Category: Mike Swadling

TPA’s NHS Rich List

“In our selected areas we see 54 staff paid more than the PM.  These are largely Chief Executives, but also include 12 Chief Medical Officers, 2 Finance Directors…”

NHS England might be in the process of being abolished by the Labour Government, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t many others in the NHS receiving large remunerations on the taxpayer.  The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) recently published their NHS Rich List 2025, which “examines the remuneration of senior managers across NHS trusts in 2023-24 and compares it with their trust’s performance on A&E and referral to treatment (RTT) waiting times for January 2025.”

The full research and dataset breakdown the details across the country.  Below, we look at some notable numbers for more local NHS Trusts identified as being in London, Surrey, Kent and across Sussex.

“Director of Communications and Engagement, Chief of People and Culture, Executive Director of People and Culture, and Director of Communications and Improvement, all paid over £100,000 per annum”

Salary

Nationally there are 469 employees paid more than the April 2024, Prime Ministerial salary entitlement of £172,153.  In our selected areas we see 54 staff paid more than the PM.  These are largely Chief Executives, but also include 12 Chief Medical Officers, 2 Finance Directors, 6 people in roles that include ‘Deputy’ in the title, and 3 Chief Nurse’s.  These are all no doubt demanding high ranking roles, but in a near monopoly national health care system, do they need to be paid more than the Prime Minister?

The Chief People Officer of the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust was also paid more than the Prime Minister.  Is this a reasonable salary for an HR role?  This was one of 19 roles across London, Surrey, Kent and Sussex where the job roles of Chief People Officer, Chief Communications Officer, Director of People, and the godawful titles of Director of Communications and Engagement, Chief of People and Culture, Executive Director of People and Culture, and Director of Communications and Improvement, all paid over £100,000 per annum.

Salary over £220K in our area:

NHS TRUSTTitle Salary
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTChief executive £282,500
LONDON NORTH WEST UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUSTChief executive officer £252,500
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTMedical director £237,500
EAST KENT HOSPITALS UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTChief executive £237,500
ROYAL FREE LONDON NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTGroup chief executive £237,500
ROYAL FREE LONDON NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTRoyal Free Hospital chief executive £237,500
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustChief medical officer £237,500
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS SUSSEX NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTChief medical officer £232,500
LONDON NORTH WEST UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUSTMedical director £227,500
EAST SUSSEX HEALTHCARE NHS TRUSTChief medical officer £222,500
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS SUSSEX NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTChief executive £222,500
EAST SUSSEX HEALTHCARE NHS TRUSTChief executive £222,500
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustChief executive £222,500

“one can’t help but wonder if the people of North East London sleep better at night knowing that the local NHS Executive Director of People and Culture received over £400K in pension related benefits”

Total Remuneration

Salary, especially in these senior NHS Trust roles is only one part of the remuneration received.  Pension is also a significant part of the payments made.  Looking at our area, one can’t help but wonder if the people of North East London sleep better at night knowing that the local NHS Executive Director of People and Culture received over £400K in pension related benefits.  Are the people of Sussex benefiting from improvements to the University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust service thanks to the Chief Governance Officer’s £251,250 pension related benefits?

More locally no doubt the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust was contractually obliged to pay over £530K in Pension benefits to their Acting Chief Medical Officer and Chief Operating Officer, but is this appropriate use of taxpayers money to provide “NHS mental health services” to “the community in Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Croydon”.

Remuneration (with Salary and Pension details) over £300K in our area:

NHS TRUSTTitleSalaryPension related benefitsOverall Total
North East London NHS Foundation TrustExecutive director of people and culture £142,500 £441,250 £582,500
LONDON NORTH WEST UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUSTChief executive officer £252,500 £171,250 £422,500
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS SUSSEX NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTChief governance officer £162,500 £251,250 £  412,500
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustChief executive £212,500 £176,250 £387,500
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustActing chief medical officer £147,500 £228,750 £377,500
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation TrustChief operating officer £62,500 £301,250 £362,500
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation TrustChief nursing officer £142,500 £208,750 £352,500
ROYAL SURREY COUNTY HOSPITAL NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTFinance director £187,500 £153,750 £342,500
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation TrustChief nursing officer £127,500 £203,750 £332,500

Bang for the buck

Where NHS Trusts are delivering excellent service for the patient, these payments, even at the taxpayers’ expense could well be justified.  The TPAs full research breaks this down at a national level and the results don’t look promising. 

We would encourage you to explore further at https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/nhs_rich_list_2025.

Main image from TPA data, and Grok.

Coulsdon and Purley – Surrey or London?

Among the many hotly debated subjects in our area, one that is frequently returned to is the question of if towns like Coulsdon and Purley are part of London or Surrey.

When debating anything the proposition or debate subject is always talked over.  What does it mean to be ‘part of’?  How do you define Surrey or London?  Indeed, how do you define the towns of Coulsdon and Purley?

“Postal addresses with Coulsdon in the name appear now in the London Borough’s of Croydon, Sutton and some in the Surrey borough of Reigate and Banstead”

Coulsdon for instance used to refer to the area now known as Old Coulsdon and also separately the Parish of Coulsdon, which includes much of Purley.  Coulsdon town centre today was once referred to as Smitham.  Are they the same area or different areas today?  If they are different where’s the boundary?  Postal addresses with Coulsdon in the name appear now in the London Borough’s of Croydon, Sutton and some in the Surrey borough of Reigate and Banstead.

London refers officially to both the City of London, and Greater London.  Although it is often used as shorthand to cover variously the Cities of London and Westminster, and anything in about Zones 1 and 2 of the London Underground.

Surrey as a name originated as the southern portion of the Middle Saxon territory.  Coulsdon and Purley were part of the Hundred (county division) of Surrey called Wallington.  These for local government purposes were largely self-administrating, the limited county wide governance was focused mainly on keeping the peace.

“With the population of the Croydon Rural District doubling from 1901 to 1911, the Coulsdon and Purley Urban District was formed.  The new local authority set itself up in new offices on Brighton Road”

Local government resembling what we know today first came to London and Surrey with the Local Government Act 1888.  This formed both the London and Surrey County Council’s.  The act also formed the County Borough of Croydon which whilst technically in Surrey, was not under the jurisdiction of either Surrey or London councils.  The County Borough of Croydon included parts of Purley.  The rest of Purley, all Coulsdon and areas such as Addington, Beddington, Mitcham and Wallington all formed part of the Croydon Rural District within Surrey.  To add to the confusion, the district headquartered in Croydon Town Hall.

With the population of the Croydon Rural District doubling from 1901 to 1911, the Coulsdon and Purley Urban District was formed.  The new local authority set itself up in new offices on Brighton Road at the junction of Old Lodge Lane.  By this stage it is difficult to say Coulsdon and Purley are meaningfully part of Surrey.

“As a result of the act in 1965 the new London Borough of Croydon was formed merging the old County Borough of Croydon with the Coulsdon and Purley Urban District to form a new entity”

The debate on being part of London or Surrey really became settled as part of the London Government Act 1963.  The act set up the Greater London Council (GLC), and the 32 new London borough councils.  As a result of the act in 1965 the new London Borough of Croydon was formed merging the old County Borough of Croydon with the Coulsdon and Purley Urban District to form a new entity which was entirely part of London.

Perhaps more controversial than if Coulsdon and Purley are part of London or Surrey, is the question of the merger with Croydon.  There is many a resident of the old urban district that will speak of their town playing second fiddle to the districts in the centre and north of the borough.  Machinations at Croydon Council in recent years with the council declaring de facto bankruptcy, has only sharpened the desire among many to separate to the pre 65 boundaries.  Be they 1 or 2 boroughs, they are both undeniably part of London.  Residents have voted for members of the GLC, the GLA, and Mayor of London.  Much as most of West London was once part of Middlesex, East London Essex, Bromley was once part of Kent, and Kingson once part of Surrey they are all now part of London.

“Our towns were no doubt once part of a Middle Saxon kingdom, and were likely once ruled by Frithuwold of Chertsey the King of Surrey in the late 7th Century”

This leaves the thorny issue of postal addresses.  Many of us will sign off with a postal address of ‘Coulsdon, Surrey’ or ‘Purley, Surrey’, and of course we have Croydon rather than London Post Codes.  The simple explanation here is the postcode system is independent of political boundaries and are based on the areas ‘Post Town’.  An example of this is the Redhill (RH) postcode area, this as you might expect includes Redhill, but also Gatwick (RH6), Oxted (RH8), and Haywards Heath (RH16 and 17), none of which are part of the town Redhill.  The district covers parts of Surrey, and East and West Sussex.

Our towns were no doubt once part of a Middle Saxon kingdom, and were likely once ruled by Frithuwold of Chertsey the King of Surrey in the late 7th Century AD.  Like so much this has passed to history, with the expansion of London, Coulsdon and Purley became subsumed in the great metropolis.  Whilst our area may no longer have its own King, let’s hope it long retains its own character.

This article was originally published in CR5 magazine for the Coulsdon and Purley debating society in September 2024 https://cr5.co.uk/cr5-magazine/#cr5-issue-232-september-2024-online/72/.

Notes on images:

The Benefits Trap

At our My tuppenceworth evening on the 19th February Mike Swadling spoke about the Benefits Trap.

“4.2 million working age people in Great Britain are receiving health related benefits which is 10.2% of the population”

I want to talk about the benefits trap and the problem particularly with sickness benefit in this country. Now, you might know that Fraser Nelson was speaking about this on Trigonometry this week. I think it came out Sunday. You will notice the difference if you have watched that between mine and his version. His is eloquent, whereas I’m me.  I did honesty write this before that came out, and frankly I just don’t have that quick of a turnaround to have written it after.

The unemployment rate in the UK is 4.4%. Currently, the employment rate for people age 16 to 64 is 74.8%, so there’s a bit of a delta there.  4.2 million working age people in Great Britain are receiving health related benefits which is 10.2% of the population.

“if families support themselves, it’s up to them what they do. But when we support them, we as taxpayers have a vested interest I think, in their choices”

There are people that are under 64 that are retired. There are people looking after children or other family members. And frankly, if families support themselves, it’s up to them what they do. But when we support them, we as taxpayers have a vested interest I think, in their choices.

As a reminder, in the last 30 years, we’ve had just three years not in budget deficit for the government. The last one of them was 24 years ago. Britain now spends more on sickness than on defence with £65 billion on health-related payments compared to just £54 billion for the military.

1.57 million unemployed people in the UK compares to 2.83 million people age 16 to 64 who are economically inactive due to long term sickness.  Unemployment, thankfully, is not (yet?) necessarily the major problem. It’s sickness benefit that is the big part of our benefit system. The cost of personal independence payments, which is the main disability benefit, is predicted to rise by 60% up to £35 billion in the next four years.

They reckon getting 400,000 people back to work would save £10 billion. If the Treasury cuts spending on disability benefits and universal credit to just pre-pandemic levels, and this is not some weird utopian ideal, just cut it to where we were five years ago, it would take 3p off the basic rate of income tax, 4p off higher rate tax and scrap inheritance tax. But that’s the financial side.

I think the major problem is the moral problem. A couple of quotes for you.

Lord George Bridges the Chair of The Lords Economic Affairs Committee said the system encouraged welfare over work, calling it “financially unsustainable” and a “waste of human potential.”

Quote Tony Blair – “You’ve got to be careful of translating those [challenges] into a mental health condition and losing your own agency, in a way, to govern your own life… Life has its ups and downs, and everybody experiences those. And you’ve got to be careful of encouraging people to think they’ve got some sort of condition other than simply confronting the challenges of life. We need a proper public conversation about this because you really cannot afford to be spending the amount of money we’re spending on mental health.”

I’m sure we’ve all seen family members or friends, who lose agency and drive though periods of unemployment.

“open up offices for the people to come into two or three days a week from nine to five. No longer would you be able to stay at home seven days a week as an option and get paid”

So, what’s my idea? Why am I speaking to you? What I would like to do is make sure that no one is allowed to stay at home seven days a week on benefits. Now, let’s qualify that a bit. No one who’s retired or in regular medical care or receiving a carer’s allowance would be expected to attend.

If you’re of working age, you’re not receiving treatment or caring for someone, you will need to come into an office, the unemployment office. I would like to open up offices for the people to come into two or three days a week from nine to five. No longer would you be able to stay at home seven days a week as an option and get paid.

Why am I saying this? Frankly, you are, what you do.

  • Staying at home makes you stay at home.
  • A lack of motivation keeps you unmotivated.
  • A lack of mixing with people keeps you bad at mixing with people.

Being made to do something you don’t want to do makes you much more likely to do other, better things you do want to do.

Now, I want to, for a moment, park what people do whilst they’re in the unemployment office. Mainly because I don’t think that matters much. It bogs us down in the wrong discussion. For the purpose of this, let’s just assume they’re coming to watch TV.

“No longer would they be simply staying at home, staying in a routine, they’re having to do something different, and it gives them the motivation to do something better”

Why do I want to do this? Now, I suspect, and it’s only suspicion, and I admit I can’t back up these numbers, but as soon as you make people physically, regularly, and for extended periods of time turn up, you will find:

  • 5% of the people on benefits simply don’t exist and drop off
  • 10% have full-time jobs, so drop off
  • Another 10% have another means of support or choose simply no longer to collect benefits.

I would call a 25% reduction a good start. Now, even if I overestimated that by 100%, I don’t think that was wild numbers I used there, 12.5% would still be a darn good start. And then you get to the more important part, the moral part. Starting to energise those people who have been out of work for extended periods. No longer would they be simply staying at home, staying in a routine, they’re having to do something different, and it gives them the motivation to do something better.

Every government seems to rename benefits and tinker around the edges of how to implement them. Experts come and go and implement different ideas to varying success. The benefit, I think, of this plan is its simplicity. You simply have to turn up.

But who turns up? The top 10 types of health conditions for people aged 16 to 64 who are economically inactive and in long-term sickness are depression, bad nerves and anxiety, impacting 1.3 million. Problems with legs or feet and problems with back or neck, affecting a million people. Mental illness impacts 900,000. Between 600,000 and 800,000 people have problems with arms and legs, heart, blood or circulation. And then other health conditions, chest or breathing problems, digestive problems, and diabetes impact about 360,000. And of course, some people have more than one of these.

The point is, whilst those might be very serious conditions, these are not people with stage 4 cancer. They’re not undergoing major surgery. No one would expect those people to be in the office, but literally millions who are currently receiving sickness benefits could be.

Assuming you end up targeting 3 million of the 4.1 million people on health benefits, at two days a week in the office, that would be equivalent to 2,000 people needing to be housed for each of the 600 job centres in the UK. That is a lot, and I won’t pretend that’s easy.

There are many empty buildings that could easily house 1,000 people in Croydon, and across the country. Many office buildings are half empty. This is not an insurmountable challenge and could be built up to. Schools are empty a third of the year. Towns are full of empty halls, churches and many other places that could be brought into use.

What will it cost? Frankly, a fraction of the savings you would make by getting Britain back to work.

“You can give them YouTube how-to videos. You can give them distance learning courses. You can invite charities in to help people…. You could do a multitude of things, but you’ve got to get them to turn up first”

What would people do? Now, I did park that, and I parked it because I think it’s much less important than forcing the change on people. But frankly, by default, people could watch the History Channel. You could stick on the Open University. You could make books available. You can give them YouTube how-to videos. You can give them distance learning courses. You can invite charities in to help people. You can organise litter picking giving people the day off after two hours of effort, et cetera, et cetera. You could do a multitude of things, but you’ve got to get them to turn up first.

What matters is you get people out, you increase their motivation, and you increase their ability to live life once again.

Main image generated using Grok.

Department of Government Efficiency – Croydon

At our My tuppenceworth evening on the 19th February Mike Swadling spoke about his ideas for a Croydon DOGE.

“As significant as stopping the waste in the £50 billion budget is, I suspect more savings are being made by the cultural impact that DOGE is bringing about”

I want to talk briefly about DOGE, Department of Government Efficiency. But I want to localise it a little bit and talk about a Croydon DOGE. We’ve all seen DOGE and Elon Musk’s team going to USAID and strip back huge amounts of government spending. 

As significant as stopping the waste in the £50 billion budget is, I suspect more savings are being made by the cultural impact that DOGE is bringing about.

Most government workers are not on the take. They’re not politically motivated. Most middle managers with an authority to spend will simply be going about their job and responding to the incentives and cultures of the organisation they’re in.  And I say this as a middle manager with an authority to spend most of my career. Overnight that culture has changed from one of ‘no one asked- questions regarding the spending’ to ‘don’t let what you signed off become the laugh line of the White House press secretary’.

I suspect that undocumented cultural change is saving many more billions of dollars than perhaps the direct work that DOGE is doing.

“Does anyone know who received £171,356.72 Borough of Culture Payments in 2024?

I can’t tell you. No one knows, because that’s the total amount of redacted payments that they’re not telling us who they gave it to”

I want to ask you a question.

Does anyone know what links, Savvy Theatre, The Enriched Kids CIC, SDNA LTD, and Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.?

They all received £2,000 from Croydon Council last year as part of a Borough of Culture payment.

Another one.

Does anyone know what links, Talawa Theatre Company, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LIMITED T/A The Circus, Scanners Inc, and Double Take Projections LTD?

They all received payments between £40,000 and £65,000 from Croydon Council last year as part of the Borough of Culture.

Does anyone know who received £171,356.72 Borough of Culture Payments in 2024?

I can’t tell you. No one knows, because that’s the total amount of redacted payments that they’re not telling us who they gave it to.

Croydon, yes, the bankrupt borough of Croydon, was the London Borough of Culture in 2023.  All of those payments came in 2024, and many of them very late on.

“Whilst the £813,000 worth of payments from the Borough of Culture that I can find, barely touch the sides of this £136 million that the council needs, it does, if you pardon the pun, set the culture of spending”

Croydon is a de facto bankrupt borough and is requesting a £136 million bailout from the government after overspending by at least £98 million this year and is predicted to overspend by £83 million next year.  Whilst the £813,000 worth of payments from the Borough of Culture that I can find, barely touch the sides of this £136 million that the council needs, it does, if you pardon the pun, set the culture of spending.

One can hardly be surprised when a council officer providing actual services overspends their budget when they know the council has given £10,000 to the Brit School, or £6,000 to the Bureau Of Silly Ideas Limited, or £3,100 to The Poetry Takeaway Ltd. Often, of course, these funds are accompanied by a photo opportunity for a plethora of Croydon dignitaries.  What is their incentive to reduce spending if you’re actually trying to provide a real service?

The council, of course, has been quick to try and fix its financial problems by raising funds off the backs of the people of Croydon. In 2023, Croydon’s council tax went up 15%. Despite Mayor Jason Perry promising to scrap Low Traffic Neighbourhoods or LTNs, he backtracked and is alleged to have said because “£20m of future income … would have to be replaced”.  The council even floated the plan to impose a workplace parking levy on car park spaces, as if the people of Croydon needed more reasons not to return to the office or indeed invest in Croydon.

We need a cultural change in Croydon, and specifically at the borough.  Not everything needs to be hiking taxes or even sweeping cuts to services. We need a cultural change at Croydon Council to have it focus on key services, on the people of Croydon, and on not wasting money.

“Is there any chance the taxpayers of Croydon can get an Independence Day from all this spending? We need a DOGE Croydon to publicly, and perhaps more importantly, within the Council, ring the alarm at this waste”

If you look at Your Croydon, the newsroom for the Executive Mayor, Jason Perry, the top story is Croydon’s proposed licensing scheme to tackle rogue landlords. A quick flick down the page then boasts about a new flagship programme to support residents to be healthier. Are these two things needed? Are they even a good idea? Does a bankrupt borough need to be spending money on things like this?

In the past year, the Civic Mayor of Croydon has raised the flag outside Croydon Town Hall for Uganda Independence Day, Nigerian Independence Day, India Independence Day, Pakistan Independence Day, all with the accompanied photo ops and no doubt receptions for local dignitaries. Is there any chance the taxpayers of Croydon can get an Independence Day from all this spending? We need a DOGE Croydon to publicly, and perhaps more importantly, within the Council, ring the alarm at this waste.

“I would question whether the £10,000 to £38,000 payments for services were really fully costed, or whether that was just a number somebody decided to charge us”

We need to set the stall out that costs are being cut and that Croydon taxpayers’ cash is not some slush fund for Council officers to dip into. The Council will say, of course, that they are cutting payments and not wasting money, but I’m sure if we had a Croydon DOGE operating, they would have questioned the £7,550 paid to Emergency Exit Arts, the £10,000 paid to Sound Diplomacy Limited, the £13,200 paid to Giant Cheese Limited, or the £38,000 paid to Croydonites Festival of New Theatre CIC. All of these were made in one payment, no doubt for a well provided service, but isn’t it interesting how suspiciously round these numbers often are.

I would question whether the £10,000 to £38,000 payments for services were really fully costed, or whether that was just a number somebody decided to charge us. These all came from the Cultural Growth Fund at Croydon Council. That’s not the London Borough of Culture Fund I mentioned a moment ago.  That’s a different fund. Don’t worry, when they can no longer waste your money on being the London Borough of Culture, they can give it away in Croydon Cultural Growth.

On that note, another question for you.

Can anyone tell me what the Culture Growth Fund spent £55,625.98 on?

I’ve given you a clue already. That’s the redacted amount.  I can’t tell you what they spent it on. They don’t tell us. We live in a democracy.  We live in an era of freedom of information, and they don’t tell us who our money went to.

Now I should declare a slight conflict of interest here.  There has been a recent story on Croydon Council spending £3,077 of taxpayers’ money on teas, biscuits, sandwiches and other refreshments in 2024. I must admit to being the recipient of these. I have volunteered some time at the Council and received free tea and coffee for this.  I’ve even had some sandwiches and biscuits on an all-day training course to enable me to do such things. I don’t mind admitting that when I give up many hours of free time, frankly, I do expect a cup of tea in return.

But lastly, I will say if this cost is of concern to you, might I suggest the council simply in future hold back from funding Stuco Design Limited, Premm Design Limited, or Continental Drifts, no I’ve never heard of any of them either, all of whom received more than £3,000 from Croydon Council in 2024 for Cultural Growth.

Dare we ask for Croydon Councils New Year’s Resolution to be sensible tax and spend?

“A judicial review being brought by residents of the London borough will claim the LTNs should be “quashed” because the primary motivation behind them was “financial security … rather than environmental considerations”

In early December it was reported in the Telegraph that the High Court will hear that “Croydon council created six LTNs as a “revenue-raising exercise with no environmental benefits that unhelpfully dispersed traffic to surrounding roads”.  The story is behind a paywall and received relatively little coverage.

They reported that the campaign group Open Our Roads were taking action so that “A judicial review being brought by residents of the London borough will claim the LTNs should be “quashed” because the primary motivation behind them was “financial security … rather than environmental considerations”.

It went on to say:

“The skeleton arguments also rely heavily on a Sunday Telegraph report from earlier this year in which Jason Perry, Croydon’s Conservative mayor, admitted he could not honour an election pledge to scrap the LTNs because “£20m of future income … would have to be replaced”.

“Legal papers, seen by The Telegraph, say that despite “considerable opposition” the council introduced LTNs because of the “anticipated income from enforcement fines” sent to motorists who enter roads closed to through traffic. The council anticipated raising just over £10m in three years”.

“Explaining how local authorities have no legal powers to use traffic measures to “raise revenue” it says that to do so is “tantamount to taxation”.

In response the council has said “we can confirm that the council introduced six Healthy Neighbourhood schemes as part of its priority to make Croydon a cleaner, safer and healthier borough”.

If you are able to access it, you can read the whole article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/07/london-croydon-council-unlawfully-used-ltn-court-to-hear/.

In his manifesto when running for Mayor, Jason Perry stated: 

“Over the last eight years of Labour running Croydon Council a consistent theme has been that residents feel they are not being listened to. From planning to LTNs and council tax to housing repairs the feedback has been that Labour have simply implemented what they wanted without actually taking any notice of what we were all saying”.

With less than 18 months until new elections Mayor Perry will need to show how he is any different.

“As a reminder Croydon was the London Borough of Culture for 2023, but in the second half of 2024 over £257,000 was paid out from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre”

Spending continues

Whilst Section 114 notices have curbed some spending, Croydon Council has still found unnecessary ways to spend taxpayer money.  We’ve written this year and last about Borough of Culture spending.  As a reminder Croydon was the London Borough of Culture for 2023, but in the second half of 2024 over £257,000 was paid out from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre for amounts above £500. 

We now have data for all of 2024 up to the end of November and this shows for amounts over £500 a total of £813,703.18 has been paid out this year from the “BOROUGH OF CULTURE” cost centre.  No doubt many of the services provided were very good but that does not make them necessary.  It is surprising how exactingly round many of the payments were.  12 payments were made for exactly £3,000.00, 7 for exactly £5,000.00, 6 for £10,000.00, 5 for £2,000.00 and 2 for exactly £40,000.00.  Who were these payments made too?  Well, we’ve listed what we can below but £171,356.72 were made to a “Non Commercial Supplier” and therefore the payee was redacted.  This includes payments of £15,600.00 and £10,600.00 for which some further detail is surely in the public interest. 

Funding for the 2023 borough of culture year came from a range of national, London wide and local sources, but when pensioners have their heating allowances withdrawn, ULEZ imposes costs on the drivers who can least afford them, and Croydon Council tax keeps rising at above inflation rates, how does the Mayor justify these payments? 

“It is surprising how exactingly round many of the payments were.  12 payments were made for exactly £3,000.00, 7 for exactly £5,000.00, 6 for £10,000.00, 5 for £2,000.00 and 2 for exactly £40,000.00”

Borough of Culture Payment totals Jan-Nov 2024:

PayeeTotalNumber of Payments
Redacted £ 171,356.7269
Talawa Theatre Company £   65,000.004
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LIMITED T/A The Circus £   60,628.003
Scanners Inc £   51,616.405
Double Take Projections LTD £   40,000.001
White Label Publishing Ltd £   35,788.6012
Stanley Arts £   29,995.0010
STRANGE CARGO ARTS COMPANY LIMITED £   28,410.002
Jen Kavanagh Ltd £   23,441.758
Sound Intervention Limited £   21,779.842
London Mozart Players £   19,922.003
Four Communications Ltd £   18,764.467
4 Wise Monkeys Ltd T/A Light Up Trails £   11,422.002
YeahPod Music £   11,250.002
Jonathan Samuels T/A Samprojects £   10,701.404
Contemporary Dance Trust LTD £   10,676.241
Profile Security Services Ltd £   10,395.527
The Brit School £   10,000.001
Sysco Productions Ltd £     9,793.001
Norwood JunKAction £     8,500.002
The Young Urban Arts Foundation Limited £     7,790.001
Continental Drifts £     7,200.003
Fool’s Paradise Ltd £     6,903.004
HURLYBURLY THEATRE £     6,750.003
Worldbeaters LTD £     6,690.002
HH Producties £     6,025.001
Bureau Of Silly Ideas Limited £     6,000.001
Croydon with Talent Ltd £     5,685.002
Good Wolf People Ltd £     5,000.001
Croydon Town Centre Bid £     5,000.001
ATELIER ARZU LIMITED £     4,930.0013
Tiny Productions £     4,760.001
LYNNEBEC COLLECTIVE CIC £     4,700.002
New Addington Pathfinders Group_ £     4,500.001
Drum the Bass £     3,800.001
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC £     3,600.002
Bishops Printers Limited T/A The Graphic Design House £     3,364.003
QWERKY ENTERTAINMENT LTD £     3,320.004
Finesse Foreva Ltd £     3,300.001
Pif-Paf Theatre Ltd £     3,290.002
Churchill Support Services Limited £     3,264.001
Llama Digital Ltd £     3,240.001
The Poetry Takeaway Ltd £     3,100.001
Beeja £     3,000.001
Bold Mellon Collective C.I.C. £     3,000.001
Hoggs Hospitality Ltd £     3,000.001
Premm Design Limited £     2,681.502
Levantes Dance Theatre Ltd £     2,400.001
Digital Drama Productions Ltd £     2,250.001
Clocktower Cafe Ltd £     2,171.502
Savvy Theatre £     2,000.001
The Enriched Kids CIC £     2,000.001
SDNA LTD £     2,000.001
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C. £     2,000.001
Zip Design Ltd £     1,950.001
Rap Therapy £     1,950.001
Bainbridge Conservation Ltd. £     1,616.001
Desireé Kongerød McDougall T/A An Act Above £     1,590.001
Amanda Smethurst Consultancy £     1,500.001
Cat and Hutch £     1,300.001
Autistic Community Hub CIC £     1,200.001
Herbe Walmsley £     1,200.001
Reaching Higher £     1,100.001
Glorious Gazebos Ltd £     1,084.081
Croydon Voluntary Action £        985.001
Slide Dance £        900.001
Universal Artists Agency LTD £        750.001
Dhol Academy LTD £        750.001
A Due Bus Ltd £        750.001
The Andy Copps Company Limited £        700.001
Glenn Foster Photography £        675.001
Atalian Servest £        667.971
Oyinkansola Gabriel £        625.001
Zoo Co Theatre Ltd £        600.001
Kerala Cultural and Welfare Association £        600.001
LadyLaird £        550.201
Croydon Natural History & £        505.001
Croydon Minster Church_ £        500.001
Purley BID £        500.001
Age Uk Croydon £        500.001
Cutting Edge Design Ltd £        500.001
TOTAL £ 813,703.18238

“With the spending taps seemingly flowing at the borough HQ once again, surely those in charge at the council won’t be able to justify another bumper Council Tax rise”

As if this wasn’t enough after a resting period, we have seen an unwelcome return to payments from the Culture Growth Fund.  This was used by the previous Labour administration for many of their wasteful projects.  The 65 payments over £500 made to the end of November 2024 totalled £318,696.03 and the totals by payee are listed below.

PayeeTotalNumber of Payments
Redacted£55,625.9821
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC£38,000.001
FESTIVALS AND EVENTS INTERNATIONAL LTD (FEI)£35,715.003
ARTANGEL TRUST (THE)£23,051.001
Think Events (London) Ltd£18,200.001
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.£15,199.001
Door 22 Limited£14,630.003
Beeja£14,050.001
Giant Cheese Limited£13,200.001
Learn to Dream Ltd£13,009.952
WIGGLE WONDERLAND COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY£12,750.002
Sound Diplomacy Limited£10,000.001
Emergency Exit Arts£7,550.001
K4 Medics Ltd T/A K4 Medical Services£7,395.003
London Calling Arts Ltd£6,562.502
Stuco Design Limited£5,950.002
Premm Design Limited£4,720.002
Continental Drifts£3,460.001
Browne Jacobson LLP_£3,275.803
Zip Design Ltd£2,975.002
Vauxhall City Farm Limited£2,792.001
Stanley Arts£2,500.001
HandMade Theatre£1,300.001
TGTM Ltd£1,195.001
Four Communications Ltd£1,000.001
Caroline Vallance t/a Caroline Coates£960.001
Profile Security Services Ltd£904.801
Clocktower Cafe Ltd£797.501
Jen Kavanagh Ltd£700.001
LadyLaird£627.501
Norwood JunKAction£600.001
Total£318,696.0365

We can only hope that Croydon Councils New Year’s Resolution will be to move to sensible tax and spend.  With the spending taps seemingly flowing at the borough HQ once again, surely those in charge at the council won’t be able to justify another bumper Council Tax rise. 

The Kroll report on the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls

“What did ministers know, when did they know? I’d put a third question though. Why didn’t they find out?” – Diane Abbott, Sierra Leone Debate, House of Commons 18 May 1998

In early December the Kroll report on the refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls was published.  Refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls overran by £37.5 million.  Many details of this overspend came out in the Grant Thornton audit report issued in 2022.

The council website describes the Kroll report as “an independent review looking into the refurbishment of Fairfield Halls and related matters.

It was commissioned by the council to provide clarity over the probity and integrity of decision making around the Fairfield Halls refurbishment project, the reasons the project ran over budget and schedule, governance failures and whether there was evidence of potential wrongdoing by individuals.”

The report is 260 pages, some select extracts are below. One of the reoccurring themes is the poor flow of information from council officers to Councillors.  The refurbishment of the Fairfield Halls was controversial from the point it started.  If the elected representatives running the borough were not receiving the information they needed on the biggest building project in the borough, (to quote Diane Abbott) “Why didn’t they find out?”

“The risks of not going through a formal procurement process and allocating such a complex project to an untested company were never drawn out for elected members”

1 Introduction

“At the time of the decision to grant BBB this project, the company had only just become operational (in January 2016) and had not yet built a single property. It had no track record of delivering any projects, and did not have any experience delivering any projects with the specialist nature of refurbishment of an entertainment venue. Due to the nature of the company structure between LBC and BBB, it was decided to offer the wholly Council-owned property to BBB under a license to deliver the refurbishment and therefore no competitive procurement was carried out to assess suitability of the delivery body. The risks of not going through a formal procurement process and allocating such a complex project to an untested company were never drawn out for elected members in the June 2016 Cabinet report.”

“From interviews with LBC staff outlining the decision-making processes that existed at LBC at the time, it appears that Ms Negrini had ultimate responsibility for the decision to recommend BBB to the Project”

3 Executive Summary

“While we have not found evidence of any fraud or direct personal gain, our Review has identified a number of instances where information was seemingly deliberately withheld from, or mischaracterised to, Cabinet and a number of conflicts of interest and issues around BBB independence in relation to LBC. These findings reflect the concerns raised by the external auditor in RIPI2, who stated that, as a result of there being no properly executed contractual or loan documents in place, stated view of BBB as an independent company was open to challenge, and that the lawfulness of payments made to BBB in relation to the Project were called into question.”

“Despite the legal advice received recommending that governance and other structures be put in place that ensured BBB operated independently of LBC (to avoid unlawful behaviour over state aid, procurement), we note that in the following areas, BBB and LBC were not acting independently of one another and the governance structures set out in the delegated decision document were not implemented.”

“From interviews with LBC staff outlining the decision-making processes that existed at LBC at the time, it appears that Ms Negrini had ultimate responsibility for the decision to recommend BBB to the Project. We have not identified any formal documented decision detailing the rationale for this decision or the basis on which it was made and we were unable to confirm this with Ms Negrini”

“The way the Project was structured meant that BBB was subject to substantial commercial risk, as the Project was only viable as part of the College Green scheme. It should also be made clear that as BBB was wholly owned and wholly funded by LBC, LBC alone bore the full risk of any failed development projects undertaken by BBB.”

“BBB was ultimately wholly funded by LBC loans. This differed from the legal advice contained in the 16 March 2015 Cabinet report58 as outlined in 3.2 which set out several considerations relating to the anything that could create or reinforce a relationship of subordination or dependency between the Development Company and the Council should be avoided The fact that LBC did not follow the legal advice contained in the Cabinet report or the legal advice obtained from Pinsent Mason (see section 3.2.1) we remain of the view that the independence of Brick by Brick is open to challenge ensured that its own legal advice was followed.”

“Several LBC staff have told Kroll in interview that the BBB team was, in practice, treated as an extension of LBC itself rather than as a structurally and operationally independent third party. From January 2016 until June 2018, BBB was staffed primarily by LBC Officers that were seconded to the company.”

“Our review has however identified that at these points in time, the £30m investment reported to Cabinet appears to have been little more than a figure that LBC wished to spend”

3.3 Development of Project budget, scope and estimated completion date

“Our review has however identified that at these points in time, the £30m investment reported to Cabinet appears to have been little more than a figure that LBC wished to spend. It had been derived from a core scope of works which did not comprise a tested design, and existing estimates were significantly above this figure. This information was not clearly communicated to Cabinet.”

3.4 Governance of the Project

“In practice, governance and control of the Project at an LBC Officer level was concentrated within a small group of individuals within LBC from the Executive Leadership Team, from Finance and Resources and Place directorates. These individuals often fulfilled a number of different roles across the various governance structures.”

3.5 Lack of robust reports to Cabinet / Council

“We have identified a number of instances where formal reports to Members were not full and frank or lacked sufficient detail,”

“The impact of the Project overspend on LBC was not always reported accurately by officers to Cabinet and Scrutiny and Overview. Firstly, our review has identified references (see below) by LBC Officers to the fact that the overspend did not have a financial impact on LBC itself, and was a BBB issue (which is contrary to one of the key reasons LBC incorporated BBB, namely to obtain distributions of its profits, see section 3.2). As LBC was the sole shareholder and sole funder of BBB, any impact on BBB’s profits would ultimately impact LBC.”

“By the end of 2018, several senior LBC Officers were aware of the budget overrun, but also failed to report this to Cabinet”

3.6 Conclusion

“Throughout 2018, more and more senior Officers at LBC and Mr Lacey as Managing Director of BBB, became aware of the fact that the Project was going to go over the 2016 Cabinet agreed budget of £30m. However this overspend appears not to have been formally reported to Cabinet. By the end of 2018, several senior LBC Officers were aware of the budget overrun, but also failed to report this to Cabinet.”

“Ms Negrini was notified of the Project overspend in September 2018 and failed to ensure that this was reported publicly at that time:”

“Our Review also found that certain Members (Cllrs Butler, Hall, Godfrey and Newman (all LAB) in particular) received frequent updates and briefings from LBC Officers. As stated above, while we are not able to conclude comprehensively on whether they knew the full extent of the issues related to the Project, we know that the Project was discussed at these briefings, as detailed in the body of the report. We also note that because there was no formal reporting mechanism on the Project specifically, there was no platform for the full Council to be made aware of the issues with the Project apart from the very high-level business plan.”

5.7 Conclusions

“Initial cost estimates presented by KWA in June 2010, based on specifications put forward by LBC at the time, estimated that different iterations of the” Project would cost between £40 and £70 million. Despite this, in 2011/12 LBC decided to commit £27 million to the Project in its Capital Programme over the proceeding five years, £13million short of KWA’s lowest initial estimates.”

6.8 Conclusions

“We have identified omissions in the documents provided to the November 2015 Scrutiny and Overview Committee by Ms Negrini (then Executive Director of Place) that meant there was a lack of clarity in decision making”

“Our Review also found that certain Members (Cllrs Butler, Hall, Godfrey and Newman (all LAB) in particular) received frequent updates and briefings from LBC Officers”

The full report can be found at: https://www.croydon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-12/kroll-report-RS2-2023.pdf

Diane Abbott, Sierra Leone Debate, House of Commons 18 May 1998

Main Photo Source: Jim Linwoodhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/brighton/6354011431/

Battle of Ideas Festival 2024

By Mike Swadling

Once again on the 19/20 October I attended the Battle of Ideas Festival from the Academy of Ideas in Church House near Westminster Abbey.

The event hosts almost 100 panels, interviews, and discussions on a range of topics with Free Speech and debate being are the core of it all.

The events started with an introduction from Baroness Fox of Buckley (Claire Fox) speaking about the importance of free speech and those who support it.

The panels were as always excellent and were an opportunity to say hello to some people we’ve spoke with on Podcasts like Sam Bidwell and Dominic Frisby.

A few statements and take away’s from various debates stood with me from the day:

  • In the 2024 election the biggest indication of losing vote share was being an incumbent.
  • When did society fall apart? When people stopped going to church on a Sunday.
  • BSE stands for butchers shop empty.
  • Charity shops do not have to pay business rates, this is part of why they are filling the high streets.
  • We’ve removed traffic from high streets which is hurting trade.
  • People who run business want car park spaces.
  • As cars get cleaner we whine more about cars and pollution.
  • Why are cars welcome at out of town supermarkets but try to park outside Boots and you’re treated like a criminal.
  • Why not put housing above these out of town supermarket car parks.

There was much more but these stuck with me, and the battle is a great way to find out about a range of subjects.

But the battle isn’t just the debates, there are plenty of stalls around the events were stalls from the SDP, Reform UK, the Free Speech Union, Don’t Divide Us, #Together, The Freedom Association, and Politics in Pubs among many others.

The SDP had a well attended stall and made an impact across many debates.

In the hall I helped on our associates staff for Politics in Pubs.

We happened to be placed next to the Communist Party of Britain Marxist-Leninist who despite our political differences were free speech believes and great chaps.

Just around the hall was our friends in the Freedom association accompanied by a leaflet we will soon be using to campaign for them in Redhill.

FIRE, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression were also in the hall and we have a small goodie bag of their merchandise to give away at our Christmas drinks. 

Paul Embery saw the irony of some of the groups together in the hall, but summed up the spirt of the event.

Tickets for the 2025 Battle of Ideas are on sale now, and I can say it’s well worth it.

Could there be a worse idea for Croydon?

“Instead of squeezing businesses they should scrap wasteful spending if they want to fix their finances.”

The Sun and Mail reported recently that Croydon Council is considering charging drivers to use their free company parking spaces.

The proposal is to implement the workplace parking levy in Croydon, and impose it on businesses with 11 or more privately owned spaces.  The scheme is intended to reduce the use of private vehicles and raise revenue for our (de facto) bankrupt borough.

Benjamin Elks, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance summed this proposal up by saying “Instead of squeezing businesses they should scrap wasteful spending if they want to fix their finances.”

“Just as people are returning to offices the worst thing Croydon could do is put people off going back to the town centre with more tax”

As any visitor to Croydon town centre will be aware, the Whitgift Centre once the heart of the borough is hollowed out, and many offices have closed.  Many people no longer visit the town centre due to the lack of shops and evening entertainment, and the ongoing problem of crime.

Just as people are returning to offices the worst thing Croydon could do is put people off going back to the town centre with more tax.

Perhaps as an alternative the council should have cut more unnecessary spending.

“There is no more expensive thing than a free gift”

Borough of Culture

As I’ve written about before between April 2023 and March 2024, Croydon was the London Borough of Culture.  For which the council committed to spending £975,000, with £1,350,000 coming from the GLA, and £1,900,000 expected from Arts Council England and National Lottery Heritage.

Even for the money funded by other agencies this is still taxpayer funds being wasted away on what, posters at train stations?  I can’t remember much else.  Whether you prefer the Japanese proverb “There is nothing more expensive than something free” or French renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne’s, “There is no more expensive thing than a free gift”, you can be sure that Croydon council taxpayers picked up costs for events even when supposedly ‘funded’ by other agencies.

When you see your council tax rise 15%, flat income tax allowances erode your earnings, local services reduce and winter fuel payments for pensioners go, remember those posters about the Borough of Culture.  You can also decide if these payments from the councils “Borough of Culture” cost centre were a good use of your taxes.

Total funds over £500 paid out by Croydon Council for “Borough of Culture” £2,527,404.02.

Table of vendors paid over £1000.

Vendor NameTotal Payments May22 – May24
Redacted£428,787.70
Stanley Arts£266,875.39
London Mozart Players£145,762.50
Turf Projects_£145,000.00
White Label Publishing Ltd£136,468.60
Talawa Theatre Company£136,000.00
Think Events (London) Ltd£121,551.67
BH Live Ltd£107,500.00
Savvy Theatre£73,500.00
Four Communications Ltd£65,597.66
The Brit School£65,000.00
THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH LIMITED T/A The Circus£60,628.00
Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.£50,750.00
Croydon Town Centre Bid£45,000.00
Dance Umbrella£45,000.00
Theatre – Rites£42,000.00
Scanners Inc£41,000.00
Zoo Co Theatre Ltd£35,497.31
Apsara Arts£32,475.00
Jen Kavanagh Ltd£31,309.05
Boundless Theatre£30,000.00
Contemporary Dance Trust LTD£29,000.00
STRANGE CARGO ARTS COMPANY LIMITED£28,410.00
CR34 t/a Mr Fox£28,000.00
Achates Philanthropy Limited£22,725.00
Croydon Pride Ltd£20,000.00
Sound Intervention Limited£13,920.00
Croydonites/CROYDONITES FESTIVAL OF NEW THEATRE CIC£13,600.00
Llama Digital Ltd£11,520.00
4 Wise Monkeys Ltd T/A Light Up Trails£11,422.00
Bold Mellon Collective C.I.C.£10,500.00
Profile Security Services Ltd£10,395.52
Beeja£10,000.00
YeahPod Music£10,000.00
New Addington Peoples’ Carnival£10,000.00
Designblock Studio Ltd£9,895.00
Sysco Productions Ltd£9,793.00
ATMA£9,700.00
Premm Design Limited£8,911.50
Jonathan Samuels T/A Samprojects£8,475.40
The Young Urban Arts Foundation Limited£7,790.00
Anglia Sign Casting ltd£7,385.50
HURLYBURLY THEATRE£6,750.00
Worldbeaters LTD£6,690.00
CLUB SODA_£6,590.00
Bureau Of Silly Ideas Limited£6,000.00
Learn to Dream Ltd£5,511.00
E-People.Com Ltd£5,100.00
London Road Business Ltd£5,000.00
Croydon with Talent Ltd£5,000.00
Good Wolf People Ltd£5,000.00
Tiny Productions£4,760.00
LYNNEBEC COLLECTIVE CIC£4,700.00
Norwood JunKAction£4,500.00
Drum the Bass£3,800.00
Cat and Hutch£3,760.00
Tribal Entertainment Limited t/a the Romano Sidoli consultancy£3,750.00
QWERKY ENTERTAINMENT LTD£3,320.00
Finesse Foreva Ltd£3,300.00
Pif-Paf Theatre Ltd£3,290.00
BH Live Enterprises Ltd£3,018.75
Hoggs Hospitality Ltd£3,000.00
Graeme Miall t/a One Tree£3,000.00
LadyLaird£2,500.00
Digital Drama Productions Ltd£2,250.00
ATELIER ARZU LIMITED£2,120.00
Paul Hudson Associates£2,100.00
The Enriched Kids CIC£2,000.00
SDNA LTD£2,000.00
Zip Design Ltd£1,950.00
Rap Therapy£1,950.00
Giant Cheese Limited£1,847.00
Studio Scamps ltd£1,650.00
Bainbridge Conservation Ltd.£1,616.00
Autistic Community Hub CIC£1,200.00
Vauxhall City Farm Limited£1,188.50
Reaching Higher£1,100.00
Clocktower Cafe Ltd£1,084.00

“When you see your council tax rise 15%, flat income tax allowances erode your earnings, local services reduce and winter fuel payments for pensioners go, remember those posters about the Borough of Culture”

Vendor name redacted payments over £10,000.

Payment DateVendor NameAmount
12-Sep-23Redacted£60,000.00
14-Aug-23Redacted£47,548.00
11-Oct-23Redacted£46,000.00
07-Aug-23Redacted£30,000.00
26-Jan-23Redacted£24,000.00
22-Jan-24Redacted£15,600.00
28-May-24Redacted£10,600.00
08-Feb-23Redacted£10,000.00
21-Jun-23Redacted£10,000.00
11-Oct-23Redacted£10,000.00
18-Dec-23Redacted£10,000.00

GE2024 – None of the above

My tuppenceworth speech by Mike Swadling

“What I’m saying is, I think only an idiot would vote for me.”

That could have been Rishi Sunak’s general election campaign strategy”

2024 was in many ways the ‘none of the above’ election. In the classic 1985 movie Brewster’s Millions, Richard Pryor’s character say’s

“I figure voting for Salvino or Heller is just as silly as them running for office, which is just as silly as me running for office. The only thing that’s silly is the power of the people’s vote. And I think the people should use it to vote for… None of the above.”

He’s asked, “Mr. Brewster, are we to understand that you actually don’t want anyone to vote for you?”

And answers, “What I’m saying is, I think only an idiot would vote for me.”

That could have been Rishi Sunak’s general election campaign strategy, and judging by voter turnout it could have also almost been Labour’s

It came as a surprise to me to learn that ‘none of the above’ is a popular international option, which includes ‘none of the above’ on ballots as a standard option, in Argentina, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Spain, Kazakhstan, Switzerland, Uruguay and the US state of Nevada.

“Comparing 2024 votes to the average of the previous three elections, the total votes were down 9%. The Labour’s vote was down 10%. The Tory vote was down 47%”

We should acknowledge that 54.7% of the vote went to the Conservatives and Labour. But in many ways the big winners of the election were anyone out of power.  We saw in Scotland the SNP get pushed back, and across England and Wales the Greens, Reform and independent MPs doing particularly well.

We are Democrats. Labour won a stonking majority, and they now have a mandate to govern. But, it’s clear they’ve not gained a popular mandate. I’m hardly the first to say it, and although half the people here might not really remember it, this isn’t Labour’s win in 1997.

Comparing 2024 votes to the average of the previous three elections, the total votes were down 9%. The Labour’s vote was down 10%. The Tory vote was down 47% compared to the last three elections. Reform was up 6% on 2015. 2015 being the obvious comparison with UKIP. The Lib Dems were up 24% and the Greens were up 123%.

What happened locally? It’s hard to make a direct comparison in Croydon due to the constituency changes. Those that don’t know, Streatham came into Croydon North. and Croydon has increased in population. But roughly what’s happened? In 2015, 2019 and 2024, I’ve left out 2017, because it really was quite an anomaly. Elections have had virtually the same number of voters, despite big increases in population and for this last election adding Streatham into that mix.

“Reform’s vote is locally, back to the same level UKIP received in 2015. This was achieved with no ground game and barely visible candidates, which suggests there’s some room for growth”

Compared to the last election in 2019, the Conservative vote has dropped by 12.2%, but Labour’s has dropped by 1.2%, again despite adding Streatham, which is a predominantly Labour area. The LibDem vote was basically a wash between now and the last election. The big changes were the Greens up 27.6% on 2019 and Reform up 54.9%, of course Reform didn’t run in Croydon South in 2019.

Reform’s vote is locally, back to the same level UKIP received in 2015. This was achieved with no ground game and barely visible candidates, which suggests there’s some room for growth. Much as it pains me to say this, the real success story was the Greens, who basically achieved a 75% higher vote than they did in 2015.

I believe the Greens are the ‘none of the above’ vote for many people who don’t know what their actual policies are. The local elections were held in 2021, which included the delayed locals from 2020, where the first local elections in many areas since the high point of UKIP.  In ward, after ward, after ward, the UKIP vote went down, basically because they didn’t stand a candidate, by exactly the same amount as the Green Party vote went up. Now, this may be because of a particular demographic change in the area. It may be because the people that wanted out of Europe also wanted net zero. It may also be because they were voting for ‘none of the above’ in 2015 and they were voting for none-of-the-above in 2021.  In saying this I acknowledge as someone who stood for UKIP, many may have voted for the party, primarily as they represented at the time ‘none of the above’.

Croydon, though, is still largely a two-party town. 73% of the total vote. But these same two parties saw their vote go down by 23,000 over the last election, whilst other parties’ votes went up by 22,000.

“if you deliver on your promises you can win.  This may have also been a dig at some senior people in his party, but it could be rather a positive sign of what we need politicians to do”

Fewer people are voting, more are tactically voting, and more are voting for smaller parties.  I think it’s reasonable to assume people are voting with more knowledge rather than just voting for the traditional red or blue party.

Here in Croydon South, Chris Philp pulled out an unexpected result and won. His vote went down, and there looks like an awful lot of tactical voting, but still Chris prevails as a local Conservative.  On the night, he put it down to delivering on his promises locally, which included DEMOC, and planning.  On the night he also asked Mayor Jason Perry to commit to the Purley Pool.  He said, basically, if you deliver on your promises you can win.  This may have also been a dig at some senior people in his party, but it could be rather a positive sign of what we need politicians to do. Hopefully it catches on for the future.

Transcribed by https://turboscribe.ai/dashboard

Campaign for Liberty – My tuppenceworth

My tuppenceworth speech by Mike Swadling

“the first post-lockdown election, and I don’t actually remember anyone talking about the lockdown at all, despite it being perhaps the most significant thing since the war that’s happened in this country”

In August 2020, among one of many versions of lockdown, I wrote about the need for a political party to run on a ticket of liberty. My article started by saying the line, ‘Growing up in the 80s it was common to hear “I can say what I like, it’s a free country”’.  But that’s really not felt true for some years now, has it?

Now, we’ve had an election, the first post-lockdown election, and I don’t actually remember anyone talking about the lockdown at all, despite it being perhaps the most significant thing since the war that’s happened in this country. I no longer think a freedom-focused party is the best way forward. People are used to voting for smaller parties, which was a really interesting point of note out of the election, but Reform has stepped up as the overwhelming front-runner among liberty-minded people.

You may not think of Reform as a libertarian party, but it is the standout party in that space. I don’t think there’s room for anyone else. The election has seen a rise in the enemies of freedom, the Green Party and independent candidates, who stand for the absolute antithesis of freedom. Of course, overall, it was a big win for Labour, and they now have a huge majority in government.

What’s the landscape we’re now facing? Well, there’s no money. We had the King’s speech today, and from what I could see they didn’t really plan to spend a lot of money in it. So, they’re going to focus on that other socialist passion – Control.

“There’s going to be a need for a freedom-focused campaign, because the socialist in power will want to control us, especially because they can’t spend any more of our money”

I wrote this before the King’s speech, and for those of you that have looked through what’s happening, it’s clear that Labour are focus on control. There’s going to be a need for a freedom-focused campaign, because the socialist in power will want to control us, especially because they can’t spend any more of our money, as there ain’t none. To build a campaign you need a bit of a gap in the market, you need an opportunity.  You need people to think about the fact that freedoms important to them, and you need something that motivates them.

If there was a voter’s equivalent to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it might start with economics and some basic safety. Blair got this right, there was no gap in the market to push back against some of Blair’s reforms, because frankly we were rich and safe under Blair’s government most of the time. He didn’t allow that gap in the market to exist. Sir Keir will allow that gap, we are not rich, and we are not safe.  Indeed he’s already doing some things to ensure we will be less rich and less safe.

So that creates an incentive, a push, a drive, for people to say, what’s going wrong here, what can we do? Let’s look at what he is and isn’t doing:

  • he’s doing nothing on housing, which is for a certain generation at least, the single biggest impact in terms of wealth and concern for people,
  • he’s making Britain a clean energy superpower – which is going to make us poorer,
  • and of course he’s taking back our streets by releasing prisoners.

If you look at some of their plans for liberty, in their manifesto, they want to close the gender pay gap, that sounds fine in and of itself, but of course that means telling you how to run your business.

They’ve got a promise to introduce mandatory disability and ethnicity pay gap reporting, again telling you how to run your business, taking away your options and opportunity. They want to shift the negative attitudes around diversity, equity, and inclusion. Interesting timing as you may have seen that Microsoft are closing their in-house DEI department today.

Shifting negative attitudes, if you’ve made a manifesto commitment to that, I’m not sure that you’re talking about changing people’s attitude by doing something different. I think you might be talking about them forcing a change in people’s attitudes, again another massive impact on people’s freedom. They’re banning conversion therapy, the therapy is I think a rather ridiculous thing, but again it’s a freedom, it’s a choice, it’s people’s religious expression, it’s people’s right to air their personal views, that’s being taken away.  We also know this Labour party was massively sympathetic to lockdowns and taking pretty much all our freedoms away, and they are very sympathetic to ID cards. Again, this creates an opportunity to campaign for freedom.

“What do we need to do? I think we need a minimum viable product for freedom”

What do we need to do? I think we need a minimum viable product for freedom, a minimum set of things that most of us can agree on and work towards. I would propose it to be:

  • free speech,
  • the rule of law,
  • democracy,
  • evolution of power from the centre,
  • and value for money from what the government does spend money on.

For the last one, no matter what you think the government should spend on or not, I’d hope we’d all agree we ought to get value for money from it.

On line’s important and useful, but it can’t be replaced by real world activity. If you want to grow a movement, sending people down the rabbit hole of clicking on the same links all of the time and getting the same things presented back is not the way to go. You need to get out to the real world and reach out to new people. 

We need street stalls, leafleting at stations, leafleting at schools. I wrote back in 2000, 5,000 leaflets, colour double-sided, A5, decent weight of paper, it’s £100. This is not cheap, but it’s not generally unaffordable. Even cheaper is a press release which is free.  All you need to do is write to your local democracy reporter.  If it’s good enough for the pizza firm, it’s good enough for us.

Focus on local issues if you can, partner with national groups, but frankly do something. If we can’t partner with a national group, we will just do it ourselves. We will get our own things out, we will start putting something in people’s hands to say, do you want to be told what you can and can’t say? Do you want to be told what you can and can’t do? Two years ago, I’m not sure people would have listened to us, but that can change with the new government.

Transcribed by https://turboscribe.ai/