Pearson and Professor James Tooley.
On the Sunday Catherine McBride OBE pointed out that the ‘UK has coal, oil and gas, and for some reason the government has decided to keep all 3 in the ground’. Also, that ‘Germany has reverted to coal and for some reason we refuse to sell it to them’.
Baroness Claire Fox gave a keynote address and started by noting that given her background it was ‘disconcerting to be speaking at a conference for Margaret Thatcher’. Claire pointed out that at the Battle of Ideas events she organises the left has diminished and that ‘my tribe, the left have disintegrated into snowflakes’. She also raised concerns that whilst the left created a template, the right may be copying it with an increasing ‘victim narrative’ and warned us against it. She also noted that much of the backlash against the Netflix series Adolescent was from those who refused to watch it.
Paul Murphy is the SDP candidate in the Runcorn & Helsby by-election being held on May 1st. We spoke with Paul about his decision to stand.
“I care deeply about the constituency and the country and believe that together we can end the indifference that exists within our political system”
Can you introduce yourself to our readers, and tell us what made you decide to run again?
I was born and raised in Bradford, West Yorkshire, but have lived in Cheshire for the last 10 years. I’ve now lived in Ashton Hayes for 3 years with my wife, daughter and 2 dogs.
I’m not a career politician; I’ve worked in IT as a Product Manager for 22 years. I’ve spent the majority of that time focusing on finding out what people want, then working to deliver it.
As a typical no-nonsense Yorkshireman, I can assure you that with me what you see is what you get. I care deeply about the constituency and the country and believe that together we can end the indifference that exists within our political system.
I decided to stand again for very similar reasons to why I stood last time, people deserve the opportunity to have a real say in the running of the country, something that they do not get considering how similar the two major parties are.
“From the need for well-paying industrialised jobs, to the erosion of the basic services that we all rely on – we can all see that the UK is heading in the wrong direction”
What do you see as the major local concerns for residents in the constituency?
The main concerns haven’t changed since the general election, people feel that the government is out of touch and have a general indifference to the daily lives for their constituents. From the need for well-paying industrialised jobs, to the erosion of the basic services that we all rely on – we can all see that the UK is heading in the wrong direction, and I feel that the SDP is best placed to get the country back on track.
“The reindustrialisation of the UK economy is the area that would be my main goal in parliament”
If elected, what national issues do you hope to champion?
The reindustrialisation of the UK economy is the area that would be my main goal in parliament. The country will simply be unable to grow until we start to produce things for ourselves.
How can people find out more or get involved in the campaign?
Ashley Dickenson is the Christian Peoples Alliance (CPA) candidate for the Sutton Central ward by-election in the London Borough of Sutton. We spoke with Ashley about his decision to stand.
“I’m running to promote the Christian Peoples Alliance in this Borough and not least our policies that could benefit Sutton High Street that’s in this ward”
Can you introduce yourself to our readers, and tell us what made you decide to run?
I’m running to promote the Christian Peoples Alliance in this Borough and not least our policies that could benefit Sutton High Street that’s in this ward. For example, our turnover tax of 5% on turnovers of at least £85,000, offset against corporation tax, in order to reduce business rates that have cost us our High Street shops. Just earlier this month I read of an independent coffee shop, Tazza, that has been forced to close owing to the ‘chain’ coffee shops in Sutton. OK this is an issue that needs to be addressed at a national level but, if elected, this is what I would raise, given the opportunity.
On a more practical level: school buses! Given that more money has been raised through the ULEZ scheme, is it not possible that a % of that could not fund school buses to reduce school-run traffic and thereby reduce even further any pollution, to say nothing of increasing road works owing to the pressure on our roads. At one time the Tramlink was proposed for Sutton: this will be pointless unless there’s a re-vitalisation of our High Street, not least through independent and family-run businesses.
“At least one main concern brought to my attention is the site of the former B & Q on which it is proposed to build new developments called Chalk Green. Not least the increased pressure on one of our Health Centres”
You’re the candidate for Sutton Central. What are the main concerns in the area?
At least one main concern brought to my attention is the site of the former B & Q on which it is proposed to build new developments called Chalk Green. Not least the increased pressure on one of our Health Centres; the limited parking which means that homeowners who own cars will have to park (creating ‘overflows’) on nearby roads, adding to parking pressures.
“Time and again I have witnessed overcrowding on our regular routes by pupils. If our excellent schools had their own buses, this would go a long way to alleviating the ‘school run’ traffic”
What do you see as the major issues more widely in Sutton and if elected what do you hope to champion?
The housing issue as well as speeding restrictions. The latter as, if you’re going to have 20 mph imposed on some roads then drivers will increase speeds on other roads to make up ‘for lost time’ as it were and so risk accidents and breaking the speed limit, even 30 mph. Regarding roads, I refer you back to the need for school buses.
The benefits of a school bus:
Children are always on time
They can make new friends
Children learn to look after their things
Children learn about time management
Lower accident/crime rate against our children
Parents’ peace of mind.
It would restore the face-to-face contact between friends considering the enforced separation of each other since this pandemic started. As:
When children are being driven to school they contact friends via mobile or tablet. A school bus encourages more natural contact and would help reduce over-dependency on technology, as marvellous as it is. Though I accept that contact via mobiles will still take place, even on buses.
Time and again I have witnessed overcrowding on our regular routes by pupils. If our excellent schools had their own buses, this would go a long way to alleviating the ‘school run’ traffic. We have excellent schools in this Borough.
Also: leaves! They are not swept away as regularly as they should be and those that are left I take it on myself to use as compost for our shared garden. The more upswept leaves end up inside our drains they are blocking the same and so rainwater is not efficiently or sufficiently dealt with.
How can people find out more or get involved in the campaign?
Joanna Bishop is the Reform UK candidate for the Sutton Central ward by-election in the London Borough of Sutton. We spoke with Joanna about her decision to stand.
“I felt we had been gradually suffocated by the red tape and regulations putting a strain on businesses and making the future seem quite bleak”
Can you introduce yourself to our readers, and tell us what made you decide to run?
My name is Joanna Bishop and I am standing in the Sutton Central ward by-election for the London Borough of Sutton. I have lived in Sutton for 23 years and the wider local area for my entire life.
I decided to run as a candidate having become disillusioned with the successive governments over the past couple of decades. I have always followed politics to a degree but I never felt compelled to join a party before. I started to pay more attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it struck me how badly our country was being run. I felt we had been gradually suffocated by the red tape and regulations putting a strain on businesses and making the future seem quite bleak. Nigel Farage has been on my radar for some time, and I have massive respect for his bravery in standing up and challenging the establishment. I read every word of Reforms contract to the people before the July 2024 general election, and it resonated with me in such a way that I felt compelled to not only vote for Reform but to get stuck in and help.
I have a burning desire to help Reform flourish from grass roots up. I feel like local residents have become so used to inefficient and sometimes incompetent councillors that that’s what they now expect. I would love to turn that around and establish a local support network where I can meet and speak with residents on local issues.
“Sutton high street is the target of shoplifters and local residential properties and vehicles are being targeted by thieves on a regular basis”
You’re the candidate for Sutton Central. What are the main concerns in the area?
Although the violent crime rate is low in Sutton in comparison to the other London boroughs it is still prevalent, and residents would like to see more police presence on our streets. Sutton high street is the target of shoplifters and local residential properties and vehicles are being targeted by thieves on a regular basis.
Local residents have been calling out for their council representative to be accessible and for their concerns to be listened to. I pledge to be a strong voice on the council so that the resident’s voices will finally be heard.
“The council needs to spend the residents’ tax more wisely and cut waste”
What do you see as the major issues more widely in Sutton and if elected what do you hope to champion?
Overhaul Suttons infrastructure. Reduce the mass of restrictions on our roads. Reverse the ULEZ expansion. Better transport links and affordable housing. The council needs to spend the residents’ tax more wisely and cut waste.
How can people find out more or get involved in the campaign?
“local residents have become so used to inefficient and sometimes incompetent councillors that that’s what they now expect. I would love to turn that around”
Adam Williams is the SDP candidate for Totteridge and Bowerdean in May’s Buckinghamshire Council elections. We spoke with Adam about his decision to stand.
“my standing is an investment in the future of our town. I want to see it succeed for my children and their children after them”
Can you introduce yourself to our readers, and tell us what made you decide to run?
My name is Adam Williams, I’m 27 years old and originally from the West Midlands. I’ve set up shop in Buckinghamshire and I am putting down roots in Wycombe. I’ve decided to run because I believe that High Wycombe offers a lot of potential for young people and their families, and my standing is an investment in the future of our town. I want to see it succeed for my children and their children after them.
I’m standing for the Social Democratic Party as the party of the traditional left. We’re culturally conservative and left leaning on economics. We seek the common good of the British people. We believe in a social market economy, the family, the fraternity of the British nation and aim to provide a political party for those who have given up on the current batch in Parliament and are looking for a hopeful alternative.
“Windrush Drive has appalling potholes, the Red Kite council estate is in disrepair and the tenants are not looked after properly”
You’re the candidate for Totteridge and Bowerdean. What are the main concerns in the area?
Windrush Drive has appalling potholes, the Red Kite council estate is in disrepair and the tenants are not looked after properly, the London Road is used a racetrack at times, and we have major issues with speeding. We’re seeing a rise in major crime events, just the other day the train station had police surrounding it, as well as minor ones such as fly tipping, making the area feel dirty and unsafe.
“I would push for the construction of data centres in Iver and Wycombe in order to facilitate economic growth in the county”
What do you see as the major issues more widely across Buckinghamshire, and if elected, what do you hope to champion?
The major issues across Buckinghamshire and what will I champion are:
Drug Crime and associated disorder
Pressures the council budget faces from unfunded mandates
Economic growth – more jobs in the county rather than being a stop over for London commuters, in particular low and medium skill jobs.
Housing for young people
I would push for the construction of data centres in Iver and Wycombe in order to facilitate economic growth in the county, and in my ward in particular I would be focusing on anti-social behaviour, such as littering, fly tipping and speeding, pressuring the council to carry out much needed road repair and advocating for a restoration of the Red Kite council housing to properly suit the tenants needs.
“We seek the common good of the British people. We believe in a social market economy, the family, the fraternity of the British nation”
How can people find out more or get involved in the campaign?
At our My tuppenceworth evening on the 19th February Mike Swadling spoke about the Benefits Trap.
“4.2 million working age people in Great Britain are receiving health related benefits which is 10.2% of the population”
I want to talk about the benefits trap and the problem particularly with sickness benefit in this country. Now, you might know that Fraser Nelson was speaking about this on Trigonometry this week. I think it came out Sunday. You will notice the difference if you have watched that between mine and his version. His is eloquent, whereas I’m me. I did honesty write this before that came out, and frankly I just don’t have that quick of a turnaround to have written it after.
The unemployment rate in the UK is 4.4%. Currently, the employment rate for people age 16 to 64 is 74.8%, so there’s a bit of a delta there. 4.2 million working age people in Great Britain are receiving health related benefits which is 10.2% of the population.
“if families support themselves, it’s up to them what they do. But when we support them, we as taxpayers have a vested interest I think, in their choices”
There are people that are under 64 that are retired. There are people looking after children or other family members. And frankly, if families support themselves, it’s up to them what they do. But when we support them, we as taxpayers have a vested interest I think, in their choices.
As a reminder, in the last 30 years, we’ve had just three years not in budget deficit for the government. The last one of them was 24 years ago. Britain now spends more on sickness than on defence with £65 billion on health-related payments compared to just £54 billion for the military.
1.57 million unemployed people in the UK compares to 2.83 million people age 16 to 64 who are economically inactive due to long term sickness. Unemployment, thankfully, is not (yet?) necessarily the major problem. It’s sickness benefit that is the big part of our benefit system. The cost of personal independence payments, which is the main disability benefit, is predicted to rise by 60% up to £35 billion in the next four years.
They reckon getting 400,000 people back to work would save £10 billion. If the Treasury cuts spending on disability benefits and universal credit to just pre-pandemic levels, and this is not some weird utopian ideal, just cut it to where we were five years ago, it would take 3p off the basic rate of income tax, 4p off higher rate tax and scrap inheritance tax. But that’s the financial side.
I think the major problem is the moral problem. A couple of quotes for you.
Lord George Bridges the Chair of The Lords Economic Affairs Committee said the system encouraged welfare over work, calling it “financially unsustainable” and a “waste of human potential.”
Quote Tony Blair – “You’ve got to be careful of translating those [challenges] into a mental health condition and losing your own agency, in a way, to govern your own life… Life has its ups and downs, and everybody experiences those. And you’ve got to be careful of encouraging people to think they’ve got some sort of condition other than simply confronting the challenges of life. We need a proper public conversation about this because you really cannot afford to be spending the amount of money we’re spending on mental health.”
I’m sure we’ve all seen family members or friends, who lose agency and drive though periods of unemployment.
“open up offices for the people to come into two or three days a week from nine to five. No longer would you be able to stay at home seven days a week as an option and get paid”
So, what’s my idea? Why am I speaking to you? What I would like to do is make sure that no one is allowed to stay at home seven days a week on benefits. Now, let’s qualify that a bit. No one who’s retired or in regular medical care or receiving a carer’s allowance would be expected to attend.
If you’re of working age, you’re not receiving treatment or caring for someone, you will need to come into an office, the unemployment office. I would like to open up offices for the people to come into two or three days a week from nine to five. No longer would you be able to stay at home seven days a week as an option and get paid.
Why am I saying this? Frankly, you are, what you do.
Staying at home makes you stay at home.
A lack of motivation keeps you unmotivated.
A lack of mixing with people keeps you bad at mixing with people.
Being made to do something you don’t want to do makes you much more likely to do other, better things you do want to do.
Now, I want to, for a moment, park what people do whilst they’re in the unemployment office. Mainly because I don’t think that matters much. It bogs us down in the wrong discussion. For the purpose of this, let’s just assume they’re coming to watch TV.
“No longer would they be simply staying at home, staying in a routine, they’re having to do something different, and it gives them the motivation to do something better”
Why do I want to do this? Now, I suspect, and it’s only suspicion, and I admit I can’t back up these numbers, but as soon as you make people physically, regularly, and for extended periods of time turn up, you will find:
5% of the people on benefits simply don’t exist and drop off
10% have full-time jobs, so drop off
Another 10% have another means of support or choose simply no longer to collect benefits.
I would call a 25% reduction a good start. Now, even if I overestimated that by 100%, I don’t think that was wild numbers I used there, 12.5% would still be a darn good start. And then you get to the more important part, the moral part. Starting to energise those people who have been out of work for extended periods. No longer would they be simply staying at home, staying in a routine, they’re having to do something different, and it gives them the motivation to do something better.
Every government seems to rename benefits and tinker around the edges of how to implement them. Experts come and go and implement different ideas to varying success. The benefit, I think, of this plan is its simplicity. You simply have to turn up.
But who turns up? The top 10 types of health conditions for people aged 16 to 64 who are economically inactive and in long-term sickness are depression, bad nerves and anxiety, impacting 1.3 million. Problems with legs or feet and problems with back or neck, affecting a million people. Mental illness impacts 900,000. Between 600,000 and 800,000 people have problems with arms and legs, heart, blood or circulation. And then other health conditions, chest or breathing problems, digestive problems, and diabetes impact about 360,000. And of course, some people have more than one of these.
The point is, whilst those might be very serious conditions, these are not people with stage 4 cancer. They’re not undergoing major surgery. No one would expect those people to be in the office, but literally millions who are currently receiving sickness benefits could be.
Assuming you end up targeting 3 million of the 4.1 million people on health benefits, at two days a week in the office, that would be equivalent to 2,000 people needing to be housed for each of the 600 job centres in the UK. That is a lot, and I won’t pretend that’s easy.
There are many empty buildings that could easily house 1,000 people in Croydon, and across the country. Many office buildings are half empty. This is not an insurmountable challenge and could be built up to. Schools are empty a third of the year. Towns are full of empty halls, churches and many other places that could be brought into use.
What will it cost? Frankly, a fraction of the savings you would make by getting Britain back to work.
“You can give them YouTube how-to videos. You can give them distance learning courses. You can invite charities in to help people…. You could do a multitude of things, but you’ve got to get them to turn up first”
What would people do? Now, I did park that, and I parked it because I think it’s much less important than forcing the change on people. But frankly, by default, people could watch the History Channel. You could stick on the Open University. You could make books available. You can give them YouTube how-to videos. You can give them distance learning courses. You can invite charities in to help people. You can organise litter picking giving people the day off after two hours of effort, et cetera, et cetera. You could do a multitude of things, but you’ve got to get them to turn up first.
What matters is you get people out, you increase their motivation, and you increase their ability to live life once again.
