Author: croydonconstitutionalists

Argentina’s nascent recovery

Sam Bidwell writes on Argentina’s nascent recovery.

“Milei promised to cut tax and spending, fire government employees, and get the economy moving again. 1 year on, it seems to be working”

In 2023, after decades of turmoil, Argentinians elected maverick libertarian Javier Milei as President.  Milei promised to cut tax and spending, fire government employees, and get the economy moving again. 1 year on, it seems to be working.

But first, some context.  In the early 20th century, Argentina had one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world – ahead of countries like France and Italy.  Thanks to decades of mismanagement, the economy is now in turmoil – in relative terms, it has declined steeply.

In January, year-on-year inflation had soared to an incredible 211 percent.  The country’s rapid inflation is largely the result of public spending. For years, the country has run large deficits, despite sluggish growth, in order to appease the public.

When the Government has been unable to cover the costs of this spending, it has borrowed or printed more money – resulting in inflation.  For ordinary Argentinians, this has driven up the cost of essential goods and created an environment in which businesses struggle to grow.

Because of this borrowing and printing, the country has entered into a vicious cycle of debt defaults.  Since 1980, it has defaulted on its debt five times – with the latest default coming in 2020.  This is an incredible decline for one of the world’s most promising economies.

“When the Government has been unable to cover the costs of this spending, it has borrowed or printed more money – resulting in inflation”

Enter Javier Milei.

Milei is an economics professor, and a self-described anarcho-capitalist, who was first elected to Congress in 2021.  He is known for his combative style, and for his contempt for the state. Incredibly, he also owns four clones of his beloved dog, Conan.

Milei emerged as a surprise candidate in the October 2023 Presidential race.  After a close first-round, Milei beat establishment politician Sergio Massa to triumph in the final ballot, on 19th November 2023. So what has the maverick libertarian achieved so far?

  • First, he has cut state spending – aggressively.
  • He has reduced the number of government departments in the country from 19 to 10.
  • His new Ministry of Human Capital merges the previous departments of Social Development, Education, Culture, and Labour.
  • He’s also fired thousands of government workers.

“He’s ending provision of free healthcare to immigrants in Argentina and introduced new fees for foreign university students”

When he took office, the Argentinian state had about 341,000 employees – today, that figure stands at 317,000, with thousands more cuts to come in the next few years.  Retained employees have seen pay freezes or cuts. 

He’s ended costly subsidies for energy, rent, and transport, while cutting non-essential local government funding.  He’s vetoed Congressional plans to introduce an ‘inflation lock’ on pensions in the country, and to increase funding for public universities.  And he’s also taken action on immigration.

He’s ending provision of free healthcare to immigrants in Argentina and introduced new fees for foreign university students.  He has also proposed plans to automatically deport foreign criminals from the country.

For Milei, Argentina is a country that needs to learn to live within its means, after decades of inflationary borrowing and spending.  With inflation under control, the country should be able to win back international investors, and grow the economy.

“For international investors, falling inflation is a sign that Argentina can once again be trusted as a place to spend money and grow businesses”

But is it working?

Well, the country’s budget deficit has finally turned into a surplus – meaning that Argentina has begun to get its debt repayments under control.  Month-to-month, the Argentinian government now spends less than its earns, setting the country back on the road to recovery.

As a result, inflation has started to fall.  For ordinary Argentinians, the price of everyday goods has begun to stabilise.  For international investors, falling inflation is a sign that Argentina can once again be trusted as a place to spend money and grow businesses.

The country’s most important stock index, the S&P MERVAL, tracks the performance of major Argentinian companies.  Since Milei took office, the MERVAL has reached record highs – indicating that investors are beginning to return to Argentina.

Meanwhile, the country’s risk profile has begun to fall, meaning that it could soon enjoy the same premiums as its South American neighbours. The country’s bonds have also hit record highs on international markets, again signalling growing investor confidence in the country.

“Milei ended rent controls across the country early in his tenure – and since that time, the supply of apartments in Buenos Aires has risen by 170%, while rents have fallen by 40%”

According to the IMF, Argentina is projected to grow 5% in 2025 and 4.7% in 2026.  That’s compared to 3% in neighbouring Brazil, and 2.1% in Chile – signalling that Argentina could truly be about to fulfil its enormous economic potential.

For many ordinary Argentinians, life is beginning to improve.  Milei ended rent controls across the country early in his tenure – and since that time, the supply of apartments in Buenos Aires has risen by 170%, while rents have fallen by 40%.  As a result, Milei is popular.

Despite his ‘shock therapy’, his party is leading in the polls for the 2025 legislative elections – and his approval rating stands at around 48%. Economic optimism is also on the rise and stands at the highest level since 2015. 

Of course, with three years left as President, Milei still has significant challenges ahead of him. Argentina’s incredible “Milei boom” shows what politicians can achieve with sufficient commitment.  It also shows us what can happen when the state gets out of the way.

By cutting burdensome regulations, reducing unnecessary spending, and challenging political orthodoxy, Milei looks set to turn around Argentina’s ailing economy.  Politicians across the world could learn from Milei’s example – we should all dare to challenge received wisdom.

Reproduced with kind permission of Sam Bidwell, Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, although views are his own.  Sam can be found on X/Twitter, on Substack, and can be contacted at [email protected].  This article was originally published as a X/Twitter Thread at https://x.com/sam_bidwell/status/1866594098964005206

The Kroll report on the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls

“What did ministers know, when did they know? I’d put a third question though. Why didn’t they find out?” – Diane Abbott, Sierra Leone Debate, House of Commons 18 May 1998

In early December the Kroll report on the refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls was published.  Refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls overran by £37.5 million.  Many details of this overspend came out in the Grant Thornton audit report issued in 2022.

The council website describes the Kroll report as “an independent review looking into the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls and related matters.

It was commissioned by the council to provide clarity over the probity and integrity of decision making around the Fairfield Halls refurbishment project, the reasons the project ran over budget and schedule, governance failures and whether there was evidence of potential wrongdoing by individuals.”

The report is 260 pages, some select extracts are below. One of the reoccurring themes is the poor flow of information from council officers to Councillors.  The refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls was controversial from the point it started.  If the elected representatives running the borough were not receiving the information they needed on the biggest building project in the borough, (to quote Diane Abbott) “Why didn’t they find out?”

“The risks of not going through a formal procurement process and allocating such a complex project to an untested company were never drawn out for elected members”

1 Introduction

“At the time of the decision to grant BBB this project, the company had only just become operational (in January 2016) and had not yet built a single property. It had no track record of delivering any projects, and did not have any experience delivering any projects with the specialist nature of refurbishment of an entertainment venue. Due to the nature of the company structure between LBC and BBB, it was decided to offer the wholly Council-owned property to BBB under a license to deliver the refurbishment and therefore no competitive procurement was carried out to assess suitability of the delivery body. The risks of not going through a formal procurement process and allocating such a complex project to an untested company were never drawn out for elected members in the June 2016 Cabinet report.”

“From interviews with LBC staff outlining the decision-making processes that existed at LBC at the time, it appears that Ms Negrini had ultimate responsibility for the decision to recommend BBB to the Project”

3 Executive Summary

“While we have not found evidence of any fraud or direct personal gain, our Review has identified a number of instances where information was seemingly deliberately withheld from, or mischaracterised to, Cabinet and a number of conflicts of interest and issues around BBB independence in relation to LBC. These findings reflect the concerns raised by the external auditor in RIPI2, who stated that, as a result of there being no properly executed contractual or loan documents in place, stated view of BBB as an independent company was open to challenge, and that the lawfulness of payments made to BBB in relation to the Project were called into question.”

“Despite the legal advice received recommending that governance and other structures be put in place that ensured BBB operated independently of LBC (to avoid unlawful behaviour over state aid, procurement), we note that in the following areas, BBB and LBC were not acting independently of one another and the governance structures set out in the delegated decision document were not implemented.”

“From interviews with LBC staff outlining the decision-making processes that existed at LBC at the time, it appears that Ms Negrini had ultimate responsibility for the decision to recommend BBB to the Project. We have not identified any formal documented decision detailing the rationale for this decision or the basis on which it was made and we were unable to confirm this with Ms Negrini”

“The way the Project was structured meant that BBB was subject to substantial commercial risk, as the Project was only viable as part of the College Green scheme. It should also be made clear that as BBB was wholly owned and wholly funded by LBC, LBC alone bore the full risk of any failed development projects undertaken by BBB.”

“BBB was ultimately wholly funded by LBC loans. This differed from the legal advice contained in the 16 March 2015 Cabinet report58 as outlined in 3.2 which set out several considerations relating to the anything that could create or reinforce a relationship of subordination or dependency between the Development Company and the Council should be avoided The fact that LBC did not follow the legal advice contained in the Cabinet report or the legal advice obtained from Pinsent Mason (see section 3.2.1) we remain of the view that the independence of Brick by Brick is open to challenge ensured that its own legal advice was followed.”

“Several LBC staff have told Kroll in interview that the BBB team was, in practice, treated as an extension of LBC itself rather than as a structurally and operationally independent third party. From January 2016 until June 2018, BBB was staffed primarily by LBC Officers that were seconded to the company.”

“Our review has however identified that at these points in time, the £30m investment reported to Cabinet appears to have been little more than a figure that LBC wished to spend”

3.3 Development of Project budget, scope and estimated completion date

“Our review has however identified that at these points in time, the £30m investment reported to Cabinet appears to have been little more than a figure that LBC wished to spend. It had been derived from a core scope of works which did not comprise a tested design, and existing estimates were significantly above this figure. This information was not clearly communicated to Cabinet.”

3.4 Governance of the Project

“In practice, governance and control of the Project at an LBC Officer level was concentrated within a small group of individuals within LBC from the Executive Leadership Team, from Finance and Resources and Place directorates. These individuals often fulfilled a number of different roles across the various governance structures.”

3.5 Lack of robust reports to Cabinet / Council

“We have identified a number of instances where formal reports to Members were not full and frank or lacked sufficient detail,”

“The impact of the Project overspend on LBC was not always reported accurately by officers to Cabinet and Scrutiny and Overview. Firstly, our review has identified references (see below) by LBC Officers to the fact that the overspend did not have a financial impact on LBC itself, and was a BBB issue (which is contrary to one of the key reasons LBC incorporated BBB, namely to obtain distributions of its profits, see section 3.2). As LBC was the sole shareholder and sole funder of BBB, any impact on BBB’s profits would ultimately impact LBC.”

“By the end of 2018, several senior LBC Officers were aware of the budget overrun, but also failed to report this to Cabinet”

3.6 Conclusion

“Throughout 2018, more and more senior Officers at LBC and Mr Lacey as Managing Director of BBB, became aware of the fact that the Project was going to go over the 2016 Cabinet agreed budget of £30m. However this overspend appears not to have been formally reported to Cabinet. By the end of 2018, several senior LBC Officers were aware of the budget overrun, but also failed to report this to Cabinet.”

“Ms Negrini was notified of the Project overspend in September 2018 and failed to ensure that this was reported publicly at that time:”

“Our Review also found that certain Members (Cllrs Butler, Hall, Godfrey and Newman (all LAB) in particular) received frequent updates and briefings from LBC Officers. As stated above, while we are not able to conclude comprehensively on whether they knew the full extent of the issues related to the Project, we know that the Project was discussed at these briefings, as detailed in the body of the report. We also note that because there was no formal reporting mechanism on the Project specifically, there was no platform for the full Council to be made aware of the issues with the Project apart from the very high-level business plan.”

5.7 Conclusions

“Initial cost estimates presented by KWA in June 2010, based on specifications put forward by LBC at the time, estimated that different iterations of the” Project would cost between £40 and £70 million. Despite this, in 2011/12 LBC decided to commit £27 million to the Project in its Capital Programme over the proceeding five years, £13million short of KWA’s lowest initial estimates.”

6.8 Conclusions

“We have identified omissions in the documents provided to the November 2015 Scrutiny and Overview Committee by Ms Negrini (then Executive Director of Place) that meant there was a lack of clarity in decision making”

“Our Review also found that certain Members (Cllrs Butler, Hall, Godfrey and Newman (all LAB) in particular) received frequent updates and briefings from LBC Officers”

The full report can be found at: https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-12/kroll-report-RS2-2023.pdf

Diane Abbott, Sierra Leone Debate, House of Commons 18 May 1998

Main Photo Source: Jim Linwoodhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/brighton/6354011431/

Net Zero: FOI REQUEST

By Jerry Wraith

“The human contribution to this annual increase was 3% of which the UK contributed just 1%. Therefore, the increase in the global concentration of CO2 by the UK was 0.00072 ppm”

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

To Ed Miliband MP, Minister of Energy Security and Net Zero

Dear Sir,

The current global level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 420 parts/million (ppm). According to the Mauna Lao laboratory the level in 2017 was about 405 ppm which rose to 417 ppm in 2022. Hence from these certified figures the annual increase in CO2 was 12 ppm or about 2.4 ppm/year. The human contribution to this annual increase was 3% of which the UK contributed just 1%. Therefore, the increase in the global concentration of CO2 by the UK was 0.00072 ppm.  Hence it will take the UK nearly 1,400 years to add just 1 ppm to the global total.

Despite this infinitesimal amount you and the PM boasted to the COP 29 meeting that the UK would reduce its CO2 emissions by 81% by 2030. If this was achievable (which it obviously isn’t) the UK’s emissions would drop to about 0.000137 ppm. At that rate it would take the UK 7,300 years to add just 1 ppm to the global total.

“Using this figure, it is estimated that the UK’s current annual contribution to global temperature increase is therefore going to be 0.0000004 °C. If the ludicrous reduction in emissions is achieved this will drop to 0.000000077 °C”

However, Emeritus Professor Happer of Princeton University has shown that increasing the current level of CO2 from about 420 ppm to 600 ppm would increase global temperature by less than 1/10 of 1°C or about 0.00056°C per 1 ppm. Using this figure, it is estimated that the UK’s current annual contribution to global temperature increase is therefore going to be 0.0000004 °C. If the ludicrous reduction in emissions is achieved this will drop to 0.000000077 °C.

From the above the following conclusions may be drawn:

  1. It will take 75 years for global CO2 level to reach 600 ppm at the current emission rate.
  2. At that time the global increase in temperature will have risen by less than 0.1°C.
  3. Compare this with the farcical predictions made by so-called “experts” in the IPCC which range from 1.5 to 5°C. (See https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a9_JmjlwgixQnwdURDL-oDVMWBtdUk2_/view?usp=sharing also https://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/lies-damn-lies-and-net-zero/)
  4. The UK’s contribution to the global temperature rise at that time will be in the order of 0.00003°C at the current rate.
  5. It will take the UK 1,400 years to add 0.00056 °C to the global total.

“In order to achieve this infinitesimally small target you, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens have severely damaged the UK economy”

In order to achieve this infinitesimally small target you, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens have severely damaged the UK economy already and are allegedly all totally committed to deliberately completely destroying it in the near future.

Hence you are requested to provide the answers to the following questions as a FOI request:

  1. What benefit is there to the UK, its citizens and its taxpayers by limiting its CO2 emissions to 0.00072 ppm/annum, when the rest of the world is producing CO2 at vastly greater quantities?
  2. What benefit is there to the UK, its citizens and its taxpayers by reducing its already suicidal low level of CO2 emissions of 0.00072 ppm/annum, to 0.000137 ppm/annum when the rest of the world is producing CO2 at vastly greater quantities?

Yours faithfully

J WRAITH

Main Image includes picture from Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Conversation with Heather McKee, of Academics For Academic Freedom.

In today’s political climate it is harder than ever for academics to defend open debate.  Many academics are fearful of upsetting managers and politicians by expressing controversial opinions. Afraid to challenge mainstream thought, many pursue self-censorship.

Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF) was founded in 2006 as a campaigning group for all lecturers, academic-related staff, students and researchers who wanted to defend unimpeded inquiry and expression. With Student Academics For Academic Freedom(SAFAF) formed in 2024. Membership is open to all students in the UK and Ireland who are committed to defending free speech and academic freedom.

Join us on Wednesday 15th January for our drinks and conversation with Heather McKee.  Heather set up Student Academics for Academic Freedom (part of the AFAF network) to bring together students who felt free speech and academic freedom was dying out in our Universities and to push back. SAFAF, believes in free speech for all, no ifs or buts.  SAFAF set out a challenge for 2025 to have at least one member in each UK and Irish University and a call to academics to help support those students. Strength in numbers!  Heather McKee is completing a Master’s in Psychology at the University of Glasgow.

For drinks, a conversation and Q&A with Heather about Student Academics for Academic Freedom and the state of Free Speech in our Universities, come along Wednesday 15th January 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.

politics in pubs

Join us Upstairs, Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF on Wednesday 15th January, 7pm.

Facebook: https://fb.me/e/46r9mppU1

DOGE UK

A missed flight, snow and an extra overnight stay meant our original plans for our November event went astray.  Rapidly coming up with a plan B we sought inspiration from DOGE, the newly announced US Department of Government Efficiency.

“With UK government debt at about £2.7 trillion and a deficit of £120 billion, we decided to look at what a DOGE might do in the UK”

The idea of DOGE emerged in discussions between Elon Musk and Donald Trump and will be led by Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. It will function as an advisory body aiming to streamline the US federal government and reduce inefficiency.  Musk has suggested that the commission could help to cut the US federal budget by up to $2 trillion.

This is no idle talk, when he first took over, Musk cut around 6,000 employees (80%) of Twitter’s workforce. This included the diversity and inclusion teams, product and design teams, and the content moderation team.

With UK government debt at about £2.7 trillion and a deficit of £120 billion, we decided to look at what a DOGE might do in the UK.  After an initial brief discussion, we split into teams looking at UK government departments. 

“No one saw the need for a Department of Culture, Media and Sport”

Each team was given the list of departments with their expenditure and asked to decide if they were in a UK DOGE which government departments they would want to keep and which ones they would abolish.  Now of course in reality no one would decide government expenditure in quite this fashion, but this was an exercise in exploring how we would make decisions on expenditure.  To make things more interesting each team was asked to keep half and abolish half the departments.

 Total Departmental Expenditure Limits, 2022-23 (£millions)

Departmental GroupTotal DEL
Health and Social Care182,131
Education81,793
Home Office17,911
Justice10,677
Law Officers’ Departments771
Defence52,797
Single Intelligence Account3,796
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office9,308
DLUHC – Local Government11,772
DLUHC – Housing and Communities10,655
Culture, Media and Sport2,269
Science, Innovation and Technology10,620
Transport28,912
Energy Security and Net Zero20,328
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs5,858
Business and Trade1,470
Work and Pensions8,581
HM Revenue and Customs6,607
HM Treasury300
Cabinet Office1,130
Scotland41,935
Wales18,071
Northern Ireland15,621
Small and Independent Bodies2,590

“We wondered why over a billion pounds needed to be spent on the Cabinet Office, and no one wanted to retain the £20 billion + spent on the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero”

Whilst teams came to different conclusions some areas of commonality existed.  No one saw the need for a Department of Culture, Media and Sport, but at only 0.42% of government department expenditure cutting it whilst possibly worthwhile, would make little difference to the deficit. 

Teams agreed to keep the Home Office, Justice and Defence departments, along with Business and Trade and perhaps surprisingly HM Revenue and Customs.  We wondered why over a billion pounds needed to be spent on the Cabinet Office, and no one wanted to retain the £20 billion + spent on the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.  We felt this is a department whose removal could revive the economy through less regulation.  There was also general agreement that the services provided by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and The Scotland Office should be financed locally in the areas receiving the expenditure. 

Following through on the exercise would have generally cut around 30% of government department expenditure.  With Health and Social Care being a third of all department expenditure alone, in a real-life scenario any meaningful change would likely have to impact this area.

Our second scenario was to look at some of the 424 Agencies and other public bodies the government has, to decide which ones a UK DOGE might decide to keep or abolish.  The 27 we assessed included a short blurb about their role from the government’s own website.  The 27 represented just 6% of all government ‘Agencies and other public bodies’, and all being listed under the letter ‘C’ represented just 64% of the C’s!   

See how many of these quango’s you recognise:

CafcassThe Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) looks after the interests of children involved in family proceedings. It is independent of the courts and social services, but works under the rules of the Family Court and legislation to work with children and their families, and then advise the courts on what is considered to be in the best interests of individual children.

Cafcass is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.
Care Quality CommissionThe Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates all health and social care services in England. The commission ensures the quality and safety of care in hospitals, dentists, ambulances, and care homes, and the care given in people’s own homes.

CQC is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care.
Careers WalesCareers Wales provides independent and impartial careers information, advice and guidance service for Wales.

Careers Wales works with the Welsh Government.
Central Advisory Committee on CompensationThe Central Advisory Committee on Compensation (CAC Compensation) gives advice on all service compensation schemes and on policy issues related to them.

CAC Compensation works with the Ministry of Defence.
Central Arbitration CommitteeWe encourage fair and efficient arrangements in the workplace by resolving collective disputes in England, Scotland and Wales, either by voluntary agreement or, if necessary, through a legal decision.

CAC is a tribunal of the Department for Business and Trade.
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture ScienceA world leader in marine science and technology, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) collects, manages and interprets data on the aquatic environment, biodiversity and fisheries.

Cefas is an executive agency, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.
Certification OfficerThe Certification Officer (CO) and her team ensure that trade unions and employers’ associations carry out their statutory duties.

Certification Officer works with the Department for Business and Trade.
Chevening Scholarship ProgrammeChevening Scholarships are the UK government’s global scholarships programme. Established in 1983, these scholarships support study at UK universities – mostly one-year Masters’ degrees – for students with demonstrable potential to become future leaders, decision-makers and opinion formers.
Child Safeguarding Practice Review PanelWe are an independent panel commissioning reviews of serious child safeguarding cases. We want national and local reviews to focus on improving learning, professional practice and outcomes for children.

Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel works with the Department for Education.
Churches Conservation TrustThe Churches Conservation Trust is the national charity protecting churches at risk. It repairs damage and works with local communities to revive churches.

Churches Conservation Trust works with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Civil Justice CouncilThe Civil Justice Council (CJC) is responsible for overseeing and co-ordinating the modernisation of the civil justice system.

CJC is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.
Civil Nuclear Police AuthorityThe Civil Nuclear Police Authority oversees the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and must ensure that their policing meets the need of the nuclear operating companies.

CNPA is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Civil Procedure Rule CommitteeThe Civil Procedure Rule Committee was set up under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 to make rules of court for the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the County Court. The Civil Procedure Rules set out the practice and procedure to be followed.

CPRC is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.
Civil Service CommissionThe Civil Service Commission regulates recruitment into the Civil Service, ensuring that appointments are made on merit after fair and open competition. It also hears complaints under the Civil Service Code.

CSC is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Cabinet Office.
Coal AuthorityThe Coal Authority makes a better future for people and the environment in mining areas.

Coal Authority is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
College of PolicingCollege of Policing works with the Home Office.
Commission for Countering ExtremismThe Commission for Countering Extremism supports society to fight all forms of extremism.

Commission for Countering Extremism works with the Home Office.
Commission on Human MedicinesThe Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) advises ministers on the safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products.

CHM is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care.
Commissioner for Public AppointmentsThe Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates the processes by which ministers make appointments to the boards of national and regional public bodies. The commissioner aims to ensure that such appointments are made on merit after a fair, open and transparent process.

Commissioner for Public Appointments works with the Cabinet Office.
Committee on Climate ChangeThe Committee on Climate Change (CCC) advises the government on emissions targets and reports to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

CCC is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Committee on Fuel PovertyWe advise on the effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing fuel poverty, and encourage greater co-ordination across the organisations working to reduce fuel poverty.

CFP is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the EnvironmentThe Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COM) assesses and advises on mutagenic risks to humans.

COM is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Food Standards Agency.
Committee on Radioactive Waste ManagementThe Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) provides independent scrutiny and transparent advice to the UK governments on the long-term management of higher activity radioactive wastes.

CoRWM is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Committee on Standards in Public LifeThe independent Committee on Standards in Public Life advises the Prime Minister on arrangements for upholding ethical standards of conduct across public life in England. We are not a regulator and cannot investigate individual complaints.

CSPL is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Cabinet Office.
Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the EnvironmentThe Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is an independent scientific committee that provides advice to the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health and other government bodies on matters concerning the toxicity of chemicals.

COT is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Food Standards Agency.
Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the UKThe Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the UK (CSC) provides the main UK government scholarship scheme led by international development objectives.

CSC is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office.
Companies HouseWe incorporate and dissolve limited companies. We register company information and make it available to the public.

Companies House is an executive agency, sponsored by the Department for Business and Trade.

“Agreement on getting rid of the ‘Committee on Climate Change’ included a belief that without their work, people might be able to afford to heat their homes”

There was conformity in teams deciding they would keep just over a third of the departments and abolishing the rest.  However, what departments fell into each category varied greatly.  Those of us who had used ‘Companies House’ felt it provided a good and useful service, and it should be kept. There was communality in the desire to remove ‘Careers Wales’ as it wasn’t clear why Wales needed its own Careers quango.  It was felt that philanthropy might be the best route for taking forward the work of the ‘Chevening Scholarship Programme’ and that of the ‘Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the UK’ if they were needed. 

“it was generally believed the ‘College of Policing’ was itself a non-crime hate incident and was best abolished”

Agreement on getting rid of the ‘Committee on Climate Change’ included a belief that without their work, people might be able to afford to heat their homes, as such there was also general agreement the ‘Committee on Fuel Poverty’ could go.  The recent budget and changes to winter fuel payments suggested this committee wasn’t serving its purpose.  Most people believed the ‘Committee on Standards in Public Life’ had clearly failed in its remit and as such it could also go.  Lastly, it was generally believed the ‘College of Policing’ was itself a non-crime hate incident and was best abolished.   

The discussion that followed underlined the purpose of the exercises.  Many people wanted to cut chunks of expenditure out of different departments and agencies not necessarily the whole thing.  As a general view to reduce government expenditure it was felt we should:

  • Disengage from foreign wars.
  • Cut or stop foreign aid.
  • Stop expenditure on ‘Climate Change’ and get rid of Net Zero targets.
  • Hold a real bonfire of the quangos.
  • Revamp government procurement.

Some discussion was held on using methods like cutting all departments expenditure by 10%, freezing all recruitment, or simply following Javier Milei in Argentina, who has reduced their the federal budget by 30%.  We also considered making a start by simply paying no one in government more than the Prime Minister. 

A lot of concern was raised over the constant overspend on government projects.  We wondered how the Olympics and building Terminal 5 of Heathrow could happen on time when so little else does.  Management of scope and planning reform were seen as a key element, and we did wonder if we needed a new department for ‘cutting planning obstacles’.  It was also suggested Quangos be moved back into their respective government departments to improve accountability.

The evening led to some interesting discussions when people are forced to make choices, and it made people think about what criteria they would use and what they wanted from government.

It wasn’t all serious discussion, as some thought was given on additional government expenditure to retake Calais from the French and to introduce a fully funded ministry of silly walks.

What expenditure would you like to cut?  Do get in touch with us at [email protected] with your ideas.

Original DOGE image details: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Musk_DOGE_logo.jpg

‘UK’ Union Flag text from: Font generator

British Overseas Territories

Sam Bidwell writes on Britain’s Overseas Territories.

“the UK hasn’t been self-sufficient in terms of food production since the 1750s – and in the 1930s, only about 30% of food consumed in the UK was produced domestically”

On the 4th October, the UK Government announced that it would hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius The handover puts our strategic interests at risk – but why?  An overview of the Overseas Territories, and why they’re so crucial to our security and national interests.

Here is a map of Britain’s Overseas Territories Together, they form a network of staging posts that allows us to defend our interests abroad. But it doesn’t take a genius to notice that most of these territories are not close to the British Isles – so why do they matter?

For centuries now, Britain has been a trading nation, with commercial interests abroad. For example, the UK hasn’t been self-sufficient in terms of food production since the 1750s – and in the 1930s, only about 30% of food consumed in the UK was produced domestically.

Today, we import roughly 40% of our food and 37% of our primary energy sources. This means that we have an interest in the security of key trade routes and shipping lanes. Disruptions to these routes can drive up import costs, meaning higher prices for British consumers.

Even if Britain became more self-sufficient in food and energy production, we would still have overseas interests. Many of our largest businesses rely on their operations abroad to turn a profit. Also, we still need to collect military intelligence, to help us predict threats.

“The Overseas Territories are a crucial part of our efforts to keep trade flowing and exercise influence. For example, Gibraltar sits at the western entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, which accounts for about 15% of all global shipping”

Economic and military influence abroad also gives us a stronger hand when we deal with other countries – which brings us to the Overseas Territories.

The Overseas Territories are a crucial part of our efforts to keep trade flowing and exercise influence. For example, Gibraltar sits at the western entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, which accounts for about 15% of all global shipping. The RAF and Royal Navy both have a presence here, allowing for quick deployment into the Mediterranean or out into the Atlantic.

If the Strait of Gibraltar were disrupted, this would be a disaster for the flow of global trade – and Gibraltar helps Britain to keep it open. The Rock of Gibraltar is also an outpost for intelligence gathering, perfect for transmitting and receiving intel over long distances.

At the other end of the Mediterranean are Britain’s two sovereign base areas on the island of Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia from the RAF Base at Akrotiri, Britain can maintain influence over the other entrance to the Mediterranean, namely the Suez Canal.  Akrotiri also allows Britain to maintain oversight of the volatile Middle East, both in terms of intelligence gathering and in terms of forward military operations. Akrotiri has been crucial in joint US-UK efforts to keep the Red Sea shipping route open despite Houthi attacks.

Ascension Island in the South Atlantic is home to an RAF facility, which was critical to the success of the Falklands War in 1982 It serves as a refuelling point for Royal Navy ships, a signals intelligence hub, and hosts one of the four ground antennas that enables GPS.

Further south are the famous Falkland Islands, now home to RAF Mount Pleasant.  While traditionally not of enormous strategic value, a number of companies are now drilling for oil and gas off the coast of the Falklands – which we should be taking advantage of.

“The British base on the islands, Diego Garcia, allows the British military to refuel and restock when travelling between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also ideally located for intelligence gathering”

Of course, the world’s most important shipping lanes are not in the Mediterranean or the South Atlantic – but in Asia. This is precisely why the British presence in the Chagos Islands is so important – it is a staging post for our operations in East Asia and the Persian Gulf.

The British base on the islands, Diego Garcia, allows the British military to refuel and restock when travelling between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. It is also ideally located for intelligence gathering, with easy access to some of the world’s most important theatres.

Diego Garcia complements British military instalments in the Persian Gulf, including our naval support facility in Bahrain, our military logistics centre in Duqm, Oman, and the RAF outpost at Al Udeid, Qatar.  These instalments help us to ensure the free flow of oil.

Diego Garcia also complements British military instalments in Southeast Asia, such as naval facility in Sembawang, Singapore and our military base in Brunei.  These instalments help us to ensure the free flow of goods from Asia to Europe and vice versa.

“What’s more, Mauritius regards China as a key ally – and is susceptible to Chinese economic influence”

Under the handover deal, Britain retains access to Diego Garcia for another 99 years – but this is a vulnerable position. After all, Mauritius promised that it would honour Britain’s ownership of the Chagos Islands in the 1960s, and reneged within a generation. 

What’s more, Mauritius regards China as a key ally – and is susceptible to Chinese economic influence.  Naturally, China has an interest in expanding its own ability to influence global trade routes from this key strategic position in the Indian Ocean.

The deal also removes Britain’s ability to use access to Diego Garcia as a bargaining chip when dealing with the United States. Allowing partners to use the Overseas Territories strengthened Britain’s negotiating hand – after all, we could always threaten to take it away.

Of course, not all of our Overseas Territories are of military importance. Caribbean territories like the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, and the Cayman Islands offer favourable tax treatment, and widen access to capital for our financial services sector.

What is certain is that our Overseas Territories are a key part of a self-interested UK foreign policy – giving us military flexibility and influence, leverage over our allies, and the ability to protect key shipping lanes. Handing over the Chagos Islands was a mistake.

Reproduced with kind permission of Sam Bidwell, Director of the Next Generation Centre at the Adam Smith Institute, Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, although views are his own.  Sam can be found on X/Twitter, on Substack, and can be contacted at [email protected].  This article was originally published as a X/Twitter Thread at https://x.com/sam_bidwell/status/1842213433044861296?s=46.

Battle of Ideas Festival 2025

By Mike Swadling

Once again on the 19/20 October I attended the Battle of Ideas Festival from the Academy of Ideas in Church House near Westminster Abbey.

The event hosts almost 100 panels, interviews, and discussions on a range of topics with Free Speech and debate being are the core of it all.

The events started with an introduction from Baroness Fox of Buckley (Claire Fox) speaking about the importance of free speech and those who support it.

The panels were as always excellent and were an opportunity to say hello to some people we’ve spoke with on Podcasts like Sam Bidwell and Dominic Frisby.

A few statements and take away’s from various debates stood with me from the day:

  • In the 2024 election the biggest indication of losing vote share was being an incumbent.
  • When did society fall apart? When people stopped going to church on a Sunday.
  • BSE stands for butchers shop empty.
  • Charity shops do not have to pay business rates, this is part of why they are filling the high streets.
  • We’ve removed traffic from high streets which is hurting trade.
  • People who run business want car park spaces.
  • As cars get cleaner we whine more about cars and pollution.
  • Why are cars welcome at out of town supermarkets but try to park outside Boots and you’re treated like a criminal.
  • Why not put housing above these out of town supermarket car parks.

There was much more but these stuck with me, and the battle is a great way to find out about a range of subjects.

But the battle isn’t just the debates, there are plenty of stalls around the events were stalls from the SDP, Reform UK, the Free Speech Union, Don’t Divide Us, #Together, The Freedom Association, and Politics in Pubs among many others.

The SDP had a well attended stall and made an impact across many debates.

In the hall I helped on our associates staff for Politics in Pubs.

We happened to be placed next to the Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist who despite our political differences were free speech believes and great chaps.

Just around the hall was our friends in the Freedom association accompanied by a leaflet we will soon be using to campaign for them in Redhill.

FIRE, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression were also in the hall and we have a small goodie bag of their merchandise to give away at our Christmas drinks. 

Paul Embery saw the irony of some of the groups together in the hall, but summed up the spirt of the event.

Tickets for the 2025 Battle of Ideas are on sale now, and I can say it’s well worth it.

The Freedom Association campaign day – 23rd November, Redhill

The Freedom Association the non-partisan, centre-right, classically liberal campaign group, is holding a campaign day in Redhill on Saturday 23rd November.  The plan for the day is to hand out leaflets (images below) in support of their campaign to challenge the erosion of civil liberties and in support of individual liberty and freedom of expression.

Join us meeting outside The Junction Pub (1 High Street, Redhill, Surrey. RH1 1RD) at 10:30am and we will break up into groups around the town depending on numbers, stay as long as you can but we are finishing no later than 1pm, and anyone is welcome to join us for a drink.

Come along Saturday 23rd November in Redhill for 10:30am outside The Junction Pub.  We only ask that you wear no party colours or badges as The Freedom Association has cross-party support.

Facebook: https://fb.me/e/5TWmbqTo0

Campaign video from the day.

Source of Redhill photo: https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/877505

ThirdWednesday Christmas drinks – Wednesday 18th December

Come and meet-up with likeminded freedom lovers, at our Christmas #ThirdWednesday drinks at Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF, 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.

It the spirt of Christmas we have a goodie bag of merchandise from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) to give away.

Join us at Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF on Wednesday 18th December, from 7pm.

Facebook: https://fb.me/e/5jbzKqieJ

politics in pubs

Labour Government Winter Fuel Policy

By Jeremy Wraith

“£billions on complying with EU laws imposed upon the UK and which have not been abolished by the Conservative Party 8 years after the referendum result”

This year the Labour government is committed to spending:

1) Over £200 billion on mainly totally, un-necessary, unwanted and useless quangos.

2) £billions on complying with EU laws imposed upon the UK and which have not been abolished by the Conservative Party 12 years after the referendum result, and after the UK officially left the EU 8 years ago. (NB Membership of the EU was costing the UK economy well over £200 billion/annum when we left the EU in 2020.)

3) £Billions on incredibly stupid net zero policies which are clearly ruining the UK economy.

4) £billions on illegal immigrants, which they, (and the Conservatives), have allegedly NO real intention of stopping or reducing!

5) £billions on the useless vanity HS2 project which has been severely cut and is costing well over budget.

6) £12 billion on foreign “aid”.

7) £millions on MP’s expenses, including heating their second homes. (NB. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has faced criticism after justifying her decision to claim £4,400 in taxpayer-funded expenses for heating her second home, a day after MPs voted to scrap winter fuel payments of up to £300 for millions of pensioners.)

“Chancellor Rachel Reeves has faced criticism after justifying her decision to claim £4,400 in taxpayer-funded expenses for heating her second home”

YET, the Labour government is totally committed to scrapping the winter fuel allowance for pensioners to save a measly £1.3 billion!

They are fully aware that this will apparently condemn 4,000 pensioners to a miserable death, from hypothermia and/or malnutrition this winter. This is probably a very low estimate, the facts of which are not being published for scrutiny by the public. So, did 9,708,716 people really vote for Labour to waste billions upon billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money and to condemn thousands of vulnerable people to save a pittance?

“did 9,708,716 people really vote for Labour to waste billions upon billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money”