The Freedom Association the non-partisan, centre-right, classically liberal campaign group, is holding a campaign day in Epsom on Saturday 7th September. 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 Assembly Rooms (147–153 High Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8EH) 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 7th September in Epsom for 10:30am outside The Assembly Rooms. We only ask that you wear no party colours or badges as The Freedom Association has cross-party support.
Sam Bidwell writes on the UK’s law enforcement crisis – and the signs that private security is emerging to fill the gap.
“In 2022, 89.2% of bike theft cases across England went unsolved, rising to 93% of thefts in London”
Alongside defence and border security, maintaining law and order is one of the first duties of any state – but in the UK today, many laws are just not being enforced. When we talk about law and order in the UK, we often talk about a few distinct but related issues: – softening of the law around some crimes
soft sentences
inaccurate data reporting
generalised disorder
non-enforcement of the law
I want to focus on the latter.
In May 2024, London’s Met Police announced that it would no longer be policing fare evasion on London buses. “Since this incident happened, we have stopped our involvement in supporting Transport for London fare evasion operations.” December 2023 research revealed that the Met Police attended just 44% of shoplifting reports between April 2022 and April 2023 – the rate has not been above 50% since 2018.
“police failed to solve a single burglary over the past three years in half of neighbourhoods in England and Wales”
In 2022-23, Home Office statistics show that the Met Police failed to solve 82 percent of burglaries in London. Just 8 percent of London burglaries during this period resulted in a suspect being charged or summoned – we can assume that the conviction rate is even lower. In 2022, 89.2% of bike theft cases across England went unsolved, rising to 93% of thefts in London. In Surrey, just 0.81% of bike theft cases resulted in a suspect being charged.
According to March 2024 research, police failed to solve a single burglary over the past three years in half of neighbourhoods in England and Wales. This comes despite an October 2022 promise from all 43 police chiefs across England and Wales to “attend every break-in”.
In 2023, police failed to attend 72 percent of car thefts – an increase of 32 percent since 2021. In Cambridgeshire, a full 90 percent of car thefts reports were not attended by an officer – in Bedfordshire that figure was 88 percent.
“the Co-op has reported that assaults on staff have increased by almost 30 percent, with 20 percent more anti-social behaviour and verbal abuse”
The police’s own data shows that, as of 2023, around 90 percent of all crime goes unsolved, rising from around 75 percent in 2015. This figure includes more than 30,000 sex offences, 330,000 violent crimes, 320,000 cases of criminal damage, and 1.5 million thefts.
According to February 2024 research, police failed to attend 40 percent of violent shoplifting incidents in 2023. This comes as the Co-op has reported that assaults on staff have increased by almost 30 percent, with 20 percent more anti-social behaviour and verbal abuse.
“The police are no longer consistently enforcing the law – particularly in cases of property crime, but increasingly in terms of low-level violent crime too”
Finally, across London, 250 phones a day are stolen – one every six minutes. In theory, the Met Police’s ‘Operation Venice’ is designed to crack down on phone snatching – but there’s no public information about the current state of that operation. Pulling together these individual data points, what do we see? The police are no longer consistently enforcing the law – particularly in cases of property crime, but increasingly in terms of low-level violent crime too. This isn’t just a London problem, either.
This is especially audacious given the efforts made by police in recent weeks to crack down on ‘hate speech’ and improper political activism. They don’t have the resources to protect businesses from theft, but they do have the resources to put people in jail for sharing memes.
This leaves ordinary people subject to the tyranny of criminality – criminal disorder is just as tyrannical as any overbearing state. One of the results of this is a rise in private security use, particularly from businesses who know that they can no longer rely on the police.
“According to the British Security Industry Association (BSIA), the UK will need 62,000 new security officers over the next 12 months to keep up with growing demand”
My Local Bobby, a security firm established by two former Met Police officers, served 12 residential areas and four “public realm beats” as of May 2023, with a focus on property crime. Households pay around £100 to £200 a month for this additional protection.
According to the British Security Industry Association (BSIA), the UK will need 62,000 new security officers over the next 12 months to keep up with growing demand. BSIA estimates that a total of 450,000 licensed security professionals could be in operation by the end of 2024.
In a January 2024 poll, 6 in 10 UK adults trust private security professionals, while 7 in 10 say that private security professionals are necessary to maintain public order. An April 2024 poll, on the other hand, showed that just 4 in 10 Britons trust the police. In the absence of a capable state police force, many businesses – and some individuals – are turning to private provision. Let me be clear – this is not a good thing! The expanding role of private security is a sign of withering state capacity.
“The early warning signs are there – including the growth in private security and the rise of gated and quasi-gated communities”
In countries where disorder is common – like South Africa, Nigeria, or Brazil -, private security is a fact of life. Nevertheless, these private security firms often operate under strict regulatory conditions, even while the state’s policing capacity continues to decline.
While Britain’s situation is not nearly as severe as Brazil or South Africa, we are experiencing a decline in law and order. The early warning signs are there – including the growth in private security and the rise of gated and quasi-gated communities.
We must resource our police force properly, enabling them to enforce the law consistently. Even John Cowperthwaite, Hong Kong’s famously laissez-faire Financial Secretary, understood the importance of a police force able to enforce order and protect property.
“The hard realities of keeping the peace between man and man and between authority and the individual can be more accurately described if the phrase were inverted to “order and law”, for without order the operation of law is impossible.” – Lee Kuan Yew, 1963
“Instead of squeezing businesses they should scrap wasteful spending if they want to fix their finances.”
The Sun and Mail reported recently that Croydon Council is considering charging drivers to use their free company parking spaces.
The proposal is to implement the workplace parking levy in Croydon, and impose it on businesses with 11 or more privately owned spaces. The scheme is intended to reduce the use of private vehicles and raise revenue for our (de facto) bankrupt borough.
Benjamin Elks, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance summed this proposal up by saying “Instead of squeezing businesses they should scrap wasteful spending if they want to fix their finances.”
“Just as people are returning to offices the worst thing Croydon could do is put people off going back to the town centre with more tax”
As any visitor to Croydon town centre will be aware, the Whitgift Centre once the heart of the borough is hollowed out, and many offices have closed. Many people no longer visit the town centre due to the lack of shops and evening entertainment, and the ongoing problem of crime.
Just as people are returning to offices the worst thing Croydon could do is put people off going back to the town centre with more tax.
Perhaps as an alternative the council should have cut more unnecessary spending.
“There is no more expensive thing than a free gift”
Borough of Culture
As I’ve written about before between April 2023 and March 2024, Croydon was the London Borough of Culture. For which the council committed to spending £975,000, with £1,350,000 coming from the GLA, and £1,900,000 expected from Arts Council England and National Lottery Heritage.
Even for the money funded by other agencies this is still taxpayer funds being wasted away on what, posters at train stations? I can’t remember much else. Whether you prefer the Japanese proverb “There is nothing more expensive than something free” or French renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne’s, “There is no more expensive thing than a free gift”, you can be sure that Croydon council taxpayers picked up costs for events even when supposedly ‘funded’ by other agencies.
When you see your council tax rise 15%, flat income tax allowances erode your earnings, local services reduce and winter fuel payments for pensioners go, remember those posters about the Borough of Culture. You can also decide if these payments from the councils “Borough of Culture” cost centre were a good use of your taxes.
Total funds over £500 paid out by Croydon Council for “Borough of Culture” £2,527,404.02.
Table of vendors paid over £1000.
Vendor Name
Total Payments May22 – May24
Redacted
£428,787.70
Stanley Arts
£266,875.39
London Mozart Players
£145,762.50
Turf Projects_
£145,000.00
White Label Publishing Ltd
£136,468.60
Talawa Theatre Company
£136,000.00
Think Events (London) Ltd
£121,551.67
BH Live Ltd
£107,500.00
Savvy Theatre
£73,500.00
Four Communications Ltd
£65,597.66
The Brit School
£65,000.00
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LIMITED T/A The Circus
£60,628.00
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.
£50,750.00
Croydon Town Centre Bid
£45,000.00
Dance Umbrella
£45,000.00
Theatre – Rites
£42,000.00
Scanners Inc
£41,000.00
Zoo Co Theatre Ltd
£35,497.31
Apsara Arts
£32,475.00
Jen Kavanagh Ltd
£31,309.05
Boundless Theatre
£30,000.00
Contemporary Dance Trust LTD
£29,000.00
STRANGE CARGO ARTS COMPANY LIMITED
£28,410.00
CR34 t/a Mr Fox
£28,000.00
Achates Philanthropy Limited
£22,725.00
Croydon Pride Ltd
£20,000.00
Sound Intervention Limited
£13,920.00
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC
£13,600.00
Llama Digital Ltd
£11,520.00
4 Wise Monkeys Ltd T/A Light Up Trails
£11,422.00
Bold Mellon Collective C.I.C.
£10,500.00
Profile Security Services Ltd
£10,395.52
Beeja
£10,000.00
YeahPod Music
£10,000.00
New Addington Peoples’ Carnival
£10,000.00
Designblock Studio Ltd
£9,895.00
Sysco Productions Ltd
£9,793.00
ATMA
£9,700.00
Premm Design Limited
£8,911.50
Jonathan Samuels T/A Samprojects
£8,475.40
The Young Urban Arts Foundation Limited
£7,790.00
Anglia Sign Casting ltd
£7,385.50
HURLYBURLY THEATRE
£6,750.00
Worldbeaters LTD
£6,690.00
CLUB SODA_
£6,590.00
Bureau Of Silly Ideas Limited
£6,000.00
Learn to Dream Ltd
£5,511.00
E-People.Com Ltd
£5,100.00
London Road Business Ltd
£5,000.00
Croydon with Talent Ltd
£5,000.00
Good Wolf People Ltd
£5,000.00
Tiny Productions
£4,760.00
LYNNEBEC COLLECTIVE CIC
£4,700.00
Norwood JunKAction
£4,500.00
Drum the Bass
£3,800.00
Cat and Hutch
£3,760.00
Tribal Entertainment Limited t/a the Romano Sidoli consultancy
£3,750.00
QWERKY ENTERTAINMENT LTD
£3,320.00
Finesse Foreva Ltd
£3,300.00
Pif-Paf Theatre Ltd
£3,290.00
BH Live Enterprises Ltd
£3,018.75
Hoggs Hospitality Ltd
£3,000.00
Graeme Miall t/a One Tree
£3,000.00
LadyLaird
£2,500.00
Digital Drama Productions Ltd
£2,250.00
ATELIER ARZU LIMITED
£2,120.00
Paul Hudson Associates
£2,100.00
The Enriched Kids CIC
£2,000.00
SDNA LTD
£2,000.00
Zip Design Ltd
£1,950.00
Rap Therapy
£1,950.00
Giant Cheese Limited
£1,847.00
Studio Scamps ltd
£1,650.00
Bainbridge Conservation Ltd.
£1,616.00
Autistic Community Hub CIC
£1,200.00
Vauxhall City Farm Limited
£1,188.50
Reaching Higher
£1,100.00
Clocktower Cafe Ltd
£1,084.00
“When you see your council tax rise 15%, flat income tax allowances erode your earnings, local services reduce and winter fuel payments for pensioners go, remember those posters about the Borough of Culture”
We are joined by Tim Scott, The Executive Director of The Freedom Association, who gives us his thoughts on the General Election result and the outlook for freedom in this country and further afield.
“Hong Kong transformed from a second-rate port city into a global centre of finance and commerce. But how did it achieve this?”
In the 20th century, Hong Kong transformed from a second-rate port city into a global centre of finance and commerce. But how did it achieve this? An overview of the use of ‘positive non-interventionism’, the economic philosophy which powered Hong Kong’s rise to greatness.
Hong Kong Island was ceded to Britain in 1842, in the wake of the First Opium War. Its strategic location was ideal for projecting British military and economic power into south China. At the time, it was home to around 5,000 people, spread across several small fishing villages.
The city grew quickly, powered by trade with China and British financial interests in East Asia. By 1859, the island was home to some 85,000 Chinese residents, alongside 1,600 foreigners. In 1865, the now world-famous HSBC was founded in Hong Kong.
The Kowloon Peninsula was added to the territory in 1860, and the so-called ‘New Territories’ were obtained in 1898 under a 99-year lease. Thanks to the legal and political stability offered by the British, Hong Kong’s role as a trade entrepot continued to grow.
By the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, Hong Kong was central to British interests in East Asia. The territory operated as a free port, with no tariffs on imports, which attracted merchants from China and Europe alike. And then came the Japanese.
In 1941, Hong Kong was occupied by the Japanese after eighteen days of fierce fighting. Japanese occupation was brutal. Civilians were regularly targeted for mass execution, banking assets and factories were seized, and a harsh rationing regime was imposed on the territory.
“he ensured that Hong Kong was granted financial autonomy from the UK, giving HK more freedom to make its own policy. He also resisted calls for a centrally planned industrial strategy”
On August 30th 1945, Hong Kong was liberated, and British control was restored. This is where Hong Kong’s remarkable rise really begins. In 1946, Sir Geoffrey Follows was appointed as the territory’s Financial Secretary and charged with recovering from the occupation.
Follows oversaw a rapid short-term recovery of Hong Kong’s fortunes. In October 1948, he ensured that Hong Kong was granted financial autonomy from the UK, giving HK more freedom to make its own policy. He also resisted calls for a centrally planned industrial strategy.
In 1949, the Communist Party of China emerged victorious from the Chinese Civil War. Capitalists, Chinese nationalists, and political dissidents who feared communist rule fled to Hong Kong. From 1945 to 1951, the territory’s population increased from 600,000 to 2.1 million. Follows’ emphasis on free trade and stability, alongside the cheap labour and expertise of these new migrants, laid the groundwork for Hong Kong’s economic miracle.
What was the ‘positive non-interventionism’ which shaped the approach of the next three Financial Secretaries? In short, ‘positive non-interventionism’ starts from the observation that Government efforts to shape resource allocation are usually damaging to growth, particularly in the private sector.
That’s the ‘non-interventionism’ – but what about the ‘positive’? Successive Hong Kong Governments recognised that the state can take positive steps to ensure improved market function – such as investing in infrastructure, maintaining law and order, and providing legal and political stability. That’s the ‘positive’ part.
“The territory had no income tax, and instead raised revenue through land value capture”
What did this look like in practice?
The territory’s next Financial Secretary was Arthur Grenfell Clarke (1952-61). Clarke refused to introduce regulation of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and the territory operated without a central bank or monetary policy.
The territory had no income tax, and instead raised revenue through land value capture.
At the same time, Clarke worked with his colleagues in Government to expand Kai Tak Airport, improve the Hong Kong Police Force, and crack down on triad-led gang crime.
“From 1961 to 1971, Government spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 7.5% to 6.5%. At the same time, real wages rose by 50% and acute poverty fell from 50% to 15%”
Yet the real star of the show is John James Cowperthwaite, the city’s Financial Secretary from 1961 to 1971. From 1961 to 1971, Government spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 7.5% to 6.5%. At the same time, real wages rose by 50% and acute poverty fell from 50% to 15%.
Under Cowperthwaite, the territory imposed no controls at all on international capital flows. He refused to collect GDP statistics, fearing that these would only be used to enable economic planning. Taxes were kept low, and Government focused on basic infrastructure delivery.
Hong Kong grew rapidly, powered by manufacturing, shipping, finance, and construction. The number of factories in the territory increased from 3,000 to 10,000 over Cowperthwaite’s tenure, while the number of foreign companies registered in HK almost doubled.
This approach was continued by Cowperthwaite’s successor, Philip Haddon-Cave. Indeed, Haddon-Cave coined the term ‘positive non-interventionism’ in 1980. In 1975, Hong Kong emerged as the world’s freest economy, a position that it held continually in 2019.
Haddon-Cave worked with Governor Murray MacLehose to improve services without increasing taxes, tariffs, or regulation. The pair agreed that Government should focus on delivering a few basic services, and should draw on private sector expertise for delivery of major projects.
With this approach, the duo clamped down on corruption and launched the famous Mass Transit Railway. They also managed Hong Kong’s rapid transition from a manufacturing economy to a services economy – prompted, in large part, by a major change just over the border.
In 1978, Chinese premier Deng Xiaoping launched the Open Door Policy, which saw China open up to foreign businesses. In 1980, Deng designated the small city of Shenzhen, just across the border from Hong Kong, as a ‘Special Economic Zone’, in order to encourage foreign trade. Like Hong Kong, Shenzhen would boom in the coming decades.
“Rather than damaging Hong Kong, the growth of cheap manufacturing in China allowed the territory to transform into a hub for financial and legal services”
In the 1980s, its growth was powered by manufacturing. The city’s low labour costs and high regulatory flexibility made it attractive for businesses looking to reduce their costs – including firms in Hong Kong.
Rather than damaging Hong Kong, the growth of cheap manufacturing in China allowed the territory to transform into a hub for financial and legal services, with immediate access to cheap goods and cheap labour from China. Costs remained low and growth remained steady.
“Hong Kong’s remarkable growth continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, guided by positive non-interventionism”
For those wanting to access the lucrative Chinese market, Hong Kong was a perfect entry-point. The stability of Britain’s common law system and HK’s light touch regulation gave foreign businesses confidence that their investments would be protected.
Hong Kong’s remarkable growth continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, guided by positive non-interventionism. In 1997, HK was returned to China, after more than 150 years of British rule. Nevertheless, positive non-interventionism has continued to shape HK’s economic policies.
Though HK faces challenges today, it continues to stand as a global hub for financial and legal services. Its remarkable story is testament to the power of free markets – but also to the importance of limited, effective government which focuses on stability and order.
On the 22nd July PopCon’s Mark Littlewood spoke with Dr. Arthur Laffer who influenced the economic thinking of great leaders including Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and the man who the “Laffer curve” is named after.
The Laffer curve illustrates the relationship between the rate of taxation and the resulting government revenue. We’ve written about the curve as it related to events after Liz Trust and Kwasi Kwarteng were ousted in the autumn of 2022, and as part of a debate in Coulsdon in 2019. The curve shows how lower tax rates can result in higher tax revenue. The Tax Reform Council have a useful page displaying Global evidence: cutting income tax brings in more revenue.
A funny, enjoyable and fascinating interview that discusses the curve, many of Dr. Laffer’s experiences with major political figures and a history of economic changes. Watch the video below:
The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) was setup to speak for ordinary taxpayers fed up with government waste, increasing taxation, and a lack of transparency in all levels of government. They fight to reform taxes and public services, cut wasteful spending and speak up for British taxpayers. Locally the TPA has campaigned to highlight some of the disastrous policies of Croydon Council.
Join us on Wednesday 18th September for our drinks and conversation and with Joanna Marchong the Investigations Campaign Manager at the TPA. We will discuss her role, the work of the TPA, and upcoming concerns for taxpayers. Joanna can also be found on X/Twitter at https://x.com/marchong_joanna.
For drinks, a conversation and Q&A with Joanna about the TPA and taxpayer concerns, come along Wednesday 18th September at 7pm
This is part of our #ThirdWednesday drinks and events, we hold these in association with Dick Delingpole’s #ThirdWednesday Libertarian drinks club, and POLITICS in PUBS a group of people from across the political spectrum who value the freedom to question and to speak openly.
“Ships with goods from around the world, particularly from across the British Empire, were onshored and processed here. By 1900, London’s docks were the busiest in the world”
Once home to the largest port in the world, London’s Docklands had fallen into disrepair by the 1970s. Today, the Docklands is one of London’s most modern, attractive areas, home to a leading financial district and even an airport.
Throughout the 19th century, London’s Docklands grew rapidly, starting with West India Docks in 1802. Ships with goods from around the world, particularly from across the British Empire, were onshored and processed here. By 1900, London’s docks were the busiest in the world.
In March 1909, the separate docks were consolidated under the control of the Port of London Authority, which was responsible for management of the docks. Tens of thousands of people were employed here, and at nearby mills and factories which depended on the Docklands.
During the Second World War, the Docklands were heavily bombed in an effort to cripple Britain’s international supply chains. Much of the area’s infrastructure was destroyed, including almost 1/3 of the area’s housing. Still, the Docklands saw a brief resurgence in the 1950s.
“London’s docks were unable to accommodate the larger vessels needed for modern container shipping, and the shipping industry moved to deep-water ports like Tilbury”
Then came the shipping containers.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, shipping companies came to rely on a standardised system of shipping containers, which could be loaded and unloaded at most major global ports. This new system relied on larger vessels, and fewer human labourers.
While containerisation made international shipping cheaper and more efficient, it was terrible for the Docklands. London’s docks were unable to accommodate the larger vessels needed for modern container shipping, and the shipping industry moved to deep-water ports like Tilbury.
Between 1961 and 1971, almost 83,000 jobs were lost in the Docklands. By 1980, all of London’s docks had finally closed, leaving behind about 8 square miles of derelict land in East London. Almost all housing in the area was council owned, and crime grew rapidly.
“Ward claimed not to have a master plan – “instead, we have gone for an organic, market-driven approach, responding pragmatically to each situation.”
In 1979, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher came to power. She charged her Environment Secretary, Michael Heseltine, with addressing the decline of Britain’s post-industrial urban areas, including Docklands. Some members of her cabinet proposed to abandon the Docklands entirely.
Instead, Heseltine pursued a radically different approach. In 1981, he created the London Docklands Development Corporation, charged with spearheading a market-led revival of the Docklands. All local planning powers were handed to LDDC, despite protests from local councillors.
Planning decisions in the area would be made by LDDC. It received an initial grant of £80 million p/a, and in 1982, Heseltine created the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone, with no land tax, no planning restrictions, a 100% tax write-off on capital costs and a 10-year tax holiday.
The man in charge was Reg Ward, who was appointed CEO by Heseltine. The supremely pragmatic Ward claimed not to have a master plan – “instead, we have gone for an organic, market-driven approach, responding pragmatically to each situation.”
The first few years of LDDC were spent attracting investment for new riverside housing, bringing in small-scale industry (like Billingsgate Market in 1982), and opening up new office space. The proximity of Docklands to the City made it an attractive second site for businesses.
Derelict land was cleaned up and sold to developers, while the absence of local planning hurdles made the area attractive for private businesses looking to invest. By 1986, the LDDC had spent around £300m of public money, but had attracted £1.4 billion in private investment.
“DLR opened in 1987, under-budget and ahead of schedule, with subsequent expansions between 1991 and 1994”
In 1982, Ward commissioned the new Docklands Light Railway (DLR), which would make it easy to get from Docklands to central London. Running mostly on disused railway lines, DLR opened in 1987, under-budget and ahead of schedule, with subsequent expansions between 1991 and 1994.
In 1983, Ward began pushing for an airport on one of the old quays, which would cater to business travellers looking to make short-haul flights between London and Europe. Operations at London City Airport would begin in 1987.
Ward’s greatest success came in 1985, when Ward met for lunch with American-Swiss financier Michael von Clemm. Von Clemm was interested in opening a restaurant in the area – but upon visiting, realised that Docklands would be a prime location for office space.
“Canary Wharf accounts for 67,000 finance sector jobs, putting it ahead of Frankfurt as a banking centre”
Ward worked with Von Clemm to draft a proposal for a new business district, taking advantage of the area’s lack of red tape. In 1988, the project was sold to Canadian developers Olympia & York, with the first buildings finished in 1991. This development is known as Canary Wharf.
Canary Wharf accounts for 67,000 finance sector jobs, putting it ahead of Frankfurt as a banking centre – and it’s no longer an office monoculture. Count in the hotels, shops and restaurants, and Canary Wharf employed around 120,000 people, pre-pandemic.
The LDDC began a staged withdrawal in 1994, and was formally wound up in 1998. Planning powers were handed back to local councils, and the area’s special tax incentives were gradually rolled back. But what Heseltine, Ward, and others had achieved was incredible.
Once-derelict Dockland had been revitalised, with attractive riverside housing, a shining new financial district, an airport, and a local transport system. For most of its history, LDDC managed to do this almost entirely by attracting private investment.
LDDC even managed to reverse a population slump in the area that had begun in the early 1900s, encouraging upwardly mobile ‘yuppies’ to take their first step on the property ladder in the attractive riverside communities of the Docklands.
“decline is not inevitable – with ambitious, pro-growth policies, we can achieve incredible things”
What can we learn from Docklands?
First, that decline is not inevitable – with ambitious, pro-growth policies, we can achieve incredible things.
Second, that areas perform best when govts allow their natural strengths to flourish – such as Docklands’ proximity to London.
Third, LDDC shows us the limits of localism. Local government figures, including Greater London Council Leader Ken Livingstone, hated Docklands. Critics said that LDDC was elitist and undemocratic – after all, it had the power to ignore local wishes entirely.
While the localism of the 1960s and 1970s had created poverty and decline, the efficiency and ambition of LDDC turned Docklands into one of Europe’s leading financial centres. Clean, modern, and full of potential. A sparkling sign of what is possible if we dare to dream.
“What I’m saying is, I think only an idiot would vote for me.”
That could have been Rishi Sunak’s general election campaign strategy”
2024 was in many ways the ‘none of the above’ election. In the classic 1985 movie Brewster’s Millions, Richard Pryor’s character say’s
“I figure voting for Salvino or Heller is just as silly as them running for office, which is just as silly as me running for office. The only thing that’s silly is the power of the people’s vote. And I think the people should use it to vote for… None of the above.”
He’s asked, “Mr. Brewster, are we to understand that you actually don’t want anyone to vote for you?”
And answers, “What I’m saying is, I think only an idiot would vote for me.”
That could have been Rishi Sunak’s general election campaign strategy, and judging by voter turnout it could have also almost been Labour’s
It came as a surprise to me to learn that ‘none of the above’ is a popular international option, which includes ‘none of the above’ on ballots as a standard option, in Argentina, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Spain, Kazakhstan, Switzerland, Uruguay and the US state of Nevada.
“Comparing 2024 votes to the average of the previous three elections, the total votes were down 9%. The Labour’s vote was down 10%. The Tory vote was down 47%”
We should acknowledge that 54.7% of the vote went to the Conservatives and Labour. But in many ways the big winners of the election were anyone out of power. We saw in Scotland the SNP get pushed back, and across England and Wales the Greens, Reform and independent MPs doing particularly well.
We are Democrats. Labour won a stonking majority, and they now have a mandate to govern. But, it’s clear they’ve not gained a popular mandate. I’m hardly the first to say it, and although half the people here might not really remember it, this isn’t Labour’s win in 1997.
Comparing 2024 votes to the average of the previous three elections, the total votes were down 9%. The Labour’s vote was down 10%. The Tory vote was down 47% compared to the last three elections. Reform was up 6% on 2015. 2015 being the obvious comparison with UKIP. The Lib Dems were up 24% and the Greens were up 123%.
What happened locally? It’s hard to make a direct comparison in Croydon due to the constituency changes. Those that don’t know, Streatham came into Croydon North. and Croydon has increased in population. But roughly what’s happened? In 2015, 2019 and 2024, I’ve left out 2017, because it really was quite an anomaly. Elections have had virtually the same number of voters, despite big increases in population and for this last election adding Streatham into that mix.
“Reform’s vote is locally, back to the same level UKIP received in 2015. This was achieved with no ground game and barely visible candidates, which suggests there’s some room for growth”
Compared to the last election in 2019, the Conservative vote has dropped by 12.2%, but Labour’s has dropped by 1.2%, again despite adding Streatham, which is a predominantly Labour area. The LibDem vote was basically a wash between now and the last election. The big changes were the Greens up 27.6% on 2019 and Reform up 54.9%, of course Reform didn’t run in Croydon South in 2019.
Reform’s vote is locally, back to the same level UKIP received in 2015. This was achieved with no ground game and barely visible candidates, which suggests there’s some room for growth. Much as it pains me to say this, the real success story was the Greens, who basically achieved a 75% higher vote than they did in 2015.
I believe the Greens are the ‘none of the above’ vote for many people who don’t know what their actual policies are. The local elections were held in 2021, which included the delayed locals from 2020, where the first local elections in many areas since the high point of UKIP. In ward, after ward, after ward, the UKIP vote went down, basically because they didn’t stand a candidate, by exactly the same amount as the Green Party vote went up. Now, this may be because of a particular demographic change in the area. It may be because the people that wanted out of Europe also wanted net zero. It may also be because they were voting for ‘none of the above’ in 2015 and they were voting for none-of-the-above in 2021. In saying this I acknowledge as someone who stood for UKIP, many may have voted for the party, primarily as they represented at the time ‘none of the above’.
Croydon, though, is still largely a two-party town. 73% of the total vote. But these same two parties saw their vote go down by 23,000 over the last election, whilst other parties’ votes went up by 22,000.
“if you deliver on your promises you can win. This may have also been a dig at some senior people in his party, but it could be rather a positive sign of what we need politicians to do”
Fewer people are voting, more are tactically voting, and more are voting for smaller parties. I think it’s reasonable to assume people are voting with more knowledge rather than just voting for the traditional red or blue party.
Here in Croydon South, Chris Philp pulled out an unexpected result and won. His vote went down, and there looks like an awful lot of tactical voting, but still Chris prevails as a local Conservative. On the night, he put it down to delivering on his promises locally, which included DEMOC, and planning. On the night he also asked Mayor Jason Perry to commit to the Purley Pool. He said, basically, if you deliver on your promises you can win. This may have also been a dig at some senior people in his party, but it could be rather a positive sign of what we need politicians to do. Hopefully it catches on for the future.
“the first post-lockdown election, and I don’t actually remember anyone talking about the lockdown at all, despite it being perhaps the most significant thing since the war that’s happened in this country”
In August 2020, among one of many versions of lockdown, I wrote about the need for a political party to run on a ticket of liberty. My article started by saying the line, ‘Growing up in the 80s it was common to hear “I can say what I like, it’s a free country”’. But that’s really not felt true for some years now, has it?
Now, we’ve had an election, the first post-lockdown election, and I don’t actually remember anyone talking about the lockdown at all, despite it being perhaps the most significant thing since the war that’s happened in this country. I no longer think a freedom-focused party is the best way forward. People are used to voting for smaller parties, which was a really interesting point of note out of the election, but Reform has stepped up as the overwhelming front-runner among liberty-minded people.
You may not think of Reform as a libertarian party, but it is the standout party in that space. I don’t think there’s room for anyone else. The election has seen a rise in the enemies of freedom, the Green Party and independent candidates, who stand for the absolute antithesis of freedom. Of course, overall, it was a big win for Labour, and they now have a huge majority in government.
What’s the landscape we’re now facing? Well, there’s no money. We had the King’s speech today, and from what I could see they didn’t really plan to spend a lot of money in it. So, they’re going to focus on that other socialist passion – Control.
“There’s going to be a need for a freedom-focused campaign, because the socialist in power will want to control us, especially because they can’t spend any more of our money”
I wrote this before the King’s speech, and for those of you that have looked through what’s happening, it’s clear that Labour are focus on control. There’s going to be a need for a freedom-focused campaign, because the socialist in power will want to control us, especially because they can’t spend any more of our money, as there ain’t none. To build a campaign you need a bit of a gap in the market, you need an opportunity. You need people to think about the fact that freedoms important to them, and you need something that motivates them.
If there was a voter’s equivalent to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it might start with economics and some basic safety. Blair got this right, there was no gap in the market to push back against some of Blair’s reforms, because frankly we were rich and safe under Blair’s government most of the time. He didn’t allow that gap in the market to exist. Sir Keir will allow that gap, we are not rich, and we are not safe. Indeed he’s already doing some things to ensure we will be less rich and less safe.
So that creates an incentive, a push, a drive, for people to say, what’s going wrong here, what can we do? Let’s look at what he is and isn’t doing:
he’s doing nothing on housing, which is for a certain generation at least, the single biggest impact in terms of wealth and concern for people,
he’s making Britain a clean energy superpower – which is going to make us poorer,
and of course he’s taking back our streets by releasing prisoners.
If you look at some of their plans for liberty, in their manifesto, they want to close the gender pay gap, that sounds fine in and of itself, but of course that means telling you how to run your business.
They’ve got a promise to introduce mandatory disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting, again telling you how to run your business, taking away your options and opportunity. They want to shift the negative attitudes around diversity, equity, and inclusion. Interesting timing as you may have seen that Microsoft are closing their in-house DEI department today.
Shifting negative attitudes, if you’ve made a manifesto commitment to that, I’m not sure that you’re talking about changing people’s attitude by doing something different. I think you might be talking about them forcing a change in people’s attitudes, again another massive impact on people’s freedom. They’re banning conversion therapy, the therapy is I think a rather ridiculous thing, but again it’s a freedom, it’s a choice, it’s people’s religious expression, it’s people’s right to air their personal views, that’s being taken away. We also know this Labour party was massively sympathetic to lockdowns and taking pretty much all our freedoms away, and they are very sympathetic to ID cards. Again, this creates an opportunity to campaign for freedom.
“What do we need to do? I think we need a minimum viable product for freedom”
What do we need to do? I think we need a minimum viable product for freedom, a minimum set of things that most of us can agree on and work towards. I would propose it to be:
free speech,
the rule of law,
democracy,
evolution of power from the centre,
and value for money from what the government does spend money on.
For the last one, no matter what you think the government should spend on or not, I’d hope we’d all agree we ought to get value for money from it.
On line’s important and useful, but it can’t be replaced by real world activity. If you want to grow a movement, sending people down the rabbit hole of clicking on the same links all of the time and getting the same things presented back is not the way to go. You need to get out to the real world and reach out to new people.
We need street stalls, leafleting at stations, leafleting at schools. I wrote back in 2000, 5,000 leaflets, colour double-sided, A5, decent weight of paper, it’s £100. This is not cheap, but it’s not generally unaffordable. Even cheaper is a press release which is free. All you need to do is write to your local democracy reporter. If it’s good enough for the pizza firm, it’s good enough for us.
Focus on local issues if you can, partner with national groups, but frankly do something. If we can’t partner with a national group, we will just do it ourselves. We will get our own things out, we will start putting something in people’s hands to say, do you want to be told what you can and can’t say? Do you want to be told what you can and can’t do? Two years ago, I’m not sure people would have listened to us, but that can change with the new government.
