The TaxPayers’ Alliance, was launched in 2004 to speak for ordinary taxpayers fed up with government waste, increasing taxation, and a lack of transparency in all levels of government.
Following years of waste at Croydon Council and the de facto bankrupting of the borough, they are coming to Purley on the 30th July for the latest leg of the Town Hall Rich List Roadshow.
With assistance from the Croydon Constitutionalists, they will be asking local residents whether they thought Croydon’s former Chief Executive Jo Negrini was worth her £613,895, 2020-21 remuneration package.
Locals will have the opportunity to have their say, by using ping pong balls to cast their votes. Croydon Council has changed, but with many tough years ahead this is an opportunity for people to say if they want to retain the council’s remuneration habits of the past.
Come and join us, to help the people of Purley send a message to the council.
We hope to see you Saturday 30 July, 10:30 am – 1pm. In Purley, outside Andrews Estate Agents 909-911 Brighton Rd, Purley CR8 2BP.
Lorena Serantes is a political scientist from Spain, whose blog covers a range of interviews with people engaged in politics in the UK. She has interviewed Mike Swadling of this parish, and candidates for political parties across the spectrum of UK politics. We spoke with Lorena about what’s driven this project, what she’s discovered and her views on politics in the UK and Spain.
Lorena thanks for your time.
“I had low expectations because here in Spain politicians don’t respond emails, and I thought it would be the same for UK MPs. It turned out I sent like six emails in one week and I received five responses”
Can you firstly introduce yourself to our readers and ask what made you undertake interviewing pollical candidates from across the UK?
I am a young political scientist who was born in the wrong place. I grew up with the wish of becoming a lawyer or a judge, but two years before starting my degree studies I decided Law was not for me. My second option was to study something that had to do with politics because I got involved in a local electoral campaign. A political party reached out to me in order to ask me if I would like to be part of the candidacy list locally and I agreed. I was 18 years old and was learning about the Spanish political system and how parties worked, so it was exciting for me to take part in that campaign as my ideological background was beginning to “flourish”. That party has changed a lot, I think even more than myself, but I have to admit if they were to call me now I wouldn’t say yes. During my university years we had many subjects where they made us read American and British politics’ related papers, I knew more about the USA, however, reading about the UK became far more interesting as the years passed. When I had to write my final dissertation it was clear to me that I needed to analyse something that had to do with the UK and the party system. Parties and political theory are my favourite areas of study within the main Political Science discipline. Therefore, I analysed the UKIP’s political discourse and the theoretical debates around considering it a far right party or not, using the software MAXQDA, which I had never used before.
The idea of interviewing UK politicians didn’t come from my own will at first, it was an idea my Master’s final project tutor came up with when I was finishing the writing part. He told me: “Why don’t you try to talk with an MP from the SNP?” (I was analysing Scottish nationalism after Brexit) and my answer was: “I’m gonna try”. I had low expectations because here in Spain politicians don’t respond emails, and I thought it would be the same for UK MPs. It turned out I sent like six emails in one week and I received five responses. It was exciting because I spoke with Alyn Smith, the MP for Stirling, and then with a few more MPs from the Conservatives, Labour, the SNP and Sinn Féin. I received many replies from MPs who were very busy and politely told me they couldn’t participate but the experience was fantastic. You don’t get that from Spanish politicians, I know it first hand. After that, British politics has been my main interest and I try to follow everything that happens there: I followed the Tiverton & Honiton and Wakefield by-elections, partygate and beergate, the factionalism within the Conservatives and Labour, etc. I have my opinions, my views like everyone else but when it comes to analysing the political events that happen in your country I keep those thoughts away. I have interviewed communist candidates and very right-wing politicians, conservatives, liberals, socialists, nationalists… I like to get myself into those ideals and think like a conservative or a socialist, or whatever, depending on the people I’m talking with, because something that I always keep in mind is respect. I’m not a Brexiteer but if I’m interviewing someone who is and whose main campaign is to break all ties with the EU, then I respect that and ask him as if I were a Brexit supporter. That’s the job of political scientists. I’m not a journalist so I’m not trying to get people angry. If I could help with a campaign I would do it regardless of the party.
I keep on dreaming about moving to the UK at some point, because that’s what I want to do in the future if I can afford it, but I was brought up in a working class family and I’m disabled, so we struggle to get by. I think better times will come. I hope your country is waiting for me because I’ll go there as soon as I can. While I’m still here I’ll be supporting Wales, Scotland and England in the World Cup 😉
“it’s hard to listen to the whole “song” again and again, but candidates who have a vision of their own and talk about local issues or policies they would support in their area, those are the ones I enjoy listening to”
What’s been the hardest part of interviewing candidates and what’s surprised you about the process?
There are candidates who like to speak about their campaigns and what they want to do, those are the local champions who get into politics with excitement and you can tell that by simply looking at them while they’re telling you this or that, and then you find people who don’t have a political program, they are just there to repeat what the leader of their party says. I already know what Starmer is saying, I don’t need a local candidate reading me the UK-wide Labour Party manifesto. This is just an example, you find that in Labour, the Conservatives, the Greens… Those interviews are boring and it’s hard to listen to the whole “song” again and again, but candidates who have a vision of their own and talk about local issues or policies they would support in their area, those are the ones I enjoy listening to. If I don’t know a place they’re talking about I search it, that way I end up learning more about the geography of the UK. I know where most of the counties are situated, but I’m a mess with cities’ locations.
What interviews have you enjoyed the most and what interview stands out the most?
I enjoyed them all, don’t think I can choose because they’re all special, I guess my favourite interviews are the ones with candidates that got elected. I know this will sound ridiculous but when the results were being declared and names of people I had talked to were coming out as “ELECTED” I felt a bit proud, like I had been part of the campaign. I celebrated some of the results and congratulated many of the candidates. Local politics in Spain is something very boring, you don’t even know who’s running in your municipality and the campaigns are horrible. The candidates almost always call the national party leaders to visit their area, but nothing else happens. I have lost all interest in Spanish politics, but the UK is a bit different, at least it still has some emotion and the feeling I got during the interviews was that local communities are really important for the British people. I loved the campaign and I’m sure I would have done many more interviews if I had been there.
“I met a few Corbynite candidates and others who were more centrist but didn’t like Starmer. His weakness is his own party, he doesn’t have the support of many local branches across Britain. The Conservatives are more intelligent and successful at hiding their internal disagreements”
What party’s or parts of UK politics have you found most interesting or surprising?
The Conservatives are an interesting party, they have liberal-conservatives, social-conservatives, nationalists, remainers, brexiteers… It’s a party that knows how to deliver good messages, and I think it has great politicians who are a bit overshadowed by Boris Johnson and his doings. I like Theresa May, Tobias Ellwood, Sir Ken Clarke was also a good one, and from the young ones I would say Kemi Badenoch is also really good. Dominic Raab is my favourite Conservative politician, and I know by saying this I put myself at risk of being laughed at. His discourse is not always the best but he speaks clearly and his calm voice gives me a sense of seriousness that I can’t find in other ministers like Gove or Rees-Mogg. The local Conservative candidates tried to go absolutely local in this campaign, and it was a very good move as partygate and the pre-rebellion situation in the party weren’t helping. They knew it was going to be a hard night for them in many places, but Labour’s strategy to “send a message to Boris” didn’t work quite well. Labour was an interesting party before Starmer, and no one within the party can stand him: some say he’s too stiff, some want the party to move to the left (as it should be)… They are in a complicated moment, because they know the Tories are doing very bad but instead of people shifting from blue to red, it’s Conservative voters who are not showing up to vote. Wakefield has shown us that Labour is winning thanks to abstention, is that enough to secure a government in the next general election? That’s the question.
I also loved how the LibDems and the Greens grew in Scotland, which is a different scenario because of the Yes-No dynamic within parties. I remember one candidate I talked to who was running for a pro-independence party while saying further steps into devolution would suit Scotland better than independence. The Scottish Greens are becoming the alternative to the SNP and step by step they will need to clarify whether they want to stay in a comfortable position going hand in hand with the nationalists or begin to draw their own path. I like their local candidates, they’re close to the people and green policies are going to be the future. I don’t like the social liberal current the Greens have in England and Wales, we’ll see how they handle it.
I was surprised to see true socialist candidates within Labour, I think it is no longer the party of the working class and that puts these people between a rock and a hard place, you know, they have to ask voters to elect a Labour councillor and at the same time they need to promise things that go against their leadership’s desires. I met a few Corbynite candidates and others who were more centrist but didn’t like Starmer. His weakness is his own party, he doesn’t have the support of many local branches across Britain. The Conservatives are more intelligent and successful at hiding their internal disagreements.
“we are not patriotic because being so means complying with a Post-Francoist idea of Spain that only benefits the same families”
How do UK and Spanish politics compare, what are the big differences you see?
Everything is different. You have the FPTP system (the STV in Scotland), we have the D’Hondt system. You have single candidates for a ward, we have lists. You can run as an independent, we can’t. Parties in Spain, be it from the right or the left, are still contaminated by some elements from Franco’s dictatorship doctrines. He created this concept of National-Catholicism which was a mixture between ultranationalism and Christian fundamentalism, and you can see that within the main parties. To give you an example, when a regionalist or minor party wants to pass a bill to condemn Francoism and recognise its victims’ right to truth and justice, the two major parties vote against it. During 2014-2016 Spain went through a fragmentation of the political spectrum, which isn’t likely to happen in the UK. Right-wing and left-wing parties were founded, as alternatives to the two-party system. It turns out, Podemos and VOX are the same. VOX is openly Francoist, Podemos is no longer a “revolutionary” party, but a platform for new social democratic elites to jump on board. The debates have lost its sense after the Catalan nationalist parties have shut up to let the Spanish government carry on as if nothing had happened. No one is talking about Catalonia anymore. What I like about British politics is that parties are not cults where you have to agree with the leadership, or you get expelled. That happens here. The first time I watched a parliamentary session it was very weird to look at Conservative MPs yelling at other Conservative MPs. It surprised me to see members of the cabinet apologising for doing something wrong. Even if it’s just a way to pretend they care, I’ve never seen that happening here. The thing that annoys me the most about Spanish politics is the fact you must belong to a political party to stand for election, even in your municipality! Independent politicians don’t have a say.
Spain is a centralised country. The system of Autonomies is a mess, it was done to prevent the Basques and Catalans from seeking independence and to create that image of a united Spain, which doesn’t exist. Galician people have to comply with the wishes of second-homes’ owners from Madrid, an elite that comes here to spend holidays and that still think they can do whatever they want. It happens in Wales and Cornwall, so that’s a thing we share. England has their own national team. Wales has another one and so on. Spain silences every part of the country that doesn’t want centralisation. If you ask for a little bit of autonomy, you’re a radical far left terrorist. Conservative MPs would be called that in Spain by some parties, others would call them fascists. I often say devolution works better despite having less powers transferred that those of the Autonomies in Spain: you are happy being British and even Scottish and Welsh nationalists don’t want to leave the Union because of identitarianism, but because of a different conception of democracy; we are not patriotic because being so means complying with a Post-Francoist idea of Spain that only benefits the same families. Spain lives in the past, and I’m not talking about conservatism. Politics in the UK also has many issues that constantly change from time to time. Brexit wasn’t even a word in the 1990s, Scottish nationalism is quite young, things change. The reason I’m tired of Spanish politics is because there’s no debate anymore. Some years ago there was a parliamentary discussion about how an MP had called another one a “terrorist”, the level has come to those types of debates. The left-wing in Spain is useless, in fact my theory is that it doesn’t exist a single left-wing party. There are really good individuals within the main parties, like Margallo (PP) or Pérez Tapias (PSOE) but they stay in the background. There are a few parties that deserve international attention: like Canarian Coalition, the CUP or the coalition between the PP and the Navarrese People’s Union, which is called Navarra Suma.
You don’t have those in the UK. As for types of parties we’ve never seen here, I would say something like the English Democrats, the Scottish Greens or the exctinct Independent Labour Party. Those are “national phenomenons”.
Do you have any predictions for the next few years in UK politics?
Well, I’m not an expert but I think really interesting events are coming: a general election in which many MPs will lose their seats, a Scottish independence referendum in 2023 (at least that’s Sturgeon’s plan), and the fights within the main parties. Johnson is completely lost, he should resign if he wants his party not to suffer a “bloodiness” of Tory seats. This is not an opinion, it’s a fact. Starmer will face many problems due to what I said before, locally he doesn’t have a strong support. He’s the worst Labour politician I’ve seen. We’ll see what happens.
What’s next for your interviews and blog?
I’ll probably wait until the general election to publish more interviews. My intention is to do the same I did during the local election campaign. I’ll try to get as many as I can. Labour will be able to gain many seats they lost in 2019, so I’m going to try to concentrate my interviews in the two major parties. I would like to be a moderator in an online hustings, that way I could compare all the perspectives. That would be nice, but if it can’t be done, I’ll keep on publishing interviews the same way.
My tuppenceworth is back, on Tuesday 2nd August 2022 at the South Croydon Conservative Club.
You are the star!
This is your opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you and give your tuppenceworth. Each speaker will have up to 3 minutes to speak about an issue dear to their heart, followed by a short Q&A.
The first half of the evening we invite speakers to speak on the topic: “How do we ensure there is never another lockdown?” In the second half we are open to any topic, but we do ask all speeches are non-partisan and remind you the laws of slander still apply!
Come prepared or do off the cuff, this is your opportunity to exercise some free speech.
If you do have notes, we can publish to increase the reach of your ideas as we have done previously.
If you would like to speak, please register by emailing [email protected]. 7pm for drinks and sharp 7:30pm start, Tuesday 2nd August 2022.
Image U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Wikimedia.
By: Mike Swadling
“The World Population Review list the Best Countries To Live in 2022 as Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Hong Kong, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, and Denmark. 5 of them are like the United Kingdom, parliamentary constitutional monarchies”
The Jubilee proved a great opportunity for local neighbourhoods to come together in street parties, for local communities to decorate town centres and hold festivals, and for the nation to celebrate as a whole. This was an almost unique opportunity for a nation like the United Kingdom, that doesn’t otherwise have a national day of celebration, and being formed by 4 component nations, doesn’t have many natural ways to bring our United Kingdom together except in honour of our Monarch.
The World Population Review list the Best Countries To Live in 2022 as Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Hong Kong, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, and Denmark. 5 of them are like the United Kingdom, parliamentary constitutional monarchies. The 20 Happiest Countries In The World In 2022 according to Forbes includes 10 parliamentary constitutional monarchies. Looking at regions, Japan (monarchy) is arguably the best country to live in its region, Malaysia and Thailand (monarchies) are probably preferable to Myanmar, Vietnam, or Indonesia. The Bahamas (monarchy) is perhaps the best of the Caribbean islands states to live in, and Belize (monarchy) the best country on the mainland of Central America. Are you starting to see a pattern forming? There are 208 countries in the world, just 13% (27) are parliamentary constitutional monarchies, yet they are overrepresented on every list of countries where you would want to live.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. No matter how illogical monarchies, are they clearly work. The parliamentary Brexit wars of 2016-2019, confirmed to me the hereditary House of Lords and Judicial functions of the House of Lords worked better than what we have today. For all its faults and failings the undemocratic house, full of hereditary peers, frankly worked quite well. Under it we extended the franchise for men and gave women the vote. Passed multiple Factory Acts improving working conditions, pursued laissez-faire economic policies whilst legalising trade unions, had agricultural and industrial revolutions, and built and started giving up, an empire. We won two world wars against Germany, and arguably two more against France. It wasn’t democratic but it was a system that, albeit sometimes rather slowly, worked.
“Yes, in a democracy we the people are the politicians’ real boss, but they only get feedback at election time. Needing to explain themselves to the Queen once a week is a good opportunity to experience some humility”
The best argument for a monarchy is often said to be President Thatcher and President Blair, one or both of these options will appal most people. Despite both winning multiple elections, neither can be argued to be unifying figures. But more than a rebuff to an unpopular president, the monarchy provides several practical benefits.
They ensure even the most powerful politician has a boss. Yes, in a democracy we the people are the politicians’ real boss, but they only get feedback at election time. Needing to explain themselves to the Queen once a week is a good opportunity to experience some humility.
They are the embodiment of the nation as a person. The nation is a fairly amorphous concept, but one that can come together and be represented under one figure.
Being apolitical, and it is critical they remain apolitical, they become a blank canvas for us to all paint our own ideas and views on. We can all be satisfied we are fairly represented in our establishment by a royal family who’s views we can believe are as similar or not as we like to our own.
For a democracy to work we need opposing views, for a nation to work, we need some unity. Most of the content on Netflix and Disney wants to impose some political views on me, woke corporations abound, and sports are full of political gesturing. The more places in life we can find without a political slogan the better, royalty gives us that.
But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the 54 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, countries that choose to belong to a body headed by the constitutional monarch of the United Kingdom. The soft power the monarchy provides is a huge boost to British interests, economic, cultural, and political. Is the system perfect? No. Is it democratic? No. Is it even logical? Not at all. Does it work? A resounding Yes!
Image Agitated workers face the factory owner in The Strike, painted by Robert Koehler in 1886. Source:Deutsches Historisches Museum: infopic
By Mike Swadling
“after two years of having our freedoms suspended not least our right to assemble, and with further threats to our rights to free speech coming along, it’s more important than ever to support the rights of those striking”
Over the past few weeks, we have seen industrial action or strikes hit the news again for the first time in a few years. The RMT has been holding a series of strikes on the railways, Arriva and Stagecoach workers have strike action planned. Despite Mayor Khan’s pledge to end London Underground strikes they are going ahead, and now teaching unions are threatening to ballot.
Strikes are never popular, but it does seem these are even less popular than most. Perhaps this is hardly surprising as we look forward to our first free summer for a couple of years, and with people worried about rising costs, these strikes could hardly come at a worse time. The government has come out strongly against them, as have many commentators, and it’s fair to say the zeitgeist generally has been against the strikes.
However, after two years of having our freedoms suspended not least our right to assemble, and with further threats to our rights to free speech coming along, it’s more important than ever to support the rights of those striking, even if you don’t support the reasons for the strikes and find some of the union barons unpleasant.
The craftsmen of the ancient Greeks formed loose associations. In the Roman Empire Collegia Opificum (unions of workers) included guilds of weavers, doctors, teachers, and painters. Guilds survived in the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire and then flourished across Europe in the later Middle Ages. The history of guilds working in the interest of their members and to maintain standards for goods is a long one.
As a result of the industrial revolution growing numbers of workers joined unions, fears of the French Revolution spreading to these shores, led to Combination Acts in 1799 and 1800, which outlawed “combining” or organising to gain better working conditions. In 1824 these were repealed, and Trade Unions became legal, but a new Combinations Act severely restricted their activities in 1825.
A century and a half of Parliament overreach in restricting the rights of workers to act collectively saw the formation of the Labour Party, the General Strike, and on the other side, years of union overreach with restrictive practice, closed shops, wildcat and nakedly political strikes. The 1980s saw an end to mass private sector union membership, and whilst the public sector has maintained large unionisation, as the chart below shows industrial disputes are at their lowest numbers in decades.
“As someone who campaigned for Brexit in part to allow us to reverse the 20 years of stagnant working-class wages, I don’t want to complain when workers collectively bargain to get a pay increase”
As someone who campaigned for Brexit in part to allow us to reverse the 20 years of stagnant working-class wages, I don’t want to complain when workers collectively bargain to get a pay increase. We all know inflation is a massive issue right now, and public sector workers getting bumper pay increases will make that situation worse not better, however that doesn’t negate the right of unions to strike for better pay.
Mis and contradictory information abounds on the train strike, with train drivers paid an average of £59,000 but the strikers average being reportedly a more modest £33,000. The strike is also about redundancies. It seems to me reasonable that with passenger numbers not recovering from lockdown, staff numbers are reduced, but it’s also reasonable for unions to fight for their members.
“2 years of intermittent lockdown and school closures, often egged on by teaching unions, may find the public unsympathetic to demands for pay rises many if not most in the private sector are not getting themselves”
Teachers and health care workers are now threatening strike ballots over pay. These strikes could possibly illicit even less public sympathy than those on the railway. As many who have tried to book appointments with their GP will know, we now have an NHS that seems reluctant to actually see patients. 2 years of intermittent lockdown and school closures, often egged on by teaching unions, may find the public unsympathetic to demands for pay rises many if not most in the private sector are not getting themselves. As is often the case, in the long term these strikes may hurt rather than help members.
Strikes provide one other important balance, with low unemployment and high worker mobility, strikes provide a release mechanism. They point to a failure in relations and allow people to act without leaving their role or industry.
Libertarianism.org describes libertarian views on Labor Unions (in the US context) as “The libertarian principle on which the legitimacy of labor unions depends is freedom of association”. It goes on to say due to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “forbids workers individually to choose whether a union represents them in bargaining with employers about terms and conditions of employment. Instead, a union is granted monopoly bargaining privileges”, as such it considers much union activity in the US largely illegitimate.
Closed shops are illegal in the UK, although arguably de facto closed shops (97% of teachers, and 96% of train drivers are in a union) do exist. People do have a choice, it is much more common for people to change careers, and many sectors have large casual or agency working which often pays a premium in exchange for reduced benefits and security.
After a few years of repressed democracy and freedom, as someone who believes in an individual’s liberty, I can’t think of a more important time to stand up for the rights of people, who I disagree with, who’s politics I may dislike, to combine and peacefully associate, as they see fit.
The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda. The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
We asked your views on: How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?
“Whether it’s a refugee’s welcome group, Justin Welby or the Prince of Wales, that ‘someone’ in ‘someone should do something’ is you. If you really cared, you would offer of yourself”
The intervention of the ECHR was based on previous Rwandan breaches of human rights. The government needs to improve the process so ‘refugees to Rwanda’ detainees are protected. Subsequently, this criticism should no longer be an obstacle to the scheme.
The UK government should take a steer from all stakeholders, especially the British people.
None of the critics of this scheme have offered suggestions for improvements or an alternative. It begs the question, how serious are they on brokering a solution to make refugee asylum applications fair for all?
I understand the principal behind ‘refugees to Rwanda’ is to put their asylum applications on an equal footing with other refugees who are applying from overseas, and even France. But the government should also be elevating the chances of overseas applicants to those of UK applicants.
I can see the current poor application process incentivises dissent with people who are already over here, having an appeal advantage which encourages people-trafficking. The fact that the lawyers grounding the flight were representing refugees already here, is a case in point.
Other nuances to the ‘refugees to Rwanda’ debate are as follows:
In my opinion, it’s good that the discussion centres around allocation of resources and logistics rather than whether or not we should offer sanctuary.
The people of the UK are in support of offering asylum to refugees.
The debate is over the process not the principal. This is because of our Judeo-Christian legacy.
The Good Samaritan put his hands into his pocket and rescued a victim of crime who was facing death. The victim happened to be a stranger from a hostile people group.
He paid for him to be looked after till he was back on his own two feet. So far as we read in the story, it is implied that the victim of crime accepted the help he was offered and was grateful that he was safe and healthy.
There’s an element of personal responsibility implied for both the Good Samaritan and the victim of crime.
In the Bible parable the initiative to help comes from the heart of the good Samaritan.
While I think it’s appropriate and right that the British people allocate resources from taxes to help refugees coming to Britain, I also think people should be left with capacity to lavish their financial resources (money or time) on the worthy causes God has put on their own hearts. Do the critics want us to pay more taxes so more money can be spent on supporting one state sanctioned worthy cause?
Whether it’s a refugee’s welcome group, Justin Welby or the Prince of Wales, that ‘someone’ in ‘someone should do something’ is you. If you really cared, you would offer of yourself. Go live in a shack and turn your capital into sponsorship, medical and legal aid to help failed asylum seekers. Don’t be like a whitewashed tomb. Practice what you preach.
In the past, my family made a personal sacrifice by offering accommodation to a refugee from Syria (via Lebanon). This dear person was not given appropriate help upon arrival to combat alcoholism (which no one appeared aware of) and sadly without this help upon arrival, their chances of successful integration in Britain were slim despite huge financial investment.
There’s so much more can be done to get the system working fairly and squarely.
“I’d much rather allow for more free movement hand-in-hand with eliminating expectations of being subsidised by the state – or should I say, by the taxpayer”
From my perspective as an independent libertarian the matter of refugees and migrants is something that I’m often at odds with the mainstream about. In principle I am an advocate for free movement. I’d like the freedom and opportunity to relocate to anywhere in the world should I so wish. In principle I can hardly deny the same to others.
I’d much rather allow for more free movement hand-in-hand with eliminating expectations of being subsidised by the state – or should I say, by the taxpayer. There are many industrious and entrepreneurial migrants who would bring cultural richness and prosperity to the UK and it’s a pity if that should be curtailed by welfare state resources and other similar concerns. I’d like to see that migrants therefore have adequate medical insurance for their own needs. I’d like to see migrant sponsorship take a front seat through which those seeking residency here may be sponsored by someone who will take responsibility for their health and welfare and other needs rather than the taxpayer. Migration in this sense is a freedom of association issue more than a legal one, and in that sense ought to be none of the government’s business. The challenge comes with the practicalities, and the practicalities are made a mess of by too much state intervention and control in everyone’s lives.
Here in the UK the state insists on doing so much for us and to us. The welfare state with its benefits, state school, state housing and NHS can create just such a problem area. Where movement ought to be free, these finite services which we’re all coerced into paying for through taxation cannot be subject to infinite demand. Were NI payments actually ringfenced and treated as insurance for health treatments it would be a simpler thing to explain, but the hash various governments have made of that just adds to the mess. Migration becomes controlled to protect other things the state insists on controlling, however badly in either case.
Outlawing free movement, as with outlawing many things, simply creates a black market for less reputable people to make money from those desperate enough to attempt life threatening means to travel. It all adds up to a prime example of how so much government meddling requires even more government meddling to deal with its own consequences. Flights to Rwanda are just yet another example of the state trying to fix its own mess, making things messier by upping the stakes in a game of brinkmanship between government, black marketeers and desperate people. I think flying people to Rwanda is a terrible policy, there are better ways to deal with it, I’d rather hold people airside here, decide and then act. But I don’t think the UK is likely to improve its other policies any time soon, to mitigate the migrant effect or meddle less in our lives.
In all this I do believe each nation has the right and obligation to make its own laws regarding the entry of individuals within its borders. I’d like them to be freer as I have explained, but they are properly in the competence of each nation to decide. So, even though I think Priti Patel is an authoritarian with little regard for liberty and the correct role of government, as things stand I tend to reject the notion that the ECHR has anything to say on this.
There is a popular myth that the 2008 financial crisis was caused by deregulation and greed on Wall Street with the government stepping in to save the day. In this clip from Corporate Welfare: Where’s the Outrage, Johan Norberg interviews retired BB&T CEO John Allison on the true causes of the crisis. Allison explains how the distorting and chaotic behaviors of the federal government set the stage for a housing market crash and then propelled it into a full-blown banking crisis. Learn the little-known history of federal housing policies that aspired to help the poor and instead bankrupted a nation. See how amidst the crash, the regulators reneged on legal contracts and forced 700 billion in taxpayer revenue on good banks that didn’t need it.
Corporate Welfare: Where’s the Outrage? – A Personal Exploration by Johan Norberg explores what happens when government policies support big business interests at the expense of small businesses, individuals, and local communities.
The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda. The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
We asked your views on: How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?
“The desire for a better life is not a valid reason to illegally enter a nation and expect to be welcomed with open arms. They must go through the process legally”
This is the now very familiar battle between the rule of law and woke social justice or asylum seekers versus economic migrants. Nations without controlled, patrolled and hard boarders are not sovereign nations at all but merely what the USA calls sanctuaries for whosoever. The UK government has a responsibility to its legal citizens to ensure they carefully vet whom we allow into this country, this process must be governed by the rule of law and not fuzzy feelings of social justice policies, otherwise known as the European Court of Human Rights.
The ECHR is making rulings based upon individual appeals and of course as they are all in basically the same predicament the court has ruled similarly in each case. For one of these individuals the argument is being made that he was seeking a better life in the UK and would still be vulnerable in Rwanda. If the vulnerability of the individual is the issue, would he be vulnerable wherever he settled? What makes Rwanda a dangerous place for him? This is not clear. In addition to which seeking a better life makes him an economic migrant and not eligible for asylum seeker status. This must be addressed as the cry of human rights activists seems to focus on this point; it is not humane to deny someone the chance of a better life. The answer to that is if a better life is the goal, then the rule of law must be adhered to. The desire for a better life is not a valid reason to illegally enter a nation and expect to be welcomed with open arms. They must go through the process legally.
The UK government should pursue its mandate to protect our boarders and enforce its immigration laws and policies. The message must be sent to other nations, human traffickers, and drug smugglers that the UK is not open for illegal immigration business. If they know that asylum seekers will be sent to another closer/bordering nation it will deter those considering making the trip across the Chanel risking their lives in the process.
We have to look no further than the USA to ascertain that such policies are extremely effective. During the Trump administration the Stay in Mexico Policy was instrumental in controlling the Southern border with amazing results. The current administration has rolled out the welcome mat for whosoever resulting in record illegal immigration numbers, the highest in 97 years. We do not want the same in the UK.
“it refuses to recognize the merit in deterring would-be asylum seekers from making the dangerous journeys across the English Channel”
The interference of the European Court of Human Rights in the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is disgraceful, but sadly predictable. I strongly doubt that any flights will ever go ahead, because the E.C.H.R. is unlikely to relent and I do not believe the Johnson administration really cares about cracking down on illegal immigration. Having mixed a preposterous cocktail of socialism, totalitarianism and spectacular economic cretinism during its first 2½ years, who can honestly expect the Johnson government to successfully implement a genuinely conservative policy?
Through its decision to suspend the flights, the E.C.H.R. has given up the pretence of existing to protect human rights and quite openly revealed its politicized agenda. The deportations do not contravene any part of the European Convention on Human Rights and yet the Court is happy to remain silent when serious contraventions do occur in Europe (the Convention is supposed to guarantee the right to personal liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of association, all of which are disregarded by so-called public health measures and the criminalization of ‘hate speech’). All migrants do, of course, have a right to live in Britain provided they follow the correct legal procedures and satisfy at least the same criteria as are required of all native-born British citizens.
The E.C.H.R. would appear to prefer the policy mooted in May of destroying a Yorkshire village by filling it with 1500 asylum seekers, at enormous cost to the British taxpayer. By the same margin, it refuses to recognize the merit in deterring would-be asylum seekers from making the dangerous journeys across the English Channel which have already resulted in dozens of them perishing. Perhaps the E.C.H.R. prefers them dead, or maybe it just thinks British resources should be stretched even further by having coastguards posted on 24-hour dinghy-watch.
An important distinction which must be made is that the right to life is the right not to be killed, not an entitlement to be spoon-fed by Nanny Taxpayer. If we presume that the E.C.H.R. would rather claim the latter (and we must presume much, for it is being so suspiciously cagey), we can be certain that it has abandoned any interest it may have had in protecting actual human rights in favour of trying to impose costly and community-destroying socialism on countries within its jurisdiction. To suggest that working taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet and young workers with no hope of ever buying a house should have money taken from them and given to people with no entitlement to British residence is much worse than crassly insulting.
As with the E.U., we again find ourselves being coerced into acting against our own interests by an unelected body. The best thing the government can possibly do is withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. As nice as it is to have such a convention, which looks on the surface to be so righteous and upstanding, its value is nil when existing clauses are ignored and non-existent ones are fabricated and used against us. Britain would be much better off with her own intelligently drafted human rights constitution.
“We campaigned and won the right to be a sovereign nation. We must leave the ECHR and bring in a UK owned ‘Bill of Rights’”
Decisions taken by a foreign body on UK & it’s citizens, must be stopped at all costs.
When the rights of foreigners come before the country’s own citizens it’s time to leave. This is something that should have been done at the same time as leaving the EU. We campaigned and won the right to be a sovereign nation. We must leave the ECHR and bring in a UK owned ‘Bill of Rights’. This must be agreed by the people of this country not Parliament.
If in many years to come this country can sustain taking in large numbers of economic migrants, then great. However, the infrastructure is not in place for its own people never mind those illegally entering the UK. The country also needs to reduce the amount of work visa being issued to many countries around the world. 1,000,000 foreign nationals came to the UK on work Visa’s last year during Covid 19.
I, as a local Councillor see local people having to go back home to parents with their families in overcrowded housing condition. Families being separated and moved to other parts of the country. If you have a partner and cannot prove how long you have lived together you cannot live with them if the Council is helping them out.
In my local town there are no private properties available to rent as London Boroughs send those on their waiting lists to us and other towns. London Borough’s pay large deposits to landlords and agents to guarantee those on their waiting lists above locals. No social housing is being built even though there is such a huge need.
We have insufficient medical services, too few GP’s, patients unable to see a GP, too few beds in ICU units, overcrowded A&E departments.
Schools are overcrowded and having to spend time teaching foreign children English. Children leaving primary and secondary school illiterate. Insufficient vocational education, too many children being pushed for academic education. Pushing vast numbers to university instead of training for future carpenters, electricians, bricklayers, engineers, or plumbers.
If the country continues the way it is going, we will end up with most of the country’s citizens getting poorer with no housing, no education, mental health continuing to rocket. People dying as they would be unable to get any medical care.
People calling for more migrants to come, pushing wages down while trying to fight for better wages and conditions for those already here, is perverse. Businesses looking for cheap labour and rubbing their hands together. Let’s look after our own first and when we have improved our infrastructure and helped all our own then by all means put infrastructure in place and bring in those in need at an agreed number.
This whole of Parliament has for the last 6 years been pitting people against each other on all these matters. We need to have a grown-up conversation about this country going forward but this useless Parliament are incapable of doing so.
The people are the masters not the servants – we are stronger together.
The European Court of Human Rights intervened to stop the deportation flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda. The UK is a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights.
We asked your views on: How should the government react to the ruling by the ECHR?
Freedom campaigner and former Brexit Party candidate Peter Sonnex.
“the ECtHR certainly had a role post WWII as human rights were consolidated and as nation states matured their domestic, accountable, justice systems. More recently, ECtHR judgements have been increasingly ignored, and therefore made irrelevant without enforcement”
I think we should leave the orbit of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the basis we have a mature domestic justice system (albeit compromised for now by the relatively recent Supreme Court construct which can be fixed…). However, leaving is not straight forward as the ECtHR is tied to our membership of the 47 nation Council of Europe (what’s that all about?), and remains a condition of the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.
I worked in Whitehall for 5 years servicing UK commitments to a number of international treaties and conventions. Some were bilateral, multilateral or bound to international and supranational organisations for their administration. Clear to me was that the UK participated in, and contributed financially, to pretty much the lot!
Other countries, perhaps more discerning in their national interests, attended fewer. Some smaller state delegations were funded by non-government organisations where a vote was effectively bought to promote a particular outcome…
Special international courts may have a place where, with the agreement of affected states, domestic competence and capacity does not exist – often post conflict. The court is convened and financed for as long as it is necessary. Recent examples are for Cambodia, Former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and the Rwanda Genocide.
The Council of Europe with the ECtHR certainly had a role post WWII as human rights were consolidated and as nation states matured their domestic, accountable, justice systems. More recently, ECtHR judgements have been increasingly ignored, and therefore made irrelevant without enforcement, by Russia and Ukraine (and Italy!?) in particular.
Russia has been suspended from the Council of Europe following its further interventions in Ukraine and, oddly, is therefore no longer even required to be bound. Any future special international tribunal for Ukraine could only be constituted with the agreement of Russia…
Bottom Line: the UK should leave the ECtHR on the basis it is expensive, not accountable, and is no longer relevant, credible or effective in the promotion and defence of human rights. As with many international and supranational organisations I saw in operation, they are toothless, self-licking lollipops…
“I believe to an almost religious extent in free-market economics, and accordingly, I am an enthusiast for mass economic migration…. But a government must be in control of its borders, or it is not a sovereign government”
Firstly, let’s bear in mind that the ECHR ruling was not that the deportations should be abandoned, which is beyond their legal competence (as well BTW their intellectual competence). The ECHR ruled that the deportations should not go ahead until all (British) legal avenues had been exhausted. That’s actually fair enough. It’s our own fault that we have an idiotic level of no-risk judicial oversight where activist lawyers operating pro-Bono or on left-wing crowdfunding can cause delays without risking the award of costs again them.
Short term the government should react by pressing ahead, legally, with this policy. Medium-term they should react by closing loopholes that permit this level of legal politically motivated time-wasting challenge. Long term, as with all international obligations, from the UN downwards, the UK government should consider whether or not it wishes to remove itself from them. It is a nuclear option that should not be taken lightly, but neither should it be regarded as beyond consideration.
I believe to an almost religious extent in free-market economics, and accordingly, I am an enthusiast for mass economic migration. I place no upper limit on how many migrants the UK should accept. I would be comfortable with a net positive of half a million per year if they were carefully vetted, and yes, I would joyously lock block the Green belt to enable it. But a government must be in control of its borders, or it is not a sovereign government. I am content to see illegal immigrants deported with a life ban from entering the UK.
Opposition to illegal immigration does not require opposition to economic migrancy.
“The truth is, instead of helping poorer countries with aid and investment the EU decided to exploit it’s cheap youth and talent with an open door invitation”
The recent ruling from the European Court of Human Rights highlights some of many gargantuan evils which European Institutions, including the EU are continuing to rush headfirst to adopt.
The truth is, instead of helping poorer countries with aid and investment the EU decided to exploit it’s cheap youth and talent with an open door invitation. Mass immigration was the worst thing they could have done, just ask the EU’s abandoned, ageing rural populations and the bereaved families. Immigration was not the answer but it suited Merkel’s aspirations to import cheap labour at the cost of all Europeans to grow productivity.
Thousands drowned, countless girls raped and forced into the sex industry and thousands left to die in the Sahara dessert by crooked people traffickers. All this for immigrants who can afford people trafficker fees of £20,000, enough to build them a home in their own country.
This was sold as an humanitarian act but when did Angela Merkel ever care about all the Greek pensioners who had their pensions stripped and public servants who were thrown out of their jobs or the massive EU youth unemployment caused across Europe in the aftermath of the 2007 crisis? The EU protected the Euro by not allowing their member states to spend on job creation, simple. They certainly never cared for high wages for their own workers, so it opened the floodgates to mass immigration, not because Merkel’s a loving, caring, matriarch but with the sole intention to import cheap labour.
All this because of Centralised, Unaccountable Power. Nobody cares in distant, lavish offices for what happens to people in Watford or Kilmarnock! Decentralising power, taking influence and resolutions closer to the electorate has been the rallying cry across the whole of the UK for decades simply because the best people to identify and resolve issues are those closest to the issues.
Brexit was supposed to free us from EU perils, to return our supremacy of Laws and borders but Boris, being the consummate politician, tried to keep everyone happy by selling our Laws and borders out to the EU and splitting up the UK. Ultimately, we were all sold out.
So here we are, the EU caused this massive problem and as we no longer control our borders and laws, the EU is flexing it’s muscles to say they still rule us. Our only rational way forwards might include any or all of the following :-
Ditch the European Human Rights Act and replace it with our own Bill.
Ditch European Law supremacy
Ditch Boris
Invest in the UK in sectors such as manufacturing, technologies, infrastructure.
Defund any legal service which chooses to cynically exploit our legal funding system
Create our own basic constitution to protect us from abuse of power from our own politicians. We had no choice over lockdowns, no choice in handing over sovereignty to a foreign power, no protection over police investigating the public for the ‘wrong type of thinking’.
Make cancel culture a criminal act, we need our history, our comedians, our freedom of speech.
Make the BBC impartial or defund it.
It would also be really nice if the UK has an opposition party which is capable of challenging for power, a party which is practical, capable of independent, rational, coherent thinking to fill the vacuum which is sucking us into a void of mad shouty people intent on dominating debates.
The Loony left is not only back with a vengeance, it’s now mainstream.
