Blog

The Central Bank & Fiat Money – The Root of Cronyism

Economic Piece by Josh L. Ascough

– This article is part of a larger collection of my work I hope to have available soon titled ‘The Social Science Of The Market’. – Josh L. Ascough

Many economagicians, central planners and establishment economists have an unnatural admiration for this leviathan juggernaut of pestilence; ignoring the fact that, many economic issues causing harm to individuals and societies are due to this abomination’s existence. The creation of this legally monopolistic, monolithic, malicious institution has been at the very heart of the decreasing value and standards of life.

In order to adequately talk about the central bank, we require delving into a few topics first, in order to fully understand the issue. These topics include:

  • Deflation
  • The Gold Standard
  • Sound Money to Fiat Money
  • Inflation
  • The Boom/Bust Cycle

We will begin the subject with The Gold Standard and the process of Sound Money to Fiat Money.

Let us first take a look at the spectrum of international monetary systems to gain a quick grasp of the subject.

The graph shown above displays a quick overview of The Gold Standards history, starting with its 100 percent Gold system, where there was no central bank or any format of paper money receipts.

“The Classical Gold Standard had the monetary unit set, to be legally defined as a weight of gold, and though it is a popular belief, the gold standard was not a creation of government, but a market supplied commodity with an intrinsic value predicated in use and exchangeability”

The Classical Gold Standard took place from 1821 to 1914. Under this system we had the creation of paper money receipts; these were not forms of money but were tickets or claims to the noted amount of weight in gold (a £20 note was not money, but a claim to 20 pounds of gold, which the bearer of the note could give to the bank to withdraw said amount of gold, or could use as a money substitute to purchase goods and services; the money substitute or ticket, could then be used by the new owner to claim 20 pounds of gold. The Classical Gold Standard had the monetary unit set, to be legally defined as a weight of gold, and though it is a popular belief, the gold standard was not a creation of government, but a market supplied commodity with an intrinsic value predicated in use and exchangeability, which developed over time as people found more reliability with the precious metal.

As a monetary unit, under the gold standard the currency name was not an indicator of national sovereignty, but was simply unit of gold measured in weight.

For example from 1834-1933, the US Dollar was legally defined as $1 = 1/20th of 1 oz of gold (23.22 grains), and the British Pound from 1821-1931 was defined as £1 = 1/4 of 1 oz of gold (113 grains).

With regards to the exchange rate of the gold standard, the gold standard was not a fixed exchange rate system, as all countries operated with the same form of currency; that being gold.

“the “exchange rate” of  Dollars to Pounds for 100 years was $4.86 ÷ £ = 113 grains of gold, as there was a smaller weight of gold in the Dollar coins as opposed to the weight of gold in Pound coins. The exchange rate of the gold standard was simply a law of arithmetic”

So the “exchange rate” of  Dollars to Pounds for 100 years was $4.86 ÷ £ = 113 grains of gold, as there was a smaller weight of gold in the Dollar coins as opposed to the weight of gold in Pound coins. The exchange rate of the gold standard was simply a law of arithmetic.

The operation of gold as the currency did not require or involve the fixing of the price. If an individual sought to redeem £4 for an ounce of gold, the bank or the government was not in fact selling gold to the bearer, but was simply fulfilling its contract to redeem the value of £4 to the title holder of the property. Another way of looking at this system and transaction, would be to think of placing a piece of property into a storage building and being given a receipt; the piece of paper is not the property object itself, but is a claim to the property and its rate of value is equal to the property.

Under the gold standard the MS (money supply) was strictly limited to the amount of gold in circulation and to that of gold mining; hence bank notes and deposits can only increase if and when new gold was to enter the banks. This is often referred to as “The Golden Handcuffs”, as the banks were restricted in how much money substitutes they could supply.

As a result of this, prices tended to fall over periods of time, as saving, investment and technological improvements increased the supply of goods and services available more rapidly than the increase of the money supply. Price deflations are natural outcomes of a gold standard. As an example in the US from the period of 1880-1896, price percentage decreased an equal amount of 30%, while GDP percentage saw an increase of 85%. A more broken down format would be a decrease of 1.7% per year, and an increase of 5% per year. This type of increase in production with a decrease in prices is what is known as “Growth Deflation”.

The destruction of the gold standard began during the period of WWI, when gold reserves in the US were centralised in to the Federal Reserve; prior to this, private banks held their own reserves of gold against the money receipts they issued. This was aided and achieved through the act of a heavy tax implemented on to all private issues of bank notes, alongside the exporting of gold being prohibited in 1917.

During the period of the 1920s, the private issuing of bank notes became outlawed. This was followed by the Federal Reserve cutting reserve requirements from 21.1% to 9.8%, which in turn caused the money supply to double from 1913 to 1919.

These first steps were achieved through mass propaganda by the government and the central bank, classifying the use of gold as “old fashioned”, in an attempt to have the dollar not associated with a weight in gold, but with a government owned paper money.

From 1922 to 1933, the Federal Reserve expanded bank reserves in an attempt to stabilise prices and assist Great Britain in returning to the gold standard, as a means of having foreign nations buy up the US gold supply.

In 1929 the Great Depression and the bank runs began, signalling the end of the classical gold standard, as Franklin D Roosevelt, on the 1st of May 1933 issued an Executive Order, prohibiting the ownership of gold by private citizens and businesses, with a criminal charge of $10,000 or 10 years in prison for non-compliance.

There was a temporary period where an apparent “gold standard” made a comeback, named the Bretton Woods System, from the period of 1946 to 1971.

However, the BW system was a faux gold system, and was an attempt to bring order to the chaos brought about by the newly adapted national fiat money systems, by covering it as a gold standard.

Under the Bretton Woods system, the US dollar was treated as the key currency; or the world reserve currency, and was made convertible into gold at a fixed rate of $35 per oz. This caused a devaluing of gold from the legitimate rate of $20 per oz.

All other forms of currency were convertible into dollars, but at fixed exchange rates, and currencies were only convertible into gold for central banks and governments; US citizens were not permitted to convert their dollars to gold or own gold, due to the FDR Executive Order of 1933.

The operations of the BW system were so that, currencies of foreign nations were expanded and placed into a pyramid on top of the US dollar, causing the Balance of Payments adjustment mechanism, which limited inflation under the gold standard to be null and void.

This lead to the Federal Reserve having the ability to create money, causing domestic inflation and BOP (Balance of Payment*) deficits without consequence, due to foreign governments and central banks buying up dollars with their own currencies instead of demanding gold.

Because of this, the Bretton Woods system caused a persistent BOP deficit due to a global surplus of the dollar. However, as long as foreign governments and central banks were willing to accept and hold excess dollars, the US did not require concern for the deficit; in essence, the US exported paper money and inflation to the world in exchange for economic goods.

On the 15th August 1971, President Nixon placed the final nail in the coffin of the gold standard, by renouncing the obligation of the US to convert dollars for gold, as decreed under the terms of the Bretton Woods system.

Under the current operation of fiat currency, gold would play no direct role under the fiat money system. The US dollar and other currencies continue as pure fiat money, which are unconvertable to gold. The monetary basis would be comprised of fiat paper money (government controlled central bank notes), which are held by the public and the banks within the vaults and cash machines. Thus, the central banks would continue to control the monetary system, by buying or selling bonds, and giving government’s political control over the supply and dealings of money.

*The Balance of Payments was an automatic mechanism, which would cease the increase in the money supply before it could cause too much damage to the economy. Under the BOP mechanism, if the domestic money supply increases, domestic prices would rise above world prices. This would lead to exports to the country in question decreasing and imports increasing; resulting in a balance of payments deficit. This mechanism maintained an equilibrium in BOP, and distributed gold throughout areas according to the demands for money (gold). In addition, the BOP operated inter-regionally, with the end result of a limited money supply increase and inflation by central banks. The mechanism operated as such: As the MS (money supply) increases, the domestic P (price) increases above world P. This causes exports to decrease and imports to increase, creating a BOP < 0. This leads to gold supply to decrease, creating a downturn in the MS, causing domestic P to drop below world P, and leading to exports to rise as imports drop, equaling a BOP > 0.

With the subject of the gold standard and the introduction of the fiat money system concluded, let us move on to the subject of Deflation.

Does the reader enjoy falling prices for consumers? Does the reader believe falling prices are good for the economy?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then there is not much purpose in continuing on with the subject of deflation; for the purposes of reaching the end result of the central bank subject however, I will continue.

Deflation is a natural occurrence of the market economy, and is generally subject to the same laws of supply and demand. Like any price for economic goods, the value of money is determined by the equilibrium level in relation to supply and demand.

An increase in the value of a money, or a reduction in prices is caused by a reduction of the money supply, or a rise in the demand for a money. We increase the demand for money when:

  • A) We produce and sell more goods.
  • B) When we aim to hold more of our money, leading to spending and investment to decrease.

It should be noted, that there are three kinds of deflation:

  1. Growth Deflation.
  2. Cash-Building Deflation.
  3. Confiscatory Deflation.

Growth Deflation is caused by the production and supply of economic goods seeing an increase; this is an economic growth.

A rapid increase in economic growth is caused by an increase in the investment of capital goods, which reduce the cost of production and increase profits. The newly increased supply of economic goods creates greater degrees of competition for money by sellers, and as a result increases the exchange value of money. If the money supply is allowed to increase very slowly alongside the fast increase in production, this will result in the value of money to increase, causing this to be reflected in falling prices.

Cash-Building Deflation is caused by economising individuals wishing to hold on to more of their incomes in relation to prices; prices can refer to consumer goods or rates for investment. The lack of spending causes the same result; demand for money to increase and prices to decrease.

Confiscatory Deflation is caused by the government confiscating money from individuals, demonetising notes or limiting the withdrawal amount of cash from banks. This form of deflation however is not a natural market occurrence, as it infringes on property rights and distorts the economy by sending false signals of economic activity.

“In 2001 Botox treatment was priced at $365; in 2013 the price was set between $99 -$149.

Liposuction in 1992 was at a cost of $1,600, and in 2013 the cost was roughly $999.”

Historical examples of Deflation can be examined with computers, HDTV’s, laser eye surgery and cosmetic surgery.

  • In the 1970s mainframe computers cost upwards of $4 million; today, thanks to growth deflation, home computers are 20x faster, and are able to hold more memory; selling for less than $500.
  • From 1980 to 1999, computer prices fell by 90% as the industry grew.
  • In 2004, roughly 32 million TVs sold in North America at an average cost of $400, sized at 27 inches.
  • In 2015, around 44 million TV’s sold in North America at a price of $460 sized at 38 inches.
  • This shows that price per inch fell to $12.10, from a rate of $14.81.
  • A broader breakdown of the overall price can be seen as such:
  • 1990 ~ $36,000.  2003 ~ $3,000 – $5,000. Today ~ <$500.
  • From the period of 1998, Lasik Eye Surgery was priced at roughly $4000 per eye. From 2013, the price was set around $300 per eye.
  • In 2001 Botox treatment was priced at $365; in 2013 the price was set between $99 -$149.
  • Liposuction in 1992 was at a cost of $1,600, and in 2013 the cost was roughly $999.

To add more detail to Cash-Building Deflation otherwise known as “Speculative Deflation”.

Cash-Building Deflation plays an important role, particularly during a recession, as businesses increase their cash holdings due to the production costs, such as wages and additional forms of input; capital, land, materials or machines, have seen a sharp increase during an inflationary period (or boom), which in turn have wiped out profit margins. This is a speculation of prices; the speculators have concluded that costs will fall and so seek to hold on to their resources until prices fall back to normal, or equilibrium levels.

This also accounts for entrepreneurs. The entrepreneur will hold on to his money supply and wait until wages and other input costs adjust to a reduced rate before they begin to proceed with investment.

Deflation plays a vital role in the speed of the readjustment period from a recession; we will go into the subject of recessions, booms and busts later in this section.

With all this said however; many commentators, financial writers and economists hold an irrational fear of deflation and the results of it, that being; falling prices. A handful of fear driven titles of blog posts and articles include:

  • “The Deflation Monster Still Lives”
  • “Why We Should Fear Deflation”
  • “Defeating Deflation”
  • “The Spector of Deflation”

In a congressional testimony, Alan Greenspan (2003) made the statement that a further drop in inflation would be “an unwelcome development.”

Further stating; “We see no credible possibility that we will at any point, run out of monetary ammunition to address problems of deflation.”

In 2002, Ben Bernanke gave a speech, in which he stated:

“The Chance of significant deflation in the US in the foreseeable future is extremely small. The Fed would take whatever means necessary to prevent significant deflation that might occur would be both mild and brief.”

This fearmongering should be seen for what it is; a desire to promote an irrational fear of deflation among the public, in order to justify further inflationary policies; the subject of inflation we will delve into in the following.

Inflation could be misleadingly seen as simply an increase in prices. This, however, is an errored concept. The price of an economic good can rise and fall for a variety of reasons: if the overall consumer demand for an economic good sees an increase, then the price mechanism will reflect the increase in value, or if the input materials or a particular economic good of higher order (capital) becomes more scarce, then the overall cost will be reflected in the equilibrium of value in relation to consumer demand and the supplies available to producers.

The monetary inflation occurs, when the central bank expands the rate of credit artificially through the expansion of the money supply, or beyond the money supply, causing interest rates to be set artificially low; this results in false signals being sent to investors, entrepreneurs and producers as to the degree of real, loanable funds available, and is the starting point of an economic “boom”; this could also be referred to as an “inhale” within the economy.

The economic boom or “inhale” cannot be maintained for long however, as the rates have been kept artificially low in relation to the expansion of credit and the money supply; this as stated, sends false signals to investors as to the funds available for production such as housing construction, the purchasing of capital such as labour, land, materials, machines etc. As those seeking further expansion continue to reach for resources, it is revealed that there are too few; leading to interest rates rising and the capital developed to become devalued; resulting in an economic bust, which can be referred to as an “exhale” in the economy.

The economic bust is a painful process, however it is highly necessary in order for rates of value to meet in a position of equilibrium, and stabilise the economy in relation to real loanable funds available reflected in the rates of interest, and allow the pricing mechanism to signal the actual value of economic goods in relation to consumer use value and producer exchange value.

We can think of the boom and bust cycle as breathing. We all breath (hopefully) inhaling and exhaling air, yet, if we were to take a deep breath in an attempt beyond what our lungs are capable of, and withhold from exhaling, we would slow the process of relief and do damage to our lungs. The boom and bust cycle can be seen in a similar way; the boom is the problem; the boom is an excessive intake of air, the bust is the readjustment back to a stable, natural rate. Yet many policy makers insist in bringing relief to the economy in the form of stimulus; this is folly, as the stimulus is just more of the same, perverse incentives and false signals, delaying the recovery period and prolonging the pain (this faulty activity in our breathing example can be seen as an attempt to hold the excessive air in the lungs, as a way of “strengthening” the lungs for a better recovery. There is only one method of recovery. Exhale!)

Inflation is not just a simple act of expanding the money supply however. A money, any money at the end of the day is an economic good, and is subject to the laws of supply and demand, as well as the first rule of economics: All goods are scarce.

What defines a good as an economic good, and to that extent, whether it holds any economic value at all, is whether it holds a demand which aims to satisfy a human need, want or desire, and whether or not the good in question is scarce. If the good in question falls into these two categories, then it is an economic good. What form of economic good it is and what its value is in relation to, is reflected in whether it serves a direct need (such as food), or an indirect (tools for cooking food); the good which serves direct consumption is an economic good of lower order, and the good which serves to better the ability to serve the need; tools for cooking, cars, materials and labour for making cutlery, are economic goods of higher order.

With Regards to a money, if it loses one or both of these characteristics, the money in question will cease to hold any value; if people no longer demand the commodity deemed as a money, its rate of value will decrees as people no longer hold it to a standard to which it serves a need, if the money ceases to be a scarce good, it will lose all economic value.

That which is stated above, is an extreme format known as hyperinflation. But, a monetary inflation of the magnitude we are used to in a fiat world is not therefore, less dangerous.

The process of inflation is not as simple as: more money is printed followed by lower value; there are many areas in between this process.

When government expands on the money supply, the new money is used to stimulate economic activity to which the economy cannot afford. The early receivers of the new money benefit from the influx, as they will be able to enact projects such as construction at unaltered prices. As the new (bad) money continues to pass through the economy, the prices of goods and services begin to reflect the decreased value of the money in question, causing the late receivers to be worse off, as their money has become less valuable with the artificial increase in supply.

This is why there is a tendency for prices to not increase straight away from inflation. However even the term “price increase from inflation” is a faulty one it must be admitted; the price of goods have not seen an increase, the money used for the means of exchange has seen an overall drop in its value, the prices have not increase but are merely reflecting a decrease in exchange value of the commodity used for trade.

One fallacy which I will briefly go over, is that wealth is simply a measure of the degree of money an individual holds possession over.

This however is completely false.

Wealth is not determined by the degree of money in a man’s pocket; nor is it necessarily a significant calculation of wealth. Wealth is based on the degree of economic goods; both of higher and lower order, to which an economizing individual holds command over.

It is the use value of the economic goods, their time frame, and their ability to serve a need to which the individual recognises, as a need he wishes to have satisfied.

If it were true, that wealth is simply determined and measured by the quantity of money in a man’s pocket, then we should be praising the outcomes of inflation, and ultimately striving for hyperinflation. Under this notion, Germany during its dark period of hyperinflation should have been considered the wealthiest nation of all time; everyone had barrels full of thousands of paper money notes.

Inflation is not just a monetary disaster; inflation is the theft of value.

It is the loss of opportunity for a higher standard of living for all economizing individuals. By increasing the money supply for the purposes of “short term gains”, the central bank and the government steals the possibilities of our means of exchange, by reducing the scarcity, and overall how valuable the good in question is in the long term. Central planners love the prospect of inflation because it provides them the ability to hold further control over the monetary system, and increase spending without increasing production and productivity.

Overall, with this fallacy at its end, I hope the reader will be left with the understanding that, with the creation of this monolithic institution known as the central bank, and the means of inflating the money supply; the creation of the fiat currency and its monopolistic hold, the central bank and the government have bestowed upon themselves control over the monetary system.

Whereas in the past money was a creation of the market, and as a market commodity for exchange aided in building upon the relationship between consumers and producers; now, under the fiat, government owned system, that relationship has shifted. With government solely in control of money, who may acquire it, how it may be used, who has theirs decreased or increased both in quantity and value, that relationship has turned to one between the establishment, and whoever it can gain the most from; whether that be consumers or producers and whichever is not chosen, is the one who suffers.

“the creation of the central bank and the enacting of the fiat currency, the power to print limitless quantities and act as a mafia towards the individual’s means and ability for exchange; forever weakening our lives and value”

The State has brought to itself the legal monopoly not just that of money production, but the power to define a money and through the elimination of the gold standard, the creation of the central bank and the enacting of the fiat currency, the power to print limitless quantities and act as a mafia towards the individual’s means and ability for exchange; forever weakening our lives and value.

If we truly want to end Cronyism and all it encapsulates; we need to restore the gold standard with a stable form of money substitute as a market commodity, not a symbol of “national sovereignty” to be centralised; we need to destroy the Central Bank.

Josh L. Ascough is on Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/j.l.ascough/

Image from https://pixabay.com/photos/london-bank-of-england-england-2427129/

Podcast Episode 30 – Alasdair Stewart: COVID & the Media, Croydon’s Finances & US Presidential News

We are joined by Alasdair Stewart, the former Chairman of the Croydon Conservative Federation, as we discuss the media’s reaction to the COVID crisis and in particular their recent treatment of Dominic Cummings.

We also consider the great news about the Nissan plant in Sunderland, Croydon Council’s dire financial position and some recent developments in the 2020 US Presidential campaign.

We then chat with Alasdair about his experiences in politics, his time as the Chairman of the Croydon Conservative Federation and his thoughts on politics in Croydon.

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio

Alasdair in the podcast:

“I’m sure many people in Croydon can remember, the 23% increase in council tax that Croydon Labour had to push through the last time the council’s finances got into this kind of terrible state”

“in Croydon, is that when Labour win control of the council everyone feels they only listen to their voters in the north, that delivered them their seats, and similar complaints are leveled against the Conservatives when they were running the council when they would only focus on the south of the borough. Anything that motives the Elected Mayor to think of the whole borough would be good for local democracy”

Alasdair Stewart Interview

and from his interview:

“I’d seen the damage they had done to Scotland, whether it be the Heath Service, with Education or even with the government’s finances and I was quite frankly terrified of the idea of the SNP propping up a Labour administration in Westminster.”

“How disappointing it is when you’re speaking to people and they say how unhappy they are about how the council might be doing things, but then also say they aren’t going to vote”

“local members were not just incredibly positive for Brexit and wanting to leave, but also a proper Brexit”

“One of Croydon’s problems is the fact it is effectively a two party competition.  It is incredibly partisan and entirely divided.  With the Conservatives in the south primarily, Labour in the north and everyone fights over the centre”

“When they were in power the Conservatives, the Conservative Croydon administration built more council houses than this administration under Labour”

“We need some more voices for the ordinary British person, we know from recent elections the climate change warriors, and the lefty socialists are not representative of the country as a whole…. I would encourage more normal rational people to get involved, have a voice and share their voice”

Taken for ‘grant-aid’

‘So we’ll have to stop running around spending money like drunken sailors,’ I said.

‘Well, drunk sailors tend to be spending their own money,’ Tony said. ‘By contemporary standards they’re quite prudent.’

*Quote of the day by John Lanchester, writing about the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the London Review of Books.

We have seen further coverage this week of the financial crisis in Croydon Council where:

“The council is facing a £62 million overspend and currently has £440 million worth of debt made up of short term loans.

Given its annual budget this year was £280 million, the overspend represents about one fifth of the council’s total annual spending power.”

As we have covered previously Croydon Council now has 23 staff who earned over £100,000.  16 more that Barnet council which is about the same size and 12 more than Sutton, 3 more than Bromley (which can afford this as it doesn’t have any debt).

But do we get value from these highly paid staff?  Do they provide a great service?

As part of the government’s response to the Covid-19 crisis, councils are tasked with paying out grants to local businesses under the ‘Small Business Grants Fund (SBGF) scheme’ and ‘Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Business Grants Fund (RHLGF)’.

We can now measure some of the success of Croydon Council’s high pay bill.  The government has published details of the amount of grants paid out against the initial funding, and expected number of payments.

Croydon Council has found itself in the bottom 10% of payments made by number and by amount.  Croydon having made only 77% of the payments identified and 71% by amount.  This compares to 84% and 80% on average by local authority, with 96 authorities having made over 90% of their identified payments.  Maybe they employ 24 people on over £100K?

Croydon ranks 290 out of 314 local authorities as below:

RankingLocal Authority Initial Allocationhereditaments that the local authority has identifiedgrant payments made  to hereditamentsValue of payments (£) % of value of payments% of number of payments
        
Top 3       
1City of London£14,740,000937937£15,310,000104%100%
2Westminster City Council£78,090,0004,8564,856£86,720,000111%100%
3London Borough of Ealing £68,212,0005,1105,088£69,945,000103%100%
        
290London Borough of Croydon £60,588,0004,1183,189£43,305,00071%77%
        
Bottom 3       
312Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council£73,036,0005,8873,741£42,495,00058%64%
313Corby Borough Council£11,516,0001,240773£9,215,00080%62%
314Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council£80,860,0008,5854,593£52,875,00065%54%
        
 Average80%84%

Croydon Council is again failing local taxpayers.  These provide much needed funding to keep local small businesses going and high streets running.  Local companies including Coughlans Bakery, All Bikes, and Old Whitgift Sports Club, have come forward with concerns.  In central Croydon this is all the more important at a time the council has failed to secure the regeneration of the town centre via the Westfield development.

You can pay for quality, but questions need to be answered as to how Croydon taxpayers are being forced to pay and are still receiving services in the bottom 10%.



*With links - QUOTE OF THE DAY BY JOHN LANCHESTER, WRITING ABOUT THE SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS IN THE LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS.

Locked Down and Locked out!

250

Opinion Piece by Maureen Martin of the Christian Parties Alliance.

Here we are week 10 of the UK Covid 19, lock-down!  We find ourselves as a nation being restructured even as I type.  Looking back we can see that social distancing was and is necessary to contain the spread of the virus.  It is also clear the Government was too slow in introducing the necessary measures.  We have had more deaths per million population than most other countries. Provided we’re sensible though we can now begin to get back to normal.  

“Singapore never had a lock down but did a drastic trace and test policy from the start isolating anyone with the virus and anyone they had contact with.  This definitely worked best for sustaining the economy and reducing cases and deaths and really also for maintaining civil liberties”

Looking around us:-

Sweden instituted a more blended strategy: instead of drastically closing all businesses except essential services, most businesses stayed open with social distancing measures in place. The most vulnerable over 70’s and those with underlying conditions protected.  As a result, the majority of the population developed herd immunity, they still have a vibrant economy and seem to have survived not much worse than other countries. 

Brazil has taken the view it is all a hoax and carried on as normal but they are now the only country with cases and deaths rising.  They are very clearly on the wrong path and will have to change tack soon, the sooner the better.

Singapore never had a lock down but did a drastic trace and test policy from the start isolating anyone with the virus and anyone they had contact with.  This definitely worked best for sustaining the economy and reducing cases and deaths and really also for maintaining civil liberties unless you happened to be one who either got the virus or had contact with such.

Lessons are being learnt.

  1. Government is able to quickly impose quite drastic laws when there is a danger of a pandemic.  It seems this one almost certainly came from Wuhan in China.  What we don’t know is whether it was some tragic accident or whether it was actually created deliberately for some reason such as to create the need for totalitarianism and one world Government.  At the very least we need to be alert to the possibility.
  2. Certain groups such as BPAS have been opportunistic, using the pandemic as an excuse to introduce DIY abortions which they are lobbying to make a permanent fixture in UK law.  Abortion centres were always going to be in a challenging position. Are they an essential service?  We would say most certainly not.  Faced with just being closed down they fought back and demanded abortion pills be allowed to be taken at home.  Government said “no” at first but then caved in unprepared for the onslaught. Sad. But this battle raged all over the world during the virus lockdowns
  3. The push for a one world Government and probably with it a one world religion is now bound to continue in earnest with interestingly people like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown at the forefront of trying to set it up. It is very dangerous for civil liberties.

“Individual States in the USA have made regional decisions on the matter. Of course, it is of no surprise that the more liberal states have taken a very harsh line on church activity and even arrested Pastors for supposedly violating state orders”

What about the place of churches?

At the start of this pandemic most churches seemed to willingly give in to being closed down but was it necessary? The application of the Governments’ interpretation of essential activities lacks a holistic approach. I can go along with supermarkets and banks being essential services. This is taking care of our physical and financial needs, but what about our spiritual needs, especially at a potentially very distressing time such as this? If ever there was a necessity for individuals to stay connected to their faith, I think this would most definitely qualify as one of those occasions.  Australia took a different approach and deemed houses of worship as essential activities, so churches were able to stay open applying social distancing. Individual States in the USA have made regional decisions on the matter. Of course, it is of no surprise that the more liberal states have taken a very harsh line on church activity and even arrested Pastors for supposedly violating state orders. Whilst States such as Texas have permitted church activity but with some restrictions. 

Now it’s time to move on. We believe the process of moving on should have started much earlier. The CPA issued a press release on the 23rd April outlining a sensible strategy for the UK to reopen for business:

As the Coronavirus pandemic calms down in many areas and evidence comes to light the virus is most likely transmitted through the nose CPA calls for immediate action as follows: –

1. Compulsory wearing of masks in all areas where people come into contact with other members of the public like shops and shopping centres and places of work.

2. All shops allowed to re-open but applying social distancing rules.

3. All churches and other religious buildings allowed to re-open applying social distancing rules and reducing the maximum attendance to one third of the normal building capacity.

4. All offices allowed to re-open with everyone working from home where possible and office attendance to apply social distancing and no more than one third of normal capacity allowed inside office buildings.

5. Normal road travel allowed with care to be taken at petrol stations.

6. Social distancing to be applied on all public transport with capacity no more than one third of normal capacity on all buses and trains and flights.

This was only ever meant to be a first step with the next step being a test and tracing regime to be put in place so we can get back to normal. Even now though in retrospect this would have been a good move then for the economy on 23rd April and is unlikely to have altered the downward trend of cases provided people stay alert.

“you can have an abortion but not a baptism, buy a car, but not a votive candle, go to the supermarket, but not a sanctuary, get a divorce, but not get married and break the law, but not receive absolution.  It is time to re-open churches”

The government’s recent review of the situation is very puzzling to say the least; The diocese of Shrewsbury in a recent tweet put it in a nutshell – you can have an abortion but not a baptism, buy a car, but not a votive candle, go to the supermarket, but not a sanctuary, get a divorce, but not get married and break the law, but not receive absolution.  It is time to re-open churches. 

We can however through all this welcome the fact that families have spent more time together. We can welcome the fact that many businesses and Government institutions have been forced to adopt a home working model which will more than likely continue. Social media and video conferencing has come into its own, Zoom has become a household name overnight!  The commercial properties market will have to become more creative as less commercial space will be required.  High streets, already under pressure will look very different with much more residential space. The NHS has shown great resilience, the fallen heroes of which will not be forgotten. It will no doubt learn lessons from the stress it has been under.   My greatest hope though is that our nation will return to its spiritual roots, we are a Christian nation and not forget that prayer has made all the difference in this global crisis much of it done on zoom. Long may the prayer continue! The church also is becoming a changed environment for the better.

For further information read our interview with Maureen, contact the CPA at [email protected] or follow them on Twitter or Facebook.

Strange times, new politics? – The SDP

Opinion Piece by Andrew Bence of the SDP

This has not been the spring we social democrats hoped for. Building a political party is fiendishly difficult at the best of times, but as lockdown drags on, political engagement has become all but impossible for minnows like us.

We need to meet, to bond and to campaign. In the early months of this year we were planning, at very least, to consolidate our 2019 achievements. Regular branch meetings, local election campaigns and a conference in June would have been the building blocks taking us to the next level. Instead we have to look to the future.

On that score there are reasons to feel positive. The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the need for the communitarian values we hold dear. The limitations of a globalism that leaves us over-dependent and under-powered has been acknowledged. The willingness of people to embrace the ‘we’re in this together’ approach has been striking. There is even consensus emerging around the need to avoid future austerity measures that would affect communities least able to absorb them.

Meanwhile, party leader William Clouston has produced proposals for a post-pandemic recovery programme, which is more than can be said for the Labour Party. They recognise that the shadow of Covid-19 will be broad and long and escaping it will be a national endeavour and a multi-generational task. Proposals involve the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) identifying the aggregate excess public debt generated by the pandemic; making sure this debt neither imposes an era of austerity or undermines Britain’s financial credibility, achieved by transferring this debt to a separate UK Covid 2080 Sinking Fund which will pay the debt off over 60 years; and making the income from bonds issued within the fund tax-free for UK citizens.

But is this enough? In 2019, the struggle for Brexit and the hopelessness of the Labour Party were gifts for us. With so much at stake and a general election in the offing, we had purpose and our message was distinctive. Now, with both main parties converging on the middle ground, and the Liberal Democrats beginning their slow journey back to credibility, where do we fit in?

“we need to define a truly radical centre distinct from the politics of the mainstream. Our New Declaration, written two years ago, went some way towards this, championing family values long abandoned by the Conservatives, and the virtues of patriotism so despised by Labour”

Perhaps ‘fitting in’ is the wrong aim. Rather, we need to define a truly radical centre distinct from the politics of the mainstream. Our New Declaration, written two years ago, went some way towards this, championing family values long abandoned by the Conservatives, and the virtues of patriotism so despised by Labour. Advocating a social democratic nation state in a post-neoliberal world has been a radical stance in recent years, but now we need to go further.

The new normal – whatever it proves to be – will ask this of us. Post-pandemic, society has the opportunity to reconsider its aims and values, but the hyperpartisans will be the least well-equipped to respond. When a paradigm shift is required they will be found wanting. We are not like them. With others from the margins, including Blue Labour and unorthodox greens through to classical liberals and libertarians, we found common cause in Brexit. Post-pandemic, and still under the present electoral system, something similar is going to be needed if we are to have influence.

“Nigel Farage is again speaking for millions of us as he single-handedly campaigns against the latest wave of illegal immigrants hitting the south coast, the criminals ably supported by both the French and British Border Forces. Millions have viewed his videos yet there is virtually no mainstream media coverage and not a single leading politician has commented”

That outsider status may be key. As I write this, Nigel Farage is again speaking for millions of us as he single-handedly campaigns against the latest wave of illegal immigrants hitting the south coast, the criminals ably supported by both the French and British Border Forces. Millions have viewed his videos yet there is virtually no mainstream media coverage and not a single leading politician has commented. Once again these arbiters of so-called public discourse have been cowed by the race baiters into silence and inaction.

Meanwhile, China prepares to impose a new security law on Hong Kong, further limiting freedoms and silencing Beijing’s opponents. Unfortunately for them, any lingering responsibility (or just concern) we may feel for Hong Kong will have no effect as the UK’s media and political class are wholly preoccupied at the moment pursuing a personal vendetta against the prime minister’s adviser Dominic Cummings. And of course once this ‘story’ is done with, it will be replaced by another equally trivial distraction.

The point is, their agenda is not ours, and the gulf between us grows. That’s why so many of us have been driven online, where free thinking is still mostly permitted. Interested in serious debate, happy to address complexity and nuance, wary of tribalism and even open to the possibility of our minds being changed, we really are a very odd bunch, apparently. 

We’re the only ones, it seems, who understand how Trump could be elected or Brexit supported by people other than bigots. We’re often the ones challenging the tyranny of economic growth at all costs. The ones championing free speech and academic rigour. Decrying the idiocy of HS2, resisting the ‘gated institutional narrative’, exploring the ‘meaning crisis’, and laughing at woke’s many absurdities.

“The mainstream? It is time we wrestled that mantle away from them, and conventional party politics alone won’t hack it. An open border policy on good ideas is needed, and the creative campaigning and alliances that follow. We won’t agree on everything – thank goodness”

The mainstream? It is time we wrestled that mantle away from them, and conventional party politics alone won’t hack it. An open border policy on good ideas is needed, and the creative campaigning and alliances that follow. We won’t agree on everything – thank goodness. Cuddly libertarian Dominic Frisby reminds me of this in his recent tweet, ‘If you still have faith in government and government systems after Corona, Lord help you’. In addition, we will need to avoid the dangerous cranks. But there’s a parallel political universe out there – intelligent, tolerant, progressive even – standing in the wings. How much longer should we wait for our cue?

For further information read our interview with Andrew, contact the SDP at [email protected] or follow them on Twitter or Facebook.

Interview with Baudoin Collard of Parti Libertarien – the Libertarian Party of Belgium

Home of great beers, amazing Christmas markets, Crystal Palace striker Christian Benteke and sadly the EU, Belgium declared independence in 1830.  This followed the Belgian Revolution when the largely Catholic regions of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands split from what we now call Holland and Luxembourg.  The Treaty of London (1839) guaranteed the independence and neutrality of Belgium.  The so called “scrap of paper” led to the UK entering the first world war when Belgium was invaded.  Indeed Belgian resistance largely thwarted the Schlieffen Plan which allowed time for the Allied Powers to mobilise.

Thankfully today the fight for freedom and liberty in Belgium is much more peaceful.  We speak with Baudoin Collard of the Parti Libertarien (the Libertarian Party of Belgium).

Baudoin thank-you for the interview and for undertaking this in English.

Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about the party?

The ‘Parti Libertarien’ (Libertarian Party in English) is a Belgian party founded in 2012. It is mainly active in the French-speaking part of the country (the Brussels and Walloon regions) as well as in the German-speaking part.

The Parti Libertarien participated in several elections in Belgium, albeit with limited success: in 2014 (federal and regional elections), in 2018 (provincial and communal elections) and 2019 (Federal and regional elections).

In 2015, the PLib (Parti Libertarien) was one of the 12 founding members of the IALP (International Alliance of Libertarian Parties – http://ialp.com/)

Our party is also active on internet:

“For example, we campaigned in the media for the legalization of cannabis, for the abolition of the national biometric ID card, the suppression of government agencies such as the AFSCA (responsible for bureaucratic food-chain regulations)”

What are the main issues in Belgium you campaign on, what gets Libertarians excited?

We stand for a strictly limited government and support laissez-faire capitalism. Our main engagements are the following:

  • restore Belgian military neutrality; 
  • focus the State on its sovereign functions; 
  • remove all taxes other than VAT; 
  • restore absolute respect for individual, civil and economic freedoms; 
  • abolish all “legal privileges”; 
  • promote private initiatives in the fight against poverty ;
  • guarantee the free movement of goods and people;
  • end drug prohibition; 
  • free up and put currencies into competition and
  • cancel Belgian public debt

For example, we campaigned in the media for the legalization of cannabis, for the abolition of the national biometric ID card, the suppression of government agencies such as the AFSCA (responsible for bureaucratic food-chain regulations)… We also made educational presentations on new topics such as cryptocurrencies. We also campaigned against the expensive purchase of new fighter airplanes.

“We do not want a bureaucratic construction imposed from above, no federalism, no new deal, no Eurobonds. European construction must be done from below, through natural exchange and the mutual interests between individuals”

What’s your party’s view of the EU and the Euro?

We strive for a Europe that Europe protects its individuals against their own governments: a EU that guarantees human rights, that puts an end to protectionism, that defends the freedom of circulation. Alas, for some time now, the EU has turned into an imperial project of technocratic domination.

We do not want a bureaucratic construction imposed from above, no federalism, no new deal, no Eurobonds. European construction must be done from below, through natural exchange and the mutual interests between individuals.

Regarding the monetary policy, we are highly sceptical of the Euro project and we propose instead to free the financial system and to privatize the emission of money with competing entities.

Belgium recently went a year without a government, was it liberating?

For most of the people most of the time, it didn’t really have much impact. First, we still had a (relatively limited) federal government responsible for the day-to-day management. Secondly, Belgium has a complex organisation with multiple layers of governments: federal, regions, communities, provinces and communes.

Libertarians conspire zealously to take over the world then leave you alone.

Every so often we hear about a possible partition of Belgium, what’s your party’s view on this?

Our party has no specific stance regarding a possible partition of Belgium, but we support the right of the people to self-determination. So if the Flander (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium) wishes to secede, it should be their right and it should be respected. In this case, there will be a need to reach a balanced agreement regarding complex questions such as the status of the Brussels Region and the federal debt…

“the positions of MEPs like Syed Kamall and Daniel Hannan have often been a reminder of the value of individual freedoms. They will be greatly missed”

The UK has now left the EU and is due to finally fully transition out at the end of the year, how does your party and your nation more generally view Brexit?

In the same way, the Plib respects the democratic referendum taken by the people of Great-Britain and we now look forward to a mutually beneficial agreement between EU and Great-Britain. We published an article on that subject (in French): https://www.parti-libertarien.be/le-brexit-un-nouveau-depart/.

That being said, our members are generally supportive towards Brexit and the EU is more and more seen as a bureaucratic and centralized entity, increasingly diverging from its original purpose. We at the Plib, are very attached to the principle of subsidiarity.

On the other hand, we fear that by losing British parliamentary representation in the European Parliament, the liberal opposition to the liberticide measures initiated by the European Commission tends to be reduced. Indeed, the positions of MEPs like Syed Kamall and Daniel Hannan have often been a reminder of the value of individual freedoms. They will be greatly missed.

Different countries campaign in elections in different ways, what methods does your party focus on, and do you have any interesting stories from the campaign trail?

In previous elections, we partnered with other associations focused on liberty in order to share the effort and gain more visibility. It is also a nice way to get to know different people and share ideas and experience, even when the others don’t necessarily have the same point of view on some subjects.

What’s your party’s plan for fighting elections and getting the message of liberty out to the electorate?

In the Walloon and Brussels region where we are established, the economic education of the citizens is rather limited and as consequence, a lot people are easily fooled by the promises of populist parties. To give an idea, at the last election in 2019, extremist parties from the far-right and far-left won 30 seats in the parliament, compared to only 5 in the previous elections.

People in general have a limited understanding of economic mechanism and often have a negative view of capitalism, so one of our main mission is to raise awareness of economic realities and the benefits of liberalism for economic development and people well-being.

Be the first to find our standard bearer on the festival and win a cold beer 🙂

If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?

  • Fiscal reform toward a flat tax
  • Instauration of referendum
  • Cannabis legalization

“To facilitate the economic recovery, the government should drastically reduce the taxes for companies and individuals. At the same time, it should cut its spending and engage in structural reforms to reduce the size of the administration”

Lastly how do you think your government is handling the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to be done to help the eventual economic recovery?

Belgium has suffered the worst casualties (in terms of death per million) to the Covid19 and our government has a big responsibility in this crisis.

First the government was completely unprepared for this epidemic, having notably destroyed a large strategic stock of masks just a few months before the crisis. 

Then our health ministry has largely underestimated the gravity of the crisis at the beginning, and refused to take measures to accompany people coming back from affected areas in Italy or cancelling big events to limit the spreading of the virus. 

Once it was no longer possible to deny the gravity of the crisis, our government decided to centrally manage all the aspects of the crisis with the help of ‘experts’, and was given special powers by the parliament to do so. The government then restricted the sales of masks and disinfectant to the population but was not able to buy masks on international markets, thus worsening the shortages. 

The government also strictly limited and controlled the use of screening tests, thus artificially limiting the supply unnecessarily. Notably, the government insisted for weeks that masks were useless for the general population. 

To mitigate the spreading of the virus, the government implemented a strict lockdown that will have a huge economic impact but failed to take effective measures to protect the elderly in nursing homes which were the main victims of the crisis. The government even issued strict instructions to keep the elderly affected by the virus from going to hospitals, consequently, around half of the victims of coronavirus died in nursing homes, not in hospitals.

To facilitate the economic recovery, the government should drastically reduce the taxes for companies and individuals. At the same time, it should cut its spending and engage in structural reforms to reduce the size of the administration, improve its efficiency and greatly simplify all the bureaucracy that is a burden for the citizens.

Podcast Episode 29 – COVID Border Controls, EU Trade Talks, LibDem Leadership & Croydon Council’s Finances

We discuss the proposed COVID Border Controls, the Brexit Trade Talks & Labour’s flip-flopping along with the upcoming Lib Dem Leadership contest. We then consider Croydon Council’s financial woes and the potential political fallout.

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio

Long term implications of UK Coronavirus lockdown “disastrous.” – Sputnik Radio Interview

Mike Swadling was interviewed on Sputnik Radio about the Coronavirus lockdown.

Teachers Unions and local councils are putting pressure on the British Government to amend their decision to allow certain schools to re-open in June, amid the ongoing Coronavirus Pandemic. Questions have been asked about whether social distancing could realistically be enforced in areas such as classrooms and playgrounds, and if enough personal protective equipment for teaching staff would be provided.

Interview with Fernando Sobrinho of Partido Libertário – the Libertarian Party of Portugal

The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance was sealed in the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, and is the oldest alliance in the world that is still in force.  During that time the Portuguese people have struggled with their fight for freedom and only became a democracy after a coup in 1974.

Their path to personal liberty is now taking on a new chapter.  Partido Libertário (Libertarian Party) of Portugal is a member of the International Alliance of Libertarian Parties and is in the process of being constituted as a formal party.  In Portugal parties need to be formally recognised by the Constitutional Court.

We spoke with Fernando Sobrinho one of the party’s founders.  Fernando thank-you for your time, and undertaking this in English.

Fernando Sobrinho

Could you in a couple of sentences tell our readers about yourself and your party?

My name is Fernando Sobrinho, I am one of the founders of the Association that aims to be the Portuguese libertarian party, Partido Libertário.  I was the first president of this Association and was leading it when we were accepted as members of the IALP – International Association of Libertarian parties.

Partido Libertário’s president is now Carlos Novais and we have about 60 members. We have organized a National Meeting every year since 2014 and we invite libertarians from other countries to attend to it. We have had the honour of receiving Daniel Martinez from P-LIB, Spain and JF Nimsgern from Parti Libertarien, France.

Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction in Portugal

Your party is currently in the process of collecting signatures for formal registration.  Can you tell us about that process and how is it going?

We are in the process of the legalization of the party, 7.500 signatures are needed, but we are focusing in having more effective members. it does not make sense to establish a party if we do not have enough people willing to speak up for us in multiple forums.

Privatizes Everything – Minimum state maximum freedom

“Our Taxation System is a total nightmare, being very progressive on income and achieving effective tax rates bigger than 50% if one’s household is making more than EUR 40K a year”

What are the main issues in Portugal you campaign on, what gets Libertarians excited?

As Portugal ranks 15th in the personal freedom Index of CATO and 34th in the Economic Freedom we do most of our work fighting taxation and economic regulation on our country. Our Taxation System is a total nightmare, being very progressive on income and achieving effective tax rates bigger than 50% if one’s household is making more than EUR 40K a year.

“The current Government is no different from previous – they keep the trend to increase taxes and have all the fantastic ideas on how to bring us happiness as we go bankrupt”

What’s your party’s view of the EU and their thoughts on your membership of the Euro?

What we like in European Union is some degree of freedom of trade of goods and services as well as the freedom of capital and people to invest and work wherever pleases you better. What we oppose to is to its numerous entities that are aimed to supervise these natural rights, like the European Council, European Parliament, etc. Their regulating instincts are a threat to the free zone that we would like Europe to be.

Having the EUR as a national currency is a progress compared to having a Escudo that was printed in massive amounts to meet the socialist plans of the governments we have had in Portugal on last 46 years, all kinds of socialism…

The current Government is no different from previous – they keep the trend to increase taxes and have all the fantastic ideas on how to bring us happiness as we go bankrupt.

The UK has now left the EU and is due to finally fully transition out at the end of the year, how does your party view Brexit?

We regret that UK has left the EU but we believe that it can be as positive to UK, as it will be more open to world trade, as to EU, since the loss of revenue that UK was bringing to European budget is now missing. We hope that Brexit will make Euro bureaucrats a little bit more wise on the impact to freedom of their regulations.

The real goal should be reduced government spending, rather than balanced budgets achieved by ever rising tax rates to cover ever rising spending.

“Public Employees in Portugal have privileges that are not granted to the general population – reduce workload, bigger salaries for low qualifies people, special Health protection system, etc.”

If you could introduce, repeal or change 3 laws what would they be?

The 3 major laws Portugal need to change are:

1. Labour Law (minimum salary, impossible to fire workers, labour unions over-protected, collective contracts, etc.)

2. Taxation (Reducing Corporate Taxes to competitive level, decrease progressivity on IRS-Income Tax, and reduce VAT and other consumption taxes).

3. Public Employee Status (Public Employees in Portugal have privileges that are not granted to the general population – reduce workload, bigger salaries for low qualifies people, special Health protection system, etc.)

What do you think of your country’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, and what would you like to done to help the economic recovery?

The way Portugal handled the Covid-19 crisis was not different from other south countries, like Italy, France or Spain: The measures taken and their timings were basically the same. I guess that the good results achieved, in terms of DPM (Deaths per Million inhabitants) were just pure luck.

The worst, that is, the economic consequences are still to come, especially because the socialist government is willing to step up and do their thing – bring money to the cronies!

Partido Libertário are on the web, on Facebook, on Twitter and on Instagram.

Podcast Episode 28 – COVID Posturing, TFL Bailout, Trade Talks & an interview with Councillor Jeet Bains

We discuss the COVID posturing of various politicians, the TFL Bailout and the developing trade talks with the EU, Japan & the USA. We then have an interview with Jeet Bains, the Conservative Councillor for the Addiscombe East ward in Croydon. Jeet talks about his ward, his recent Parliamentary candidacy in Luton North, housing development in Croydon and how he believes the Tories can win back the Council. He also discusses the opportunities that Brexit can bring for Croydon.

Jeet can be found on twitter at @Jeet__Bains and for more information read our interview with him.

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio

Quotes from Councillor Bains.
On the Election and government:

“Jeremy Corbyn for example, he in no way represented a thing called the centre ground”

“there are just certain things the British people will not countenance, for example Marxism. However you dress it up, nobody in Britain is interested in Marxism”

“quietly privately the British people will not put up with that kind of prejudice”

“from the LibDems it was clear you need a credible leader but also someone who is believable.  For example Jo Swinson, who kept on calling herself the next Prime Minister, it just wasn’t credible it went beyond laughable”

“local action on the ground, there is no substitute for it.  It’s still really, really crucial in elections”

“the public sector, there is a bias towards caution and inaction.  That kind of thing at the best of times is not the best way to do things, but in the situation we have today could potentially be lethal”

On Croydon Council:

“contrast that with Labour.  They are allowing residential homes to be converted into flats anywhere and everywhere, and not just allowing it they are positively encouraging it”

“if you live on a road there is every chance the house next door to you will be converted into a block of flats.  We need to get that message across”

“being clear the existing folk are not monsters.  They are very understanding folk who want to accommodate more housing provision, but we can do it in the right way and in a sensitive way”

“Why has Croydon signed-up pretty much unilaterally to a far higher housing target than Bromley and Sutton?”

On Brexit:

“it requires imagination, that was point, to simply keep on saying ‘Brexit equals threat, oh my god it’s so awful’.  We’ve got to stop that, we’ve got to have, it’s an opportunity, the people have voted for it, it’s happening, stop it with the misery”

We are joined by Jeet Bains,the Conservative Councillor for the Addiscombe East ward in Croydon. Jeet talks about his ward, his recent Parliamentary candidacy in Luton North, housing development in Croydon and how he believes the Tories can win back the Council. He also discusses the opportunities that Brexit can bring for Croydon.