Author: croydonconstitutionalists

SDP CONDEMNS PLANS FOR DIGITAL ID SYSTEM

The budget again confirmed the Labour Governments plan to introduce a Digital ID system, at a staggering provisionally forecast cost of £1.8billion.  Below is the SDP Press Release from September which sums up many of the condemnations of these plans.

“Existing “right to work” checks are more than sufficient to stop the employment of illegal aliens. The government should instead crackdown on black market and gig economy firms”

William Clouston, SDP Leader: 

“The SDP is the party of the patriotic state. We accept that sometimes individual liberties must be balanced against collective goods. But what collective good does digital ID solve? It does not solve the challenge of illegal migration – which is a problem only due to weak elites that refuse to use the tools they already have. 

“Instead, I believe this new digital ID scheme is a desperate move by a teetering government to keep key backers of the Starmer government on-side. Big tech firms, and the sinister interest groups that have benefitted from their largesse, are turning the screws to force an expensive, insecure, and pointless digital ID system on the public while the political opportunity still remains. It must be rejected.”

London (26 September 2025) – The Social Democratic Party (SDP), Britain’s party of the patriotic state, opposes the government’s planned digital ID system – on four main grounds.

First, the SDP rejects the claim that such a system is necessary to reduce illegal migration. Existing “right to work” checks are more than sufficient to stop the employment of illegal aliens. The government should instead crackdown on black market and gig economy firms that fail to enforce existing right to work checks. Such a crackdown, paired with the detention and deportation of all illegal arrivals into Britain, would end the crisis of illegal migration.

Secondly, rather than being in the interests of the British people, the planned digital ID system exists to further the interests of multinational technology firms. The main domestic champion of digital ID, the Tony Blair Institute, has received several millions of pounds in donations since 2021 from Larry Ellison, co-founder and executive chairman of Oracle. Oracle may be a vendor for much of the enterprise database software that will underpin the government’s digital ID system.

“the system’s implementation will represent a wealth transfer in the order of tens of billions of pounds from the British people to Silicon Valley software firms”

Thirdly, the new digital ID system represents a blatant attempt at state capture by big tech. As constituted, the system’s implementation will represent a wealth transfer in the order of tens of billions of pounds from the British people to Silicon Valley software firms and contractors. The digital ID system will also grant big tech unprecedented access to vast amounts of data on the British public, allowing significant opportunities for profit at our collective expense.

Finally, the planned digital ID system is a security risk of unprecedented proportions. One Login, the existing system which will underpin the digital ID scheme, is riddled with fundamental security flaws. Many of the contractors for One Login have not undergone basic security vetting, with much of the development having been outsourced to Romania. Internal simulations of a cyberattack have shown that One Login can be commandeered by external actors to produce fake IDs, shut down the system nation-wide, and steal the IDs of millions of British citizens. 

“The digital ID system will also grant big tech unprecedented access to vast amounts of data on the British public”

You can learn more about the Libertarian party at https://sdp.org.uk/.

Originally posted at https://sdp.org.uk/2025/09/26/sdp-condemns-plans-for-digital-id-system/

Image from Grok.

A slap in the face for working people – Budget 2025

The Libertarian Party UK published the note below following the budget.

“the budget ensures rising wages and inflation push more people into higher tax brackets without the need for an explicit rate rise. This is effectively a hidden tax increase”

Well, what a slap in the face for working people yesterday, as Rachel Reeves unveiled the heftiest tax rises in decades. A quick run-down of some of the LPUK NCC’s response to the budget announcement:

For London and South East co-ordinator Marco Bocci, Reeves’ claim that “We beat the forecasts and we will beat them again” is “the best phrase of the budget yet. She should do stand up comedy, Rachel from accounts.”

Let’s pick apart some of the main points:

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵-𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝘇𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝘀

By freezing income-tax and National Insurance thresholds until 2031, the budget ensures rising wages and inflation push more people into higher tax brackets without the need for an explicit rate rise. This is effectively a hidden tax increase, subverting transparency and voter consent.

𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝘅 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝘀𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆

Raising taxes on dividend income, property and investment returns (plus a “mansion tax” on high-value homes) deters capital formation, penalises asset ownership and discourages saving. This amounts to state appropriation of individuals’ legitimately earned returns.

“taxing a previously legal and popular method of efficient retirement saving. This closes off a voluntary, private route to long-term financial security”

£𝟮,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗽 𝗼𝗻 𝗡𝗜-𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀

Anything above that limit will now attract full employee and employer NI, effectively taxing a previously legal and popular method of efficient retirement saving. This closes off a voluntary, private route to long-term financial security, raises the cost of saving, and pushes individuals towards greater reliance on state-approved pension structures rather than personal choice.

𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴

The abolition of the two-child benefit cap and increased welfare, while framed as support for “vulnerable families,” expands the size and scope of the welfare state. This redistributive spending infringes on property rights and encourages dependency on the state.

𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲

Raising the over-21 rate to £12.71 an hour from April 2026 will only put more pressure on already struggling employers to increase wages for others, and is a de-facto endorsement of rising unemployment. The resulting inflationary pressure will only further deepen the cost of living crisis.

For Chairman Andrew Withers, “The overall picture is sucking £26bn out of the productive economy to prop up a dying Welfare State all in the name of ‘fairness.’ The main beneficiaries will not be children in poverty, but the employment of tens of thousands of middle class bureaucrats working in quangos.”

“The overall picture is sucking £26bn out of the productive economy to prop up a dying Welfare State”

Mercia co-ordinator Martin Day congratulates Reeves on “hammering the poor hardest in an effort to balance the books. Government spending MUST be cut.”

Though a separate issue, party leader Alex Zychowski notes that “yesterday – the day before the budget – Labour signalled their intention to abolish trial by jury – an insidious attempt to use the assault on our paychecks to take the light off this egregious assault on our ancient freedoms.”

More on that in the coming days, but to close our analysis, a simple but accurate summary from Northern co-ordinator Dan Clarke: “this budget is a disgrace.”

“hammering the poor hardest in an effort to balance the books. Government spending MUST be cut.”

You can learn more about the Libertarian party at https://libertarianpartyuk.com/.

Originally posted on 26th November at https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Cw2x799jL/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Image from Grok.

Surveillance State – Live Facial Recognition

” the idea that mass scanning of faces in public should become routine ought to alarm anyone who values freedom over convenience”

The Metropolitan Police are proposing a major expansion of live facial-recognition surveillance across London, claiming success after nearly a thousand arrests linked to the technology. Their public consultation, proudly cited by the force, apparently found that 85% of respondents support the use of facial recognition to catch serious criminals.

On the surface, it sounds persuasive – a high-tech answer to crime. But the idea that mass scanning of faces in public should become routine ought to alarm anyone who values freedom over convenience. Let’s not forget that it is little coincidence that facial recognition is being rolled out in tandem with digital ID – the two systems will surely be linked, meaning walking down the high street to get a pint of milk becomes the equivalent of walking through passport control.

In a free society, the presumption of innocence is not negotiable. Yet facial-recognition systems function by presuming the opposite: that everyone passing a camera deserves to be checked against a criminal database. The innocent are monitored not because of what they’ve done, but because they exist in public. That logic turns civic life into a police line-up and erodes one of the oldest protections in liberal civilisation – that the citizen need not justify their innocence to The State.

“In a free society, the presumption of innocence is not negotiable. Yet facial-recognition systems function by presuming the opposite”

Proponents point to reassuring statistics: the Metropolitan Police claim a false-match rate of just 0.0003 % from millions of scans. But even such a tiny error, multiplied across a city of millions, produces hundreds of wrongful alerts and unjustified interventions. More troubling still, eight in ten false matches involved black individuals, underscoring that algorithmic bias is not a theoretical risk but a measurable injustice. To shrug off these flaws because the “majority supports the policy” is to forget that liberty is not subject to opinion polls.

Beyond the technical debates lies a deeper constitutional one: who authorises this surveillance, and who restrains its use once normalised? There was no vote in parliament, no consultation when 46 million of our passport photos were uploaded to a database under the last Conservative government. Without strict legal boundaries and independent oversight, any promise of restraint will vanish under the pressure of convenience. History shows that powers granted to police in the name of safety are rarely surrendered voluntarily.

“who authorises this surveillance, and who restrains its use once normalised?”

The state’s duty to protect citizens does not extend to treating every citizen as a potential suspect. For libertarians, that principle defines the moral boundary of government. A society that trades privacy for marginal gains in policing may find that it loses both — liberty first, and trust soon after.

In the end, the expansion of facial-recognition surveillance is not progress – it is the dismantling of the presumption of innocence, one scan at a time.

Alex Zychowski – Libertarian Party UK

You can learn more about the Libertarian party at https://libertarianpartyuk.com/, follow Alex on X/ Twitter @alexzychowski or email him at alex.zychowski@libertarianpartyuk.com.

Originally posted on 4th November at https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17cc8Hmbye/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Main image from Grok.

A Theoretical Proposal for Fiscal Discipline and Debt Management – an interview with Josh L. Ascough

UK public sector net debt was at 96.4% of GDP as of the end of August 2025 and the level of debt at its highest since the early 1960s.  These problems are not unique to the UK and many time writer for the Croydon Constitutionalists, Josh L. Ascough released a new book ‘A Theoretical Proposal for Fiscal Discipline and Debt Management‘ that addresses this issue seen across the western world.  We speak with Josh.

“government or specific politician is looking to obtain a political legacy by creating a large infrastructure project; I think a certain HS2 project comes to most people’s minds”

Can you give our readers a brief overview of the book?

A Theoretical Proposal for Fiscal Discipline and Debt Management examines the risks of unconstrained debt spending by governments by examining the inevitable trade-offs and what is referred to as GAP (Government Agency Problems) that occur when governments have, in practice, no limit to their debt spending. Some of these are over-investment of government projects, where loose access to debt financing can encourage governments to maintain investment in projects whose costs have risen beyond their initial evaluation and assumed benefits, and legacy, where a government or specific politician is looking to obtain a political legacy by creating a large infrastructure project; I think a certain HS2 project comes to most people’s minds when they hear these two. And finally, the book ends with proposal a fiscal rule to limit the level of debt spending.

Your book proposes a 1.25 Rule, without giving away too much, what are the basics of the rule?

The 1.25 is a fiscal ratio that targets a maximum level of debt spending in relation to the nominal tax revenue the government receives and works in a similar fashion to the debt-to-equity finance in corporate finance models. For a simple example if we suppose the government revenue is 500 billion, then according to the ratio the government would have a maximum of 625 billion it could spend via debt. This would create the incentive for governments to effectively and efficiently allocate public resources into areas that will have long-term benefits with high long-term payoffs while still maintaining enough debt spending for initial investments into public works and as a reserve for crisis.

“create the incentive for governments to effectively and efficiently allocate public resources into areas that will have long-term benefits with high long-term payoffs”

This is your second book, your first being ‘Inflation and Monetary Policy: Understanding the Origins and Costs’.  What were a couple of key points from that book?

A major point was that when working on a novel approach to the Environmental Kuznets Curve; which measures the relationship between income per capita and environmental degradation, and typically shows that as countries become richer, they reach a certain point where they’re able to afford more environmentally friendly and sustainable policies and sources of energy. However the problem is the curve uses nominal income rather than being adjusted for inflation, and so the work I did showed that when adjusted for inflation, many countries are in what I called a treadmill state, whereby inflation continues to erode the purchasing power of income per capita, leading to a continuing loop of environmental policies being unaffordable; so those who argue for more environmental protection policies should first look to stabilise and reduce inflation.

Another key point would be Nominal Gross Domestic Product (NGDP) targeting which ties to my second book, as I suggest combining the 1.25 rule as a fiscal policy with NGDP targeting as a monetary policy. In the first book however NGDP targeting is suggested as an alternative to inflation targeting and as a second-best solution to a truly free banking system, as it is able to emulate the monetary equilibrium that the free banking area naturally provided, but as a proxy, and would be able to respond to supply and demand shocks more appropriately than inflation targeting.

“those who argue for more environmental protection policies should first look to stabilise and reduce inflation”

How can people get these books, and more generally get in touch?  (you don’t have to answer the get in touch part unless want)

People can find these books on Amazon for relatively cheap prices, the first is £12.99 and the newest book is £7.99. I keep prices down for my work as the money from them isn’t as important to me as getting the research and the final work out into the public.

A Theoretical Proposal for Fiscal Discipline and Debt Management – https://www.amazon.co.uk/Theoretical-Proposal-Fiscal-Discipline-Management/dp/B0FWRLPV3R/ref=sr_1_1

Inflation and Monetary Policy: Understanding the Origins and Costs – https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inflation-Monetary-Policy-Understanding-Origins/dp/B0F91P73RV/ref=sr_1_2

You can read more from Josh on our site at https://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/category/josh-l-ascough/

2 decades of battling ideas

By Mike Swadling

“positioned between the Communists Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist and Conservatives for Women was the Politics in Pubs stall, our partner organisation”

The weekend of the 18/19 October saw the 20th Anniversary Battle of Ideas take place in Church House in Westminster.  Once again over 100 debates, conversations and interviews took place where the challenges of today were discussed and the audience had the opportunity to take part.

Outside the main rooms and in the main hall, were stalls from a variety of organisations including the Free Speech Union, the SDP, #Together, Academics for Academic Freedom, Global Warming Policy Foundation, and many others.  This is not to forget positioned between the Communists Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist and Conservatives for Women was the Politics in Pubs stall, our partner organisation, which was partly manned during the weekend by myself.

The first debate I went to was about votes for 16-year-olds.  A wide-ranging debate which included my personal view that if people want votes at 16, then 16 year olds should take on the responsibilities of adulthood.  The debate also spoke extensively about the perceived left-wing bias in schools.  One interesting and rare moment of harsh pushback from the audience was when a member of the panel who was also a Labour activist decided to call Brexit voters stupid.  Clearly a party determined to drive down its support.

“The first debate I went to was about votes for 16-year-olds.  A wide-ranging debate which included my personal view that if people want votes at 16, then 16 year olds should take on the responsibilities of adulthood”

Other sessions I attended included discussions on the fear of populism, the state of the UK economy, ‘state incompetence’, the ‘police have lost the plot’ and ‘the importance of learning to drink underage’.  Many of these were in podcasts links for some recommended ones from the day are below:

At the time of writing 2025 videos are yet to be posted but you can see videos from previous years and no doubt will soon see videos from the weekend on the Battle of Ideas YouTube channel.

You can also follow more of what happened on the day via the #BattleFest and #BattleFest25 X/Twitter tags, and get details from the weekends brochure.

Lastly if any of this has wetted your appetite you can already book tickets for the 2026 Battle of Ideas, I hope to see you there.

“a Labour activist decided to call Brexit voters stupid.  Clearly a party determined to drive down its support”

The Ulsterisation of Britain: A Libertarian Perspective

By TheYellow&TheGreen

“The sectarian aesthetics once confined to Northern Ireland are re-emerging here at home”

Operation Raise the Colours has succeeded spectacularly. Lampposts across the country now bear the marks of defiance. The campaign has borne fruit, forcing Labour to tighten its grip on immigration by introducing digital ID. That debate deserves its own article.

This one is about something deeper. Something darker. The Ulsterisation of Britain.

Across our towns and cities, dividing lines are hardening, cultural, political and social. The sectarian aesthetics once confined to Northern Ireland are re-emerging here at home.

A new tribalism has taken root. The right has embraced identitarianism and with it the tactics and violence of collective ideology. Our streets are turning into battlegrounds. Symbols rise and fall in daily cycles of retaliation.

The left is no less tribal. It dresses its own divisions in moral language, but its identity politics is equally intolerant, demanding conformity and punishing dissent. The symbols may differ, yet the instinct to sort people into camps of virtue and vice remains the same.

From every corner of the collectivist spectrum, groups are organising, marching, preparing for confrontation. Each claims moral authority. None stands for individual liberty.

“we cannot ignore the material world or the reality of the situation. Individuals are being abused and assaulted, and private property is being targeted”

We are individualists by nature; we have always lacked the perspective or the experience to deal with sectarian politics. Yet we cannot ignore the material world or the reality of the situation. Individuals are being abused and assaulted, and private property is being targeted.

The question is not whether libertarians should take sides, but how we can stand apart, defending freedom and autonomy without becoming another faction in a growing civil conflict.

Regardless of how we feel about the other side or even our own, we must remember that there is a person on the other side, a person with feelings, thoughts and flaws. If we lose sight of that, we surrender to the same collectivist mindset we claim to oppose.

Liberty cannot survive in a world where people are dehumanised into tribes and enemies. It survives only when we recognise the individual, even in those we disagree with, as an equal in dignity and freedom.

That, above all else, is the libertarian line in the sand.

“Regardless of how we feel about the other side or even our own, we must remember that there is a person on the other side”

You can learn more about the Libertarian party at https://libertarianpartyuk.com/.

Originally posted on 24th October at https://www.facebook.com/libertarianuk/posts/the-ulsterisation-of-britain-a-libertarian-perspectiveby-theyellowthegreenoperat/1372713361150263/

Interview with Daniel Tebbutt Deputy Chair of Reform UK Croydon

Reform UK has been busy setting up branches across the country.  In June we published details of the new Chair of the then newly formed Croydon branch of Reform UK.  Former Councillor Daniel Tebbutt has recently been appointed the Deputy Chair of the branch.  He writes for us about his path to this new role below.

“I got my friends and family involved to help deliver leaflets, and when people asked me “aren’t you a bit young for this?”, I responded, “age doesn’t matter when you’re as passionate as I am”

Residents deserve to know who and what they are voting for – I pride myself on being open and transparent when it comes to my political record.

I joined Labour at 15 years old, I was a big believer in Jeremy Corbyn and he appealed to me, as he did so many other young people at that time.

I was elected on a Labour ticket as a District Councillor at the age of 18. I worked hard to get elected, I got my friends and family involved to help deliver leaflets, and when people asked me “aren’t you a bit young for this?”, I responded, “age doesn’t matter when you’re as passionate as I am”. That’s what I was and have always been, passionate about delivering meaningful, lasting change.

So here I was, 18-year-old local lad now a part of a Labour Group, I still remember the excitement of stepping into the chamber for the first time – there’s nothing quite like it!

“Shortly afterwards, as I had lost all faith in the party and its principles, I resigned my Labour whip and sat as an Independent. Do I regret my decision? No”

Over the following months, I consulted a Conservative Cabinet Member who was more knowledgeable on planning than I was.  A controversial application had been submitted in my ward and I sought some advice on how to approach this.

There was no ‘cloak and dagger’ or stealth involved, a simple coffee and chat at the local coffee shop.

On discovering my conversation with the Cabinet Member, I was ordered to attend a meeting at the council offices with Labour Group Officers. Amongst other things, an individual who was clearly furious mentioned that “Tories should be put up against a wall and shot”, I was horrified. I still remember to this day, my shock at this statement.

Shortly afterwards, as I had lost all faith in the party and its principles, I resigned my Labour whip and sat as an Independent. Do I regret my decision? No, because I wouldn’t be where I am today without taking it.

I soon realised that I wasn’t able to deliver on my promises to residents as an Independent Councillor, I simply didn’t have the experience or the network behind me. These were a couple of reasons why I joined the Local Conservatives.

“One of the duties I enjoy most is collaborating with the membership – I’m determined to drive Reform’s agenda for renewal and will work to get as many councillors in Croydon as possible”

On leaving Leicestershire and moving to Croydon in 2022, I re-joined the Labour Party as I thought that was where I belonged. I’d got materially involved in Croydon Labour in 2024, supported the mayoral campaign (even writing a policy document!), and became an officer. I applied to be a Councillor and was offered an interview, which I declined.

Almost as soon as Labour entered Government, they started breaking promises. I sat back, like many others who voted for Labour in the General Election and thought “I didn’t vote for this. I didn’t vote for vulnerable people, pensioners, farmers to be targeted”, I was losing faith in Starmer and the party leadership.

And then over the summer of 2025, Starmer announced that the UK Government would recognise Palestine as a state in September, if a ceasefire wasn’t agreed. A move which terrorist organisation, Hamas – celebrated, and in turn, betraying one of the UK’s closest allies, Israel. For me, this was the final nail in the coffin. I drafted my resignation letter, cut up my membership card and left Labour – I no longer felt represented by this party.

On leaving Labour I felt, and still feel, that I can make a positive difference through politics, I’m passionate about improving the lives of people. My mission is to help renew Croydon, forging it into a Borough that fills residents with pride. This is why I joined Reform UK – a party that I’m proud to be a member of, one that aligns with my beliefs.

Owing to my experience, I was asked to take up the role of Interim Deputy Chair of Reform UK Croydon, I accepted. One of the duties I enjoy most is collaborating with the membership – I’m determined to drive Reform’s agenda for renewal and will work to get as many councillors in Croydon as possible. I believe only Reform can fix Croydon after almost two decades of managed decline.

You can find out more about Dan on his Facebook Page, you can also follow Reform Croydon on Facebook, Twitter (X), and online at https://reformukcroydon.co.uk/.

Julia Searle, Reform UK Candidate for the Lingfield, Crowhurst & Tandridge Ward by-election.

Julia Searle is the Reform UK candidate for the 6th November, Lingfield, Crowhurst & Tandridge ward by-election in Tandridge. We spoke with Julia about her decision to stand.

“I’m a fighter and I’m here to be heard, to stand up for local people’s viewpoints and change sickness into healthy progress”

Can you introduce yourself to our readers, and tell us what made you decide to run?

I’ve lived in Surrey all my life. I have brought up my children in my property for the last 27 years. I have been a Parent/Teacher and Chairperson at my local infants’ school in Dormansland, as well as my children attending Lingfield Primary School before going on to senior schools.

I’ve always been an independent thinker; I’ve set up and run multiple businesses that I still run after 17 years. I’ve had the challenge of bringing up my children on my own, making ends meet and paying my mortgage.

Over the years, I have stood in local elections, I’ve stood in Reigate as an MP candidate and for Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey. I’m pretty well versed with understanding the impact of government involvement at local level and the sickness that is spreading into our local communities as a result, particularly the relaxed planning laws. I’m not frightened about voicing my opinions, they need to be voiced.

I’m not frightened to object to ridiculous local council decisions on excessive council taxes and lack of realistically affordable housing. 

I’m a fighter and I’m here to be heard, to stand up for local people’s viewpoints and change sickness into healthy progress.

“We have a ridiculous decision by the Labour government to allow farmers to change agricultural land into solar farms. what a blight on the landscape!”

You’re the candidate for Lingfield & Crowhurst ward. What are the main concerns in the area?

My policies are around protecting the green belt, using brown field sites for housing and making it affordable for young people to get on the property ladder.

I often speak with local residents about their concerns. We have a ridiculous decision by the Labour government to allow farmers to change agricultural land into solar farms. what a blight on the landscape! 

Is this not insane?

There is an elephant in the room. For many years, the local Conservatives – and now Labour – have been turning a blind eye to unauthorised traveller sites, which are blighting the green belt.

In both Bones Lane Lingfield and just outside Lingfield towards the Mormon Temple, there is an unmatched level of activity where mobile homes are being put in fields.

The council is weak and slow. New rules to tackle this spread before green belt becomes a thing of the past and council taxpayers’ foot the bill for people who do not want to pay any tax. 

Lastly, we have young people and war veterans locally cannot get onto the property ladder. They have lived in the area for much of their lives but housing is not affordable. Waiting lists are long and the wrong people jump the queue. This needs to be addressed now. 

What do you see as the major issues more widely in Tandridge and if elected what do you hope to champion?

As I’ve said above any of the issues I’ve mentioned are major. I’m a fearless person; I can hold others to account and challenge poor decisions. Let’s change local laws on removing unauthorised housing sites from green belt land in Tandridge. 

I want to ensure we get solar farms on brownfield sites OR pay businesses to have them on their land and get them off agricultural green belt.  I believe we also need a scheme that works for the young and veterans for actual affordable housing.

“we have young people and war veterans locally cannot get onto the property ladder. They have lived in the area for much of their lives but housing is not affordable”

How can people find out more or get involved in the campaign?

My leaflets will be distributed to local residents soon, please vote for me. Become a candidate for Reform or even join our local Reform meetings by contacting our local Chair Chris Scott at  eastsurrey@reformparty.uk.

Green Party threat to the UK economy

“His politics are closer to the far-left than the Liberal Democrats he once stood for”

Though the rise in popularity of Reform UK has hogged the headlines, the increase in popularity of the Green Party has been as consistent as the fall from grace of Keir Starmer’s Labour.

Are they just a harmless bunch of harmless vegetarian eco-fanatics? Let’s have a look. Zack Polanski has been the Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales since September this year.

After changing his name from David Paulsen, university followed and then a career in the Arts. He worked a variety of roles, including actor and director. Polanski also sang for the London International Gospel Choir. One must wonder why he didn’t call himself out for cultural appropriation.

He then famously worked as a hypnotherapist, getting caught out by The Sun trying to make a reporter’s breasts grow larger. It’s all in the mind, apparently.

Policy-wise, Polanski has advocated for increasing taxes on billionaires, renationalising water companies, challenging governments for what he sees as insufficient subsidy on net zero policies and regulating private corporations even more. His politics are closer to the far-left than the Liberal Democrats he once stood for.

Given their leader’s political views as eco-populist, linking broad issues like high costs of living and the climate crisis as both being caused by the wealthy, it seems the Green Party is a serious threat to the UK economy. Green not through anything to do with the environment, but rather, envy!

Martin Day – Mercia Coordinator, Libertarian Party UK

“the Green Party is a serious threat to the UK economy. Green not through anything to do with the environment, but rather, envy!”

You can learn more about the Libertarian party at https://libertarianpartyuk.com/.

Originally posted on 11th October at https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1361419042279695&id=100052348363639&mibextid=wwXIfr&rdid=T5uMhlVjtwaBAV90#

Image from Grok.