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:
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 4th 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
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 4th
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.
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 31st 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 31st 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
gameif 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.
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.
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.
Always keen to support people in Croydon prepared to stand up for Brexit. The Croydon Constitutionalists spoke to Alan Cook the Brexit Party PPC for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
Alan was originally standing in Croydon North. Mike Swadling of this parish stood against the current anti democracy MP Steve Reed OBE in the constituency which included part of the Crystal Palace triangle, Norbury, Thornton Heath, the transport hub of West Croydon and of course the home of football [Mike insert] Crystal Palace.
Old Bexley and Sidcup voted 62% Leave in the referendum and is currently represented by James Brokenshire MP.
Alan thanks for your time.
So tell us a bit about your background and how you found yourself being a Brexit Party Candidate?
My parents were in the services, my
father was in the Fleet Air Arm and my mother was in the Women’s Royal Naval
Service. I was born in an RAF base in Singapore. We returned with my
elder brother to England
when I was one year old and briefly lived with family in Thanet. I grew up and
was schooled in South East London, I now live in Westminster with my girlfriend and our two
daughters.
By twenty I had secured a position
in finance in London,
my first day was Black Monday! I discovered there was no prospect of
progression within that company due to not having a degree. I very quickly
changed industries to Information Technology and what followed was a dream of a
career in the City starting at the end of the Thatcher years.
For many years I have been a member of a
parliamentary think tank, amongst other things promoting and progressing
leaving the EU. I am a trustee of a local charity, and co-vice chairman of a
civic body looking after over 1400 residents and businesses, dealing with the
local council, The Met., TfL and the Grosvenor Estate.
I have realised over the last few years that
The House of Commons is in dire need of reform, it is lacking MP’s from a
normal background. I decided earlier this year to put myself forward as a
candidate for The Brexit Party, the only party currently offering political
reform. I also requested a South London Constituency, and here I am now.
“a feeling of betrayal over the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties and now I can add May’s new EU treaty to that as well. The voice of the electorate is very clearly being bypassed and ignored”
What first got you
involved in politics?
Frustration
in the knowledge that the previous leaders of both the main parties have not
put the needs of our country first. They have created division and caused lasting
damage to the long term prosperity and independence of the UK. Also a feeling of betrayal over
the Maastricht
and Lisbon Treaties and now I can add May’s new EU treaty to that as well. The voice
of the electorate is very clearly being bypassed and ignored. Of course I have an
overriding conviction that I can do so much better. Better for Croydon North
and better for the country as a whole.
Any stories from previous campaign
trails that have stuck in your memory?
I
spent a week in Wales
helping The Brexit Party before the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election. I took some
time off from the normal day to day canvassing and joined our candidate Des
Parkinson for a tour of the constituency on the Brexit Bus. Little did I know
how dangerous such a pursuit was going to be. There are a lot of trees in Wales, and some
very low tree canopies that span the whole road. If anyone on the bus shouted “tree”
you didn’t have time to look and would duck or throw yourself to the floor with
great speed. The only one who was truly safe on the top deck was the T-shirt
wearing Brexit Dog who just happened to be called Nigel. At one stage on our
journey the Brexit bus was being lead and flanked by two dozen escaped
bullocks, it was at that stage someone on the top deck shouted the very
memorable, “Bullocks for
Brexit“.
You were originally standing in Croydon North where you follow Winston McKenzie and our own Mike Swadling in standing as a Pro-Brexit candidate in Croydon North. What were you focusing on to make a breakthrough?
Thanks to the work of previous Pro-Brexit candidates in the Croydon area, I was not starting from the beginning but I have a foundation to build from. Brexit is now more in the public conscience than it has ever has been. I am not here alone, The Brexit Party has broken all political records with its rapidly growing supporter base. The battle isn’t just about leaving the expensive and corrupt EU institution it is about protecting our democracy and it’s about political reform. People are sick to the back teeth with the undemocratic MPs who currently sit in the House of Commons. They are clearly not following the wishes of and are not acting in the best interests of the electorate.
What are your thoughts on
Croydon Politics?
Croydon is in an envious and very unique position, it is an outer
London borough with easy, quick train access to central
London,16
minutes, but it is also very much a business hub of its own and indeed an
international business location. With easy and quick train access to both St. Pancras
International Station and Gatwick
Airport the future
potential of the tri-constituency area is huge. This unique situation needs to
be highlighted to and recognised by the government. My constituency, Croydon
North, deserves the highest calibre representation in the commons to reflect
this. This is why I am dedicating myself to becoming the MP for the area.
“I have found myself happily discussing politics in groups of people with different ideologies. As long as you are pro UK, pro Europe and you put the interests of our amazing country before that of the EU you have a home in The Brexit Party”
What surprised you most
about getting actively involved in politics?
That’s an easy question to answer, it is the people you meet,
the true diversity of those who have joined The Brexit Party is staggering. I
am not just referring to race and religion but everything – across the board,
from their locations, vocations and especially their political stance. It doesn’t
matter where you are on the political spectrum, be it central, right or left
wing, every day I have found myself happily discussing politics in groups of
people with different ideologies. As long as you are pro UK, pro Europe
and you put the interests of our amazing country before that of the EU you have
a home in The Brexit Party. People where travelling from the tip of Scotland
and from Continental Europe to volunteer and help The Brexit Party at both of
the recent by-elections.
If you introduce or repeal 3 laws (other
than for Brexit) what would they be?
I
am a huge fan of democracy so I wouldn’t wish to repeal any law that has been democratically
arrived at. I know you said other than Brexit, however, there are two things which
I have previously mentioned The Lisbon and Maastricht treaties. Now both of these should
have of gone to the electorate for a vote, but the polls at the time suggested neither
would of have a favourable result, so they were pushed through without public consultation.
Since then there has been the ‘in and out’ referendum which should, in practice,
remove these two undemocratically installed treaties from the UK
constitution.
Back
to non Brexit. I do love food, I should be a lot bigger than I am. I am
passionate about UK
produce and high welfare meat. I would definitely change UK labelling
laws to give the consumer all knowledge available and not just what the
industry wants us to see.
I
would also like to see a completely different model for prisons, with a far
greater emphasis on vocational education. On release everyone should be in a
better situation having hopefully learned a trade or gained further education,
ambition and hope for their future.
I
will add a fourth one to end with, I would like to make MPs more accountable to
their constituency voters. I am open to suggestions from voters for this one,
so please do email me with suggestions.
Any other thoughts you
want to leave us with?
Politics used to be discussed over a pint in pubs, but people no longer dare talk about politics in case others have opposing views. We need to get back to talking and debating. It is fine to have a different point of view, this is healthy and normal for society. There is no place for anger and aggression in politics it needs to be removed and replaced with discussion.
