Philip Sheppard writes about our neighbours in Sutton.
Sutton, a leafy borough in South-West London, overshadowed by its larger neighbour to the East, Croydon, and often forgotten about by most people who do not know our capital city well. Politically, this is probably London’s most interesting borough. It was one of the few boroughs to have voted to leave the European Union in 2016, but since 1986 has been run effectively as a one-party state by the most liberal enlightened party currently in British politics (not).
The “Liberal Democrats”, scarred from the 2015 defeat of their darling Paul Burstow in Sutton and Cheam, are covering up one of the biggest scandals in Sutton politics during their rule of over thirty years, namely the construction of a huge refuse incinerator by Viridor in the Beddington North ward, close to the border with Croydon. Despite huge local opposition (the Lib Dems lost three councillors in Beddington North in the 2018 Local Elections to anti-incinerator independents) and a cost of £205 million to the taxpayers of four South London boroughs (including our native Croydon), the construction of the incinerator still went ahead in 2015.
Evidence had emerged of deals being done behind the scenes by a former Liberal Democrat councillor, who had a special relationship with the former Viridor CEO Colin Drummond, whose company landed the approximately £1 billion contract to build it. John Drage was a lifelong friend of Drummond’s and is also one of Carshalton and Wallington MP Tom Brake’s main sponsors, along with his wife, Elaine. Incredibly, in order to encourage local support for the incinerator, Viridor donated around £275,000 to the Holy Trinity Church in Wallington in 2015, representing the third highest donation for any religious building in the country at the time. This obviously failed to garner the support of any local people, including fellow Lib Dem councillors. The then-Beddington North Councillor, Nick Mattey said: “Residents in my ward have been questioning why Holy Trinity Church in the middle of Wallington should get more money than any project in Beddington.”
This
link, combined with Brake’s previous opposition to incinerators and the fact
that the Sutton-based environmental charity Ecolocal remained strangely silent
about the incinerator and its potential impact meant that the incinerator could
be constructed without much scrutiny (apart from at the local election in
2018).
All in all, this shows the rot that goes on in the Sutton administration, which should not be surprising given the sly nature of the Liberal Democrats nationally. The sooner we can kick these charlatans out, the better.
Michael Swadling of the Croydon Constitutionalists spoke again with Sputnik Radio on the 14th October 2019.
“we have a parliament that is not interested in the people, that’s afraid of putting itself up to the people and is ignoring the people’s biggest vote in British history. If anything; going forward, we need somebody that will hold the role of the people against the executive, and possibly, the Queen needs to be more active”
on the role of the Monarchy
“it would be liberating for our economy. It would be a great opportunity for us to take flight in the world market fully, and the government is ready; they’ve done the preparations, the deals and the subcontracts that need to be in place”
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.
Libertarian Party USA
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.
Libertarian Party UK
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.
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.
