croydonconstitutionalists

Interview with Malachy McDermott, London Group Leader of the Libertarian Party

Always keen to support people prepared to support Brexit. The Croydon Constitutionalists spoke to Malachy McDermott, London Group Leader of the Libertarian Party.

He has also a published author who has written for Mises.org, with a Degree in Economics and English Literature from University College Dublin he currently works in Finance.

The Libertarian Party believe in limited government, personal freedom, support Brexit and pertinently a written constitution.

The Croydon Constitutionalists have previously interviewed the Libertarian Party’s Sean Finch and Mike made the personal sacrifice of travelling to their sister party in the US to interview the Libertarians of Orange County California.

Malachy thanks for your time.

Not everyone is fully familiar with your party. Can you tell us a bit about them?

The Libertarian Party is unique in British politics as it is the only party to truly speak for the rights of the individual. In an increasingly state controlled society, whether that be through crony capitalism or direct control of the economy, the individual is left by the wayside. From the Nanny State to the Victimisation of peaceful people are scope to exit without being licensed, taxed or otherwise infringed upon dwindles almost daily. The Libertarian party understands that free people able to make free decisions for which they accept the consequences is the best way for a society to function.

“An out of control central bank and increased social control by the state are issues that are not addressed by any party but the Libertarian Party”

How does the Libertarian Party differ from the Conservatives / The Brexit Party / UKIP?

Both socially and politically the Libertarian Party is trying to be an actual Libertarian voice in the UK. While the other 3 parties have attempted to be this, they, in my opinion, have cast their nets too far. In doing so they have tried to take on centrist or soft left positions. Especially from an economic and government spending point of view. Libertarianism involves a constant desire to reduce the size and scope of government and put power back in people’s hands. Although these parties attempt this, I think they lose their way a lot of the time. An out of control central bank and increased social control by the state are issues that are not addressed by any party but the Libertarian Party.

What was your personal journey to libertarianism and what made you get involved in the party?

I have come right from the other end of the political compass to get here! I started out in my teens as a full on Communist, going to university I mellowed somewhat into vaguely centrist or modern liberal perspective. Then about 3 or 4 years ago I began writing a blog. When analysing and fact checking, I came to more and more Libertarian conclusions, although I really didn’t know that there was a name for it. When I came across the term, I became a very active keyboard warrior! About a year ago I met Sean Finch from our Kent branch, he introduced me to the party and I haven’t looked back.

You’re the leader of the London Group of the party what does that involve?

At the moment it’s about getting established and getting the right team in place. To do this we have the Facebook page and the monthly meet ups. Both are free to all to have a look at. I have met so many great people and made a lot of connections which has made running this a lot easier. But we are always looking for new people and any help is hugely appreciated!

“I want to get some councillors elected. Getting names on ballot papers and getting the word out there is a must. A lot of my focus is letting people know that they do not have to be socially liberal and economically left wing or socially conservative and economically right wing. There is a space, a philosophy and a party that allows you to believe in economic AND individual freedom”

What are you ambitions for London? What tactics and policies do you see making a breakthrough for the party?

My ambitions are always high, there’s not much point in doing something if they are not! For the moment though I want to get some councillors elected. Getting names on ballot papers and getting the word out there is a must. A lot of my focus is letting people know that they do not have to be socially liberal and economically left wing or socially conservative and economically right wing. There is a space, a philosophy and a party that allows you to believe in economic AND individual freedom. If we can get people elected and show people what that will mean in their day to day lives, I don’t see why this movement could not spread throughout the capital.

What do you think might give the Libertarian Party UK the breakthrough the US party has?

Exposure. The more media coverage you get, the more people will check your social media, the more people will get involved. It’s cyclical and self-perpetuating, but a vital part of any political campaign.

What are your current views on politics in London and the big issues that need addressing?

Politics in London is a vastly overcomplicated with so many different organisations under state control and so many councils taking on projects that private industry could handle. Our Mayor has failed in so many areas and continues down a socialist problem solving (not that it ever solves any problems) route that will lead to chaos in a post Brexit Britain. Londoners need to be free from rent control (which has never worked), they need the right to defend themselves and they need to be able to trade freely; unburdened from ridiculous rates and fees. A freer, more responsible London, that allows communities to focus on themselves, with a sustainable package of free market solutions where once there were only monopolistic state interventions on offer is what I would like to see.

If you could introduce or repeal 3 laws (other than for Brexit) what would they be?

Self Defence items – Individuals are defenceless against criminals. Stabbings and sexual assaults seem to dominate the media, especially here in the capital. Allowing people to carry pepper spray for example would act as a huge deterrent to crime and give power and agency back to peaceful, law-abiding people.

Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (The Snooper’s Charter) – This and laws like it rarely lead to the catching of criminals, however they do the central government a massive database of personal data. Often the old adage of “If you’re doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide” is brought up here. To that I would reply that what is okay today may be criminal tomorrow. You do not know who will be elected or what direction politics will take, so take care with your data.

Compulsory purchase orders – If you own your property, then you own it. There is an ill feeling that hits the pit of my stomach when people are forced to give up their property to the state. There is an underlying idea in the UK of a great Liberal tradition in the original meaning of the word (John Locke etc.), an essential part of that is private property and not even the state is above that philosophy.

“Even better is if you write down where you are now and take a look at it in 6 months, again you will see that the negative changes are from government interference”

Any other thoughts you want to leave us with?

I would like everyone who is reading this to do two things. Think of where you are now, what you are free to do, what money you pay and what you get for it. Then try and think of a year or two years ago and think of what’s changed. I will bet that most of these changes are the result of government action and not for the better. Even better is if you write down where you are now and take a look at it in 6 months, again you will see that the negative changes are from government interference. Something must change, socialism and conservatism have tried and failed, let’s give Libertarianism a shot, the great thing about that is that is it’s not handing someone the reigns and waiting for them to fix it, but genuinely having the reigns given back to you, so the freedom to choose what to do and responsibility of how to act lies with you.

Malachy thank-you for the interview.

Malachy can be contact on Facebook.

The Libertarian Party can be found at https://libertarianparty.co.uk/

Executive Pay at Croydon Council

With budgets tight, and a constant demand for new and improved services, council spending is always under pressure.

Following successful events held with the TaxPayers’ Alliance we have written to the leaders with responsibility for Croydon of the Labour, Conservative, The Brexit, Polish Pride, Christian Alliance, Unity, Democrats and Veterans, Libertarian, Foundation, UKIP, and Liberal Democratic Parties. Asking them you to support our campaign to support local taxpayers, and keep control of executive pay at Croydon Council.

In our campaign supported by local residents we have asked that they agree to our proposal that in future no newly appointed council employee will earn more than the Prime Minister. Out letter to the parties is available here:

Letter to Political Parties Download

The responses in support of our proposal are below, for the others we await their responses and hope they choose to support the taxpayers of Croydon.

The Foundation Party

Chris Mendes

The Christian Parties Alliance

Sid Cordle

The Libertarian Party UK

Mal McDermott

The Brexit Party

Peter Sonnex

Thank-you all for your support for the hardworking families of Croydon.

Podcast Episode 11 – Freedom of Speech…Just Watch What You Say

In this episode we bring you the speeches from our recent event held at The Green Dragon in Croydon, Our speakers on the night were:

Harry Fone – Taxpayers Alliance
Sean Finch – Libertarian Party
Izzy Montague – Croydon Mother
David Kurten – GLA Member

More on the participants available here and photos from the night.

Podcast available on:

iTunes
Spreaker
YouTube:

Debating Society: A small income tax increase is justified to fund social care

The Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society planned to hold two debates in September but ran out of time on the night. One was planned on “A small income tax increase is justified to fund social care”.

The text below was originally written by Mike Swadling as a speech to be delivered to a live audience for the purpose of a debating society. Join them for their next debate on Monday 4^th November, where the subject will be “It is unrealistic nowadays to have an unarmed police force”.

Other details from debate club nights can be found in CR5 Magazine.

“To use the dreadful term many people are bed blocking what is say a £500 a day bed, because a roughly £500 a month social care package can’t be provided”

Yes pay more

We are at the start of a 25 year period of peak age. The demographics mean for a generation we will have older people, often needing more care and fewer working age people to pay for it. This will eventually ease away, but this a challenge facing us now.

I suspect I am not alone in having seen a loved one in hospital, not able to leave for a lack of social care. To use the dreadful term many people are bed blocking what is say a £500 a day bed, because a roughly £500 a month social care package can’t be provided.

This doesn’t make sense for the patients’ mental or physical health, their family’s needs, costs to the NHS and taxpayers, or the needs of the person requiring that ‘blocked bed’.

That extra funding is needed few would doubt. The question is how do you provide it?

Laffer Curve

Let me try a little thought experiment with you.

Which do you think would raise more revenue for the government?

An income tax rate of 100% or 0%?

(Answer: both the same £0 why would anyone work to pay 100% tax)

Ok which rate do you think would raise more money for the government?

An income tax rate of 99% or 1%?

(Answer: 1% why would anyone work to pay 99% tax, we all work at a tax rate of more than 1% tax)

An income tax rate of 75% or 25%?

(Answer: 25% why would anyone work to pay 75% tax)

This demonstrates higher tax rates do not necessarily mean higher tax takes.

Known as the Laffer curve after the Economist Arthur Laffer. It predicts somewhere between 25% and 33% is the point where government income is maximised.

The disincentives in tax, do not outweigh the extra income from higher rates.

Broadly in income tax people are prepared to say two for me, and one for you. But no more.

“the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never higher that 37.5% of GDP. Mostly these fluctuations are around the periods of recessions as the economy rapidly changes. Higher tax rates don’t increase tax revenue. People simply refuse to pay it”

Tax

On the UKs average income of about £30,000.

you pay about £6,000 in tax and national insurance
you are usually be responsible for let’s say half the average £1600 council tax
about £200 in car tax
you pay about another £200 in air tax for your holiday
and close to many of our hearts, 52p on a pint and about £3.5 on a £7 bottle of wine.

It’s not hard to see about a third of our income going in tax.

Total government tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is about 36%, whereas spending is about 37%.

Since the 1970s tax receipts have never exceed 38% of GDP, mostly that have hovered around 35%

In this time we have had governments of Labour, Conservative, LibLab Pacts, Conservative Liberal coalitions, the UUP prop up James Callahan, and the DUP prop up Theresa May.
In that time basic rate income has been as high as 35% and as low as 20%.
The top rate has been as high as 83% and as low as 40%.
It’s not just income tax. Corporation tax has been as high as 52% and as low as 28%

Yet the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never higher that 37.5% of GDP.

Mostly these fluctuations are around the periods of recessions as the economy rapidly changes.

Higher tax rates don’t increase tax revenue. People simply refuse to pay it.

They work less, more of off books, on in the case of the most highly skilled, simply move and work elsewhere to avoid overly burdensome tax rates.

High tax rates kill economic growth.

Savings

If you want to spend more on social care, find an existing poor use of money and reallocate it. You can also reduce the costs of providing the care itself. If I could ask your indulgence with a few suggestions:

Merge responsibilities and budgets of the NHS and Social Service.
As a result local managers can decide if the best service is provided by funding acute care or stopping bed blocking.
As I have said I firmly believe many £500 a day beds are being filled for lack of a £500 a month care package.
More money is pouring into the NHS. You might not think it’s enough, but every year spending increases. Form 3.7% of GDP in 1970 to 7.1% now, the trend is relentlessly up.
Rather than focus on building more and better hospitals for a National Hospital Service, let’s focus on a National Health Service.
Let’s see if there are more efficient ways to spend that money, that get better overall outcomes.
Let’s get creative. Some people require a huge amount of care, but lots of fairly active able pensioners and others require a little bit of social care. At the same time we have problems caring for special needs adults and children and a high cost of nursery care.
Let’s look at facilities where we can bring old and young together for both their benefits, and reduce the cost of staffing in the process.
Experiments like those carried out by the ExtraCare Charitable Trust or St Monica Trust show such operations reduce depression and improve general health in the elderly whilst increasing maturity and language skills in the young.
From 2013 all new Nurses need degrees. Why? Does it really require two years in college and 3 in University to empty a bed pan?
Are straight A’s needed to provide a good bedside manor?
Are these perhaps skills better learnt by doing, rather than by reading a book or sitting in a lecture theatre?
Some functions performed by nurses may need additional qualifications but clearly not all. There is anecdotal evidence that Nurses with degrees are less focused on being a patient’s friend, providing basic comfort or even a clean environment and more on only the work requiring graduate studies.
A mixed ward with graduate, on the job highly trained, and new less skilled nurses providing basic care, will be cheaper, and frankly might be better at providing the full spectrum of care needed for patients.

Achieving the same level of care at a cheaper rate per a patient, means more care can be provided, or more money for life saving drugs, or simply a lower charge for those families paying for care.

Summing up

As I have said I think we do need to put more funding into social care. But an income tax increase is simply the wrong way to provide it.

It may sound good, but it won’t do good. In fact it could have the opposite effect.

If you want more money to spend on social care, re balance government spending and make this a priority.

Vote against this motion, don’t reduce tax take and leave those most in need paying for a nice sounding, but wrong doing proposition.

Photo by The original uploader was Blakwolf at Italian Wikipedia. – Transferred from it.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY 2.5

Debating Society: Priti Patel is right: it’s time to bring back the death penalty

The Coulsdon and Purley Debating Society held a debate in early September on the subject of “Priti Patel is right: it’s time to bring back the death penalty”. To be fair the Home Secretary had walked back that statement, but it was a good opportunity to discuss capital punishment.

The text below was originally written by Mike Swadling as a speech delivered to a live audience for the purpose of a debating society. Join them for their next debate on Monday 4^th November, where the subject will be “It is unrealistic nowadays to have an unarmed police force”.

Other details from debate club nights can be found in CR5 Magazine.

Eye4eye

Deuteronomy speaks of an eye for an eye. But the principle predates the Old Testament and is first seen in Babylonian law. It is also seen in pre-Christian Anglo Saxon law.

Partly thanks to Ghandi people perceive this to be a retaliation rather than a reasonable punishment. The principle of an eye of an eye, started as a way to ensure punishment was measured and appropriate.

Goods taken would be return, and an injury would see a similar injury endured.

A death would be punishable by a death, not the wiping out of a family or clan, that was in ancient times, all too common.

That the punishment is proportional, in most societies was, and maybe still is a massive leap forward.

Indeed that fairness is engrained in most of us.

If someone pick pockets from us, we don’t expect them to be battered or bruised (we might), but we expect some financial punishment or maybe some community service.
If they break into our homes we expect some loss of freedom, some extensive community service or a short custodial sentence.
If they attack us we expect a long punishing custodial sentence.

Therefore, I ask, who are we, if someone losses their life, to judge that the injury to them, should not be have a fair retribution?

I would like to emphasis here if someone loses their life, they not the friends and family are the primary wronged party.

Yes other feel the loss, but the real loss is the person whose life was cut short.

Why should they not be entitled to the same retribution from the law as any of us who suffered a lesser crime?

Wrong thinking

We often hear that because we have murders in places that have a death penalty it does work as a deterrent. It does, and I will come onto that.

But this idea that a punishment, any punishment deters all action, is something that we would apply in no other realm.

Who has ever heard:

“If we just bring in a punishment for theft no one will ever steal anything”?
“If we punish speeding, no one will speed”?
“No one will evades tax, now we have fine for it”?

Indeed many here will have brought up children, I am sure we have all cared for some at some point.

We all know from this that once you set a boundary, no child ever breaks it.

Hold on is that not your experience?

Punishments do deter but don’t stop. Different punishments deter in different times and places in different ways. For instance different levels of crime and punishment may happen in different states in the US.

One with capital punishment may have more murders than one without, because, simply they are different places. In the developed world, most murders occur in cities.

In Australia the outback of the Northern Territory has some of the highest murder rates in the world. Why? Its remote, really remote, it’s the place criminals go to hide. It turns out they are still criminals, they commit murders. It’s a different place and simply, should be, no more be compared to Sydney, than the hill country of Texas is with the South Side of Chicago.

“Punishments work, and punishments deter crime. Today we are losing about an extra 330 people year than when we have capital punishment”

It works

Beyond the inherent fairness of capital punishment, Priti Patel is right. It is time to bring back the death penalty, because it works.

I agree with Nancy Reagan when she said:

“I believe that more people would be alive today if there were a death penalty.”

Or to quote President George W Bush:

“I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives”

I want to do a little thought experiment with you.

Let’s say a new law in the UK meant murder would be punishable by death if committed on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday, but not if commitment on any other day of the week.
Hands up if you think that would result on fewer murders, and keep in mind by its very nature, murder requires some premeditation. On a Monday, Wednesday or Friday than other days of the week?
Of course it would hitmen, wronged lovers, gang members and maybe even some psychopaths would change the day they choose to commit murders, if this was the law.

In the UK we had capital punishment until it was abolished in 1965. Murders, are measured in rate per 100,000 people.

In Britain thanks to new ideas like Bobbies on the beat and new technology like fingerprints the murder rate started falling in roughly mid-1800s until the mid-1960s.

Thankfully murder is so low, that year or year rates fluctuate but trends can be seen.

We have more detailed statistics from 1900 where the decade saw a murder rate of 0.96 per 100,000. This fell gradually to 0.75 for the 1930, the era of the great depression. The rate rose slightly during and just after the war, but come 1959 it was down to 0.59 per 100,000.

In 1965 the rate was at 0.68, 1966, 0.76, 1974, 1.06.

What changed? What made the British suddenly so much more murderous?

Could it be? The death penalty was abolished in 1965 and had basically all but stopped being used a few years earlier?

Punishments work, and punishments deter crime. The reversal in this loss of innocent lives didn’t stop there. By 1987 the murder rate was up at 1.19, by 1999, 1.45, by 2002 over 2 per 100,000 were murdered.

Based on today’s population every extra 1 person per 100,000 is an extra 660 needless deaths per year. The 2010s thankfully the murder rate lower, but was still just below 1 per 100,000, or about 300 extra deaths over the 1960s rate, and it has of course come up again to 1.22 for 2016 the last year figures are available for.

The rate went down from 2003 to about 2016, why? My speculation would be The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 which toughened sentences for murder and rules on life imprisonment.

Punishments work, and punishments deter crime. Today we are losing about an extra 330 people year than when we have capital punishment.

“If all 100% of them turned out to be innocent the deterrent effect of capital punishment would still save on average 30 times as many innocent lives a year”

What about the innocent?

But what about the innocent and the miscarriages of justice? It’s a good question. There will be irreversible miscarriages of justice. Fact it will happen, but I put I to you, do you want to do good or do you want to feel good?

I want to do good. I want to choose the route that results in the least deaths, not the route that makes me feel most cleansed. We are losing approximately an extra 330 people per year than when we had capital punishment. We will lose some innocent convicted people, but with capital punishment we would be doing good and saving more innocent lives.

The risk to innocent life’s being taken by the state is real. But so is the risk to innocent lives being taken in murder. Between 1735 and 1799 we executed about 7400 people. But that was then.

It reduced to 762 between 1900 and 1964. If all 100% of them turned out to be innocent the deterrent effect of capital punishment would still save on average 30 times as many innocent lives a year.

I ask again, do you want to feel good or actually do good?

But most won’t be innocent. Indeed various studies in the US estimate that between 2.3 and 5% of all prisoners are innocent. In the UK, reviews prompted by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have resulted in one pardon and three exonerations for people that were executed between 1950 and 1953 during which period we executed 68 people.

Again about 5%. With modern DNA evidence I would expect this rate to fall. But the deterrent effect would still be in place.

People will spend years, and even sometimes say anything to avoid capital punishment. People will feel sympathy for them.

It doesn’t mean they deserve it.

Priti Patel is right: It’s time to bring back the death penalty.

It will save lives. It will help abate the rising tide of knife crime we see on our streets.

It will give justice to those poor souls who had their lives untimely taken and for all its difficulties it is simply the right thing to do.

Photo by andy dolman, CC BY-SA 2.0 Link

Leavers of Croydon Drinks Porter & Sorter. Tuesday 15th October.

Join us at the next Leavers of Croydon Drinks Tuesday 15^th October at the Porter & Sorter pub next to East Croydon Station.

A chance to discuss events old and new on Brexit, catch-up with old and meet new friends.

From 7pm Porter & Sorter Station Road, East Croydon, CR0 6BT

https://leaversofbritain.co.uk/events/leavers-of-croydon-drinks/

Freedom of speech…. just watch what you say…

A great night at the Green Dragon supporting one of our most precious freedoms – Free Speech.

We started the night saying free speech and freedom are messy and we had some robust but good natured exchanges.

Harry Fone of the Taxpayers’ Alliance spoke about how we can’t criticise waste in the NHS.
The Libertarian Party’s Sean Finch covered the many ways hate speech laws curtail our freedom of speech.
Local mum and Christian Izzy Montague talked about the challenges she faced speaking up to protect her children’s childhood.
David Kurten Brexit Alliance London Assembly Member spoke of his experiences of people trying to shut down his speech.

Thanks to all who attended and especially our speakers for making this such an enjoyable night.

Interview with Mario Creatura, the Conservative Party PPC for Croydon Central

Always keen to support people in Croydon prepared to support Brexit. The Croydon Constitutionalists spoke to Councillor Mario Creatura, the Conservative Party Candidate for Croydon Central.

Mario will be well known to many of our followers as a local Councillor and campaigner. He worked for Gavin Barwell when he was an MP, global beer company Heineken and in 10 Downing Street running social media for Theresa May. He now works in communications for Virgin Money UK.

Mario thanks for your time.

What don’t we know about you that has led you to be the PPC in Croydon Central?

I’ve lived in Croydon all my life. I was born in Mayday Hospital and went to nursery at Tollgate in Shirley; attended St Thomas Becket Primary in South Norwood; checked my first books out of Ashburton Library and learnt to ride my bike in Bingham Park.

My first job was in the town centre; first flat just off the historic Surrey Street Market and last year, with my wife Amy, we moved into our first home together in Park Hill.

Croydon isn’t just some rung on the political career ladder for me – it’s been my home for over 30 years. I want my community to thrive and that’s not been happening in recent years.

I truly believe that it’s only when our community comes together that we can tackle the complex issues facing our town – to create an environment that promotes aspiration and helps our town thrive. That’s why I’m running to be our next Member of Parliament: to work with everyone to help Croydon be the best it can be.

What first got you involved in politics?

Growing up in Croydon I wasn’t really concerned about politics, and neither were my family. My dad still gets up at 4am to go to work, and when I was a kid mum would work nights in Woolworths in the town centre.

I went to a great state school in South Norwood, worked hard and became the first in my family to make it to university. It wasn’t easy; I didn’t know anyone else that had been. Thankfully with the help of a bursary and an incredibly supportive family I graduated, and it’s no exaggeration to say that it truly transformed my life.

I met people who became lifelong friends. Some of them were interested in politics, and over many a beer it was at university that my interest in politics was kindled.

I graduated in 2009 and came back to Croydon just before the 2010 General Election. While I was away my mum had become a Teaching Assistant at my old school and my dad had started refereeing and coaching the local little league. They had started to get fully involved in the community, rolling their sleeves up and helping out. I saw the difference they made, and how much of an impact they were both making in our local area.

That’s when I started thinking about local politics. I have always thought that if you want to help your community then the best way is by getting involved. It doesn’t matter what it is – but the best way to make a difference is to get stuck in.

That’s also why I started getting involved in the local Conservative party. Politics can be a force for good, a place where people debate ideas and work to make our local area better. I wanted to be a part of that effort, so I took my own advice and got involved!

Any stories from previous campaign trails that have stuck in your memory?

I first ran for election in Selhurst ward. One weekday evening I was out knocking on doors on the Selhurst Road, working to find out about the issues and concerns facing the local residents.

In one of the houses was a lady who was clearly getting ready to go out for the night. She had a towel around her hair and was in a dressing gown – she was clearly in no mood for talking to a councillor candidate. She told me, as anticipated, that she was in the middle of something and had no time to talk – but in any case that there was absolutely no way she was going to vote for a Conservative. She thought that was the end of that, and so I (thinking I had nothing to lose) asked her ‘Why?’

She was taken aback. What did I mean: why? She was very clear wasn’t she?

I was genuinely interested in what she had to say. Why not vote Conservative? Why vote Labour? Why be so unequivocal? I was curious, and she appreciated it.

Despite her supposed rush, we ended up talking for more than 30 minutes. About schools and social mobility. About fly-tipping and potholes. About the health service and police force.

At the end of the conversation she thanked me for my time, and that I listened to her. She told me that she would still be voting Labour but that she appreciated my commitment to our community.

A few weeks later was Election Day. That night I was surprised to receive a message on Facebook. It said:

‘Hi Mario. Not sure if you remember but you canvassed me on Selhurst Road the other day and we had a good conversation about politics. Well just to let you know that I did something that I have never done before in my life and voted for a Tory! Because you are young and passionate and I believe that you will make a difference. So good luck, and if you do get in don’t let me down!’

I sadly did not win that time, but the whole experience taught me a valuable lesson: that if you truly care about your local area, and you listen to the people in the community, then you can make a difference.

” We were all told that the referendum result would be respected; both Labour and the Conservatives ran on a manifesto commitment to do just that. If we betray that trust, then we jeopardise faith in our entire political establishment”

You supported Remain in the EU Referendum. What’s made you now support us leaving the EU?

Although I did support Remain, I always recognised that there were merits on both sides of the argument. Since the referendum, my excitement about the possibilities for Britain outside the EU has really grown. In the last year I’ve had the privilege of travelling quite a bit, and there’s a real appetite around the world to re-engage with Britain in a way that simply wouldn’t be possible if we were staying in.

However, above and beyond anything else, I am a champion for Brexit because I’m a democrat. I believe we should leave the EU as soon as possible to fulfill the democratic instruction given to us by the British people. I therefore fully support Prime Minister Johnson’s intention that we leave by October 31st.

In the largest vote ever to take place in British history, the people made a clear decision. I am a democrat, and that decision must be implemented. To do otherwise would shake the very foundations of our democracy.

We were all told that the referendum result would be respected; both Labour and the Conservatives ran on a manifesto commitment to do just that. If we betray that trust, then we jeopardise faith in our entire political establishment – a faith that is already being tested to the limit.

Politicians should not choose which votes they respect and which they do not. We must leave the EU – no ifs, no buts.

“However, even if we can’t secure a deal like this – which I think we can – we must leave the EU, come what may, on 31^st October”

What terms would you like to see us leave the EU under?

The ideal terms for Brexit would be to negotiate a comprehensive free trade deal with the EU similar to the arrangement enjoyed by Canada. This kind of deal will allow free trade and relatively little friction on the borders but would not compromise national sovereignty, our ability to set our own laws, control our borders and pursue an ambitious global trade policy.

However, even if we can’t secure a deal like this – which I think we can – we must leave the EU, come what may, on 31^st October.

“Join a political party or residents’ group or local charity – whatever suits you, just do it. Truly the only way to improve things, and to oust bad politicians, is to work hard and push for change locally”

Until recently you were Chief Whip for the Conservatives in the Council. You must have seen a lot of what’s going on. What are your thoughts more broadly on Croydon Politics?

Our local politics is not in a healthy place. The Labour-run Council actively avoids scrutiny – tens of thousands of residents have signed petitions that are ignored by the Council. Even in official consultations, if the response is not in keeping with Labour’s policy objectives then the results are often sidelined. Residents’ Associations are barely engaged with and whenever a reasonable local resident tries to flag issues with an insensitive development, aggressive councillors routinely shut them down.

The public gets a measly 30 minutes to ask questions at each Council meeting, and there are only 7 meetings each year. The Labour Cabinet members don’t hold public meetings and when a member of the public does get to ask a question often the answer is mealy-mouthed and obstructive.

A confident council should welcome scrutiny. The Opposition can help the (currently Labour) Administration to up their game if they are allowed to do their job properly. However, at the moment Labour does everything it can to block any attempt at the main parties working together in Croydon’s interests – and so meetings often spiral out of control into childish bickering that debases our community.

But I’m an optimist. There are so many phenomenal people involved in our local politics – whether they’re in a political party or not, so many residents are committed to making our local communities thrive. We may sometimes disagree on the way to get there, but our ultimate goal is the same.

The only way to help Croydon thrive is to get involved. Join a political party or residents’ group or local charity – whatever suits you, just do it. Truly the only way to improve things, and to oust bad politicians, is to work hard and push for change locally.

This is your first time as a parliamentary candidate, has anything come as a surprise from making that step?

Croydon has got huge potential – the potential to be a dynamic, prosperous town that provides opportunities for everyone. I’ve spent 10 years campaigning in Croydon, and the biggest surprise since becoming the candidate is finding out just how many people locally care passionately about our community and how desperately they want it to get better. There have been heated discussions, and the vast majority have shared a common desire to boost our borough. It’s energising to know there’s that hunger out there, and I want to be instrumental in helping to make it happen for my home town.

If you introduce or repeal 3 laws (other than for Brexit) what would they be?

Cracking down on crime: A review of sentencing of prolific offenders with a view to creating a clearer expectation of longer and more certain prison sentences for super-prolific offenders. We should continue the Government’s policy of investing in more prison capacity to enable more super-prolific offenders to be jailed and for longer. And we need action to improve and toughen community sentences, suspended sentences and drug rehabilitation programmes – a greater emphasis on rehabilitation is all-important in breaking the cycle that too often drags those leaving the penal system back into a life of crime.
Tackling poverty: tax cuts for business should be made conditional on increases in wages for staff on the lowest rates of pay, in order to counter in-work poverty. I would offer corporate tax cuts to firms that increase pay for their staff and these tax cuts should also be used to encourage more training for young and low-paid staff, who are most likely to miss out on support to boost their skills. With near full employment already achieved, the Conservatives are already helping millions, but it’s time to address the root causes of in-work poverty – this is just one policy idea to contribute to achieving that goal.
Social mobility: Given that gaps between the advantaged and less advantaged open up before birth and get wider through a child’s formative years, the role of parents and the early years workforce is highly important. The government’s 30-hour free childcare offer has helped many families afford a vital service – but good quality childcare is still out of reach for many. Significantly reducing the lower income limit of eligibility and working with local authorities to specifically target low-income households will help to boost social mobility. I want every kid in Croydon to get the support and services they need so they can achieve their maximum potential in life.

Any other thoughts you want to leave us with?

We’ve currently got a Labour MP in Croydon Central who has voted to block Brexit more than 10 times. The Lib Dems can’t win in Croydon and neither can the Brexit Party – it’s a straight fight between Labour and the Conservatives. If you truly want to deliver Brexit, then the only way to do that is to vote Conservative in the next election, whenever that comes. A vote for any other party is effectively a vote for Labour to stay in power and for our Brexit-blocking MP to continue in her determined effort to circumvent the will of the people.

Don’t let that happen. Croydon deserves better than that.

Mario thank-you for the interview.

Mario can be contact by Facebook, Twitter or email at [email protected]

“If the Cons mess this up, they should not get a chance to run this Country Again” – Mike Swading on Sputnik Radio

With May’s Brexit Deal accidentally being revived in the House of Commons. Mike Swadling of the Croydon Constitutionalists shared his thoughts on the ex PM’s withdrawal agreement.

Support our campaign for sensible Town Hall salaries – TPA in Selsdon

Croydon Council has been a calamity in recent years, but even more shocking we pay a king’s ransom for senior staff that often hinder rather than help the front line. In Selsdon we were asking people to sign an open letter to the leaders of all political parties in Croydon, asking them to agree in future that no newly appointed council employee will earn more than the Prime Minister.

Further details in our Press Release.

Read our letter at https://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/TPA_Letter2Parties_V2.pdf

Many have already signed, email us at [email protected] to add your name to our letter.

People who have already signed are: