Mike Swadling – Page 3 – Croydon Constitutionalists

Warmer since when?

“the coldest Christmas day on record since 1659 was in 2010 – so much for global warming”

Only 11 times in London in the last 60 years has snow fallen on Christmas day, this was not always so. The river Thames held its first frost fair in 1608 and the last was in 1814. These took place during the Little Ice Age lasting from about 1300 to about 1850. Clearly, we have warmed since then. The Little Ice Age started without man made input and ended before any serious global industrialisation. It’s almost as if temperatures change without a man-made cause. Incidentally the coldest Christmas day on record since 1659 was in 2010 – so much for global warming.

“tax records show the Britons extensively grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century. Compared to then we are colder not warmer.”

What if I was to pick other dates, different dates to measure warming. The English wine market is once again growing, centred in the south. Of course, the Romans grew grapes and made wine at Hadrian’s Wall, not something we could do today without artificial heaters. Later tax records show the Britons extensively grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century. Compared to then we are colder not warmer.

The later growing took place in the Medieval Warm Period lasting from around 950 to 1250 AD. The warming during this period saw the Vikings break out of Scandinavia, conquer much of Europe and even grow barley in Greenland. The same warming in the east produced more rain, and grass for the grazing animals that Genghis Khan’s Mongolian horseman rode and fed off. This abundance allowed his descendants to conquer much of Eurasia. The Medieval Warm Period was not caused by car journeys, aircraft, coal fuelled power stations or even the Saxons use of trial by fire. The climate changes and it often has little to do with man. Compared to then we are colder not warmer.

The climate changes, yes, we know that. Global temperature is not fixed, we know we had ice ages, we know we have had warming periods. The premise here is the following (with thanks to Dennis Prager):

The globe is warming.
The warming is man-made – if this isn’t because of human influenced greenhouse gas emissions, then the currently prescribed actions are meaningless.
And finally, that the warming will be catastrophic – there is little point in acting if the impact is only two more weeks of summer and not much else.

Warmer since when? For someone to say the globe is warming, requires them to state over which period they are measuring, and justify why that period rather than some other timeframe. To believe the last two premises you must believe in the predictions of people who have told us food would run out in the 1980s, that New York City is currently underwater, that Britain would suffer a “famine” within 10 years from 2002 and that in 2009 we only had “eight years to save the planet”. I ask anyone who believes these people to get in touch with me about a bridge I have for sale.

“All the abundance you see around you, that has allowed billions of people to move from calorie insecurity to having commodity goods in our lifetimes, is fed by fuel, mostly fossil fuels”

If we do assume global warming is a threat, then what can we do about it? Let’s not start by throwing away civilizations’ manna from heaven. All the abundance you see around you, that has allowed billions of people to move from calorie insecurity to having commodity goods in our lifetimes, is fed by fuel, mostly fossil fuels. It is a manna showing no end. We have more oil reserves than all the oil we have ever used, with new technology opening even further access to fuel. If you have a proven, working, source of fuel that reduces pollution, great let’s use it. If you are saying we need to change the basis of our modern civilisation and put at risk the food supply chains for billions of people, you better be dammed sure of your predictions.

Despite the supposedly dangerous level of CO2 of 1 part per 2400, life has never been better. We may have a cost of living crisis, but prior to lockdown poverty had never been lower. An estimated 3.2 billion people, or 42% of the total world population, are now in the global middle class. Many of them enjoying today in countries we used to consider third world, a better standard of living than some of us grew up with.

Humans are exceptional. 200 years ago Global life expectancy was under 30, today life expectancy in the poorest countries is over 50, the global average is over 70. When I was at school people starved in many countries, today hunger has almost disappeared except where war or governments stop food supplies. Since the turn of the century the expanding economies of China and India have meant China has a middle class the size of the population of Europe, with India only a few years behind.

Despite expanding populations and doomsday predictions the number of people dying from extreme weather events continues to collapse. The climate has changed for millennia before mankind, during our existence and will continue to change for many more years to come without our interference. For over 30 years ‘experts’ on hefty grants have told us of impending doom from global warming, rising sea levels, agricultural failures, and a scorched planet. None of this has happened, and the planet is greening every year.

Is global warming a threat? I don’t think so, but maybe. However I have no doubt by making use of the energy buried all around us, human ingenuity will not just rise to any challenge, we will excel and overcome it.

This article was first published in Blacklist Press’ Free Speech.

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Déjà vu all over again – the sorry tale of Croydon council.

By Mike Swadling

“Our council has ruined our town centre, lost tens of millions on commercial and residential property speculation, paid hundreds of thousands if not millions, subsidising entertainment for the few, all whilst reducing core services for the many”

Our recent email bulletin started with the following statement: “We have heard once again that Croydon Council is declaring de facto bankruptcy. This will no doubt lead to more taxes and worse services for the people of Croydon. Regardless of whether you believe in a small, limited government (as we do) or believe the state should provide extensive support, Croydon Council is surely a salutary tale of why regardless of the overall scale, government should focus on doing less, better. Our council has ruined our town centre, lost tens of millions on commercial and residential property speculation, paid hundreds of thousands if not millions, subsidising entertainment for the few, all whilst reducing core services for the many. We needed them, the vulnerable people who rely on the service they provide, needed them, to do fewer things better.”

In a sorry tale of déjà vu on the 22^nd November Croydon Council again issued a Section 114 notice, declaring de facto bankruptcy. This is the 3^rd such notice, starting in 2020, after which Croydon was granted a £120 million bailout loan by the government to balance the books.

“The council is £1.6 billion in debt, with £47 million in annual debt repayment.”

The council is £1.6 billion in debt, with £47 million in annual debt repayment. In the councils Section 114 report they state “The conclusion is that, in order to balance its budget, Croydon needs to reduce its spending by £130m next financial year alone (before any council tax increase) which is simply untenable out of a net budget of some £300m.”

In their Medium Term Financial Strategy report the council sets out the staggering amount of new Capitalisation Directions that may be required.

On these sums it is almost impossible to see how the council can meet its statutory requirements and save the funds necessary to balance the budget without additional help. Whatever the path forward for Croydon it must start with realistic budgeting and basic accounting skills. For some months, any Conservative councillor I have spoken with has been at pains to tell me the budget situation in Croydon is far worse than they expected. Of course, some of this is politics but when you look at the figures of budget corrections it’s hard to disagree with the basic premise.

“this represents £9.5 million less for social services, libraries, local roads, swimming pools and other services. This one mistake represents an additional £63 needed from each of the 150,100 homes in Croydon”

The level of over estimation of Parking and traffic income is clearly wrong, but unforgivable is the £9.5m a year that has been taken from the ring-fenced Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The BBC report notes “The HRA is only supposed to be used for the authority’s social housing stock and it is from this account that maintenance and repair costs come for council homes. “What we’ve established is that there has been an overcharge of the HRA for several years,”. This may sound like just an accounting issue, but this represents £9.5 million less for social services, libraries, local roads, swimming pools and other services. This one mistake represents an additional £63 needed from each of the 150,100 homes in Croydon. If this were the only mistake it might be forgivable but as the above table shows this is one of many. No wonder in 2020 the council’s external auditors Grant Thornton described a council where “There has been collective corporate blindness to both the seriousness of the financial position and the urgency with which actions needed to be taken”.

I was pleased to be able to recently speak to the TaxPayers’ Alliance about some of the Council’s misspending.

The council is taking steps to improve the situation. £90 million in savings have been made and £50 million of assets have been disposed of, with a further £100 million expected to be made in sales over the next few years. The Colonnades retail park is included in this, the council purchased the Colonnades hoping to make money but will no doubt end up with a quick sale whilst still holding the debt from making the original purchase. If only they had listened to those warning of this at the time.

Taxpayer funding of cultural events and community organisations by the council has finally reduced. This hasn’t stopped the council being a sponsor of Croydon Pride yet again. A great day out, but one surely not needing funding from a bankrupt council.

“At the time of a cost of living crisis, unnecessary spending is already underway”

More worryingly in 2023 Croydon becomes the London Borough of Culture. Funded by the Mayor of London, the “London Borough of Culture award aims to shine a light on the character and diversity of London’s boroughs and bring culture to everyone”. At the time of a cost of living crisis, unnecessary spending is already underway as the table below from the councils records shows.

Payment Date	Vendor Name	Vendor Type	Cost Centre Description	Amount	Invoice Creation Date
23-May-22	Stanley Arts	Commercial	BOROUGH OF CULTURE	£3,000.00	25-Apr-22
23-May-22	Stanley Arts	Commercial	BOROUGH OF CULTURE	£1,500.00	25-Apr-22
08-Jun-22	Savvy Theatre	Commercial	BOROUGH OF CULTURE	£3,000.00	12-May-22
25-Jul-22	Stanley Arts	Commercial	BOROUGH OF CULTURE	£75,000.00	27-Jun-22
20-Sep-22	Fashion Meets Music Collective C.I.C.	Commercial	BOROUGH OF CULTURE	£50,000.00	07-Sep-22
28-Sep-22	Savvy Theatre	Commercial	BOROUGH OF CULTURE	£10,000.00	07-Sep-22

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

The French Renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne noted “There is no more expensive thing than a free gift.” With Croydon Councils record of misallocating funds, and run away spending, Croydon’s, London’s, and the nations taxpayers who are bailing out the council have plenty of reason to worry.

Croydon Mayor, Jason Perry has noted “Even with Government support, the coming years will be incredibly financially challenging for Croydon Council. We must balance our books and become a much smaller organisation.” Maybe a good way to start would be for him to politely decline to waste more taxpayers cash on the London Borough of Culture award.

Being priced out of the job market – What’s wrong with paying the living wage?

By Mike Swadling

Many of us are used to buying and selling goods on eBay and similar sites. You will have bid, suggested, or offered a price, you will have agreed the price and exchanged the goods. As the buyer, would you have wanted the council to come in and tell you that price is wrong, and you have to pay more? As the seller would you want the council to have increased the price and have maybe lost you the sale?

I originally wrote a version of this article in 2018 about my local councils plan to make Croydon “a living wage borough, not just a living wage council”. The council was already paying the living wage for their own staff and expecting it of its contractors. Predictably the council went de facto bankrupt with the issuing of now three Section 114 notices.

The living wage is a voluntary minimum hourly rate for those 18 and older set by the Living Wage Foundation. In London, the rate is £11.95 per hour and in the rest of the UK it is set at £10.90. This compares to the legal minimum wage of £9.50 per hour for those over 22.

“If an employer can only make £10 an hour of value from someone, but must pay above this, they simply won’t employ them.”

Now on the face of it what’s wrong with paying people more, and who doesn’t want more pay? The problem comes when some outside force, say a branch of government, decides the best rate of pay for an employer to pay. If an employer can only make £10 an hour of value from someone, but must pay above this, they simply won’t employ them. We know if governments increase the price of something it sells less, and we get less of it in the market. Tax on cigarettes has been part of the reason for the collapse in the number of people smoking. We tax energy to reduce its use to theoretically help the environment. It follows on that increasing the price of work will lead to less work.

” If, however, you want to earn some money but don’t have the skills to generate value above the living wage, then the rungs of opportunity have been removed from your ladder.”

What jobs are there going to be less of? It’s quite common for well-educated, middle-class children to use a period of unpaid internship as a means of getting into a profession. This is fine if you can afford periods of unemployment and are suited to the types of roles offering internships. If, however, you want to earn some money but don’t have the skills to generate value above the living wage, then the rungs of opportunity have been removed from your ladder. These aren’t jobs or wages that will sustain families but are jobs that give you opportunity to build and grow your skills. In a cost-of-living crisis these might simply be jobs that allow you to heat your home or keep that roof above your head.

Rational people will take jobs that earn them the most money consummate to their skills and desire to select specific types of roles. Increasing your skills and taking risks improves your work opportunities. If, for whatever reason, you leave education with relatively few qualifications, you will likely need what the Americans call ‘burger flipping’ jobs, to build up your experience to a point where you can command ten, twenty, or more pounds an hour. With rampant inflation hurting those often-older people on fixed incomes, you might need these jobs to keep your financial head above water. The government and many well-meaning councils, businesses, and charities are interfering in the rational choice and freedom of someone to earn the most, and cope as best they can.

This article was also published by Blacklist Press.

I told you so

By Mike Swadling

Originally published in Blacklist Press in March, Mike writes about the counterproductive nature of cancel culture.

” Francis Fukuyama famously suggested we were witnessing The End of History. If that were ever in any way true, The End of History ended when Russian tanks rolled into the Ukraine”

An appearance on the LibertariDan Live show this week got me thinking whether it’s the inefficiency of lockdown, the pointlessness of masks, money printing leading to inflation, windmills making us less energy secure or government overspending making us all poorer, right now libertarians have a lot of reasons to say ‘I told you so’.

Now normally the level of smugness associated with saying ‘I told you so’ is reserved for Remoaners who misunderstand the reasons people wanted to leave the EU, and is best avoided. But right now, in one particular area, I really feel we need to point it out.

At the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama famously suggested we were witnessing The End of History. If that were ever in any way true, The End of History ended when Russian tanks rolled into the Ukraine. Kiev arguably the father of Russia, first became part of the Russia Empire in 1667, a bookend to a 400 year fight to unite the Rus following their forced separation at the hands of the Mongol horde. Those 400 years had changed Ukraine and created a closely related but separate nation.

“Democracies tend not to (if ever) go to war with each other. Disputes about sovereignty no matter how fraught the circumstances are resolved peacefully. Norway split from Sweden, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, the U.K. left the EU all peacefully”

Putin’s invasion of Russia was the act of a dictator. Democracies tend not to (if ever) go to war with each other. Disputes about sovereignty no matter how fraught the circumstances are resolved peacefully. Norway split from Sweden, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, the U.K. left the EU all peacefully. Whilst the separation of what is now the Republic of Ireland from the U.K. can hardly be called peaceful, it was relatively so, compared to say the breakup of Yugoslavia or the wars fought since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Being a liberal democracy is a good thing. Being a dictatorship of whatever political bent is a bad thing. Living in a dictatorship is likely to limit your life choices, you economic prosperity and your life expectancy. For all its ills we should be proud of the system of Government we have, and we should be able to shout about how much better it is to the system of government in say Russia.

Except of course those of you who have made it this far it the article are thinking… but we’ve not in almost anyway been a liberal democracy for the past 2 years. Yes, I agree, and this is why we have to say ‘I told you so’.

With the banning of RT (formally Russia Today) across much of the west, the cancelling of Tchaikovsky in Cardiff and the banning sports stars, the west can’t hold itself as a paragon of virtue against the dictatorship in Russia. We are playing into the hands of Putin’s propagandists. Those of us who believe in liberty should be shouting from the rooftop, ‘I told you so’. I told you when you cancel those you disagree with, you provide no defence against Russian propaganda. When you cancel RT, you give them an excuse to cancel the (however imperfect) western media. When you don’t provide a platform for even the most unappealing voice in your society, you give the dictators an excuse to dismiss you. When you lock up your citizens for peaceful protest, they can unashamedly lock up theirs. When you are not even aspiring to be a shining city on a hill, you arguably give dictators the moral cover to invade their neighbours.

Would cancelling cancel culture have stopped Putin invading the Ukraine, probably not, but would it have been harder to invade had the west upheld its principles and its economies these past 2 years? Yes!

“Rather than cancelling RT why not pillory it in the same we did Ali Hassan Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti aka Chemical Ali”

Rather than cancelling RT why not pillory it in the same we did Ali Hassan Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti aka Chemical Ali (who ultimately received a death sentence for genocide and was hung). The BNP fell when their leader appeared on Question Time and people could see them for what they are. As a child it felt like every other comedy programme was someone mocking the Nazis, good. Today merely mentioning them, even to criticise, is by some be considered beyond the pale.

With the quick feedback loops of a war, ‘I told you so’, becomes a powerful argument as the protagonists supressed intellectual freedoms in the same way as the woke mob here. History didn’t end with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world isn’t full of just good people, many are bad, and only with a united stand for freedom will our side, the good guys, win.

Incidentally, if you don’t already watch, look out for more from Dan at https://www.facebook.com/LibertariDanSpeaks

Unabashed patriotism

By Mike Swadling

Back in March I spent a week in Florida, a trip to see among other things, the USA Men’s Soccer team play Panama (they won 5-1). Why would I (a Brit) do that, you might ask. Well apart from the sunshine, the lack of lockdown with commitment to freedom in Florida, and the opportunity to find myself drinking cocktails on Daytona beach, a mate had a spare ticket.

As anyone who has ever visited the United States will understand, the impression I came away with was one of unabashedly patriotism. Which leads to two thoughts, why aren’t we left with that impression from Hollywood and our media, and how do we get some of that in the UK or even just England?

‘Soccer’ as our cousins in the US insist on calling our noble game has been growing rapidly in the US in recent years. Their topflight football ‘Major League Soccer’ (MLS) has expanded from 20 teams to 29 teams since 2016. After failing to qualify for the 2018 World Cup in Russia the national side has now qualified for Qatar 2022, with a team of an average age of 24 who should be at their peak for the 2026 World Cup jointly hosted by the USA, Mexico and Canada.

“Soccer support in the US runs somewhat as a counterculture, for people who fall outside the mainstream.”

Football is best played in a stadium where supporters are close to the pitch, fans are singing, and they have roofs over much of the stands to keep the noise in. The Exploria stadium in Orlando ticked the boxes for the physical requirements, and the US fans sure brought the noise. Soccer support in the US runs somewhat as a counterculture, for people who fall outside the mainstream. It has a base both in the universities of the well-travelled middle class, and in recent immigrants who bring their soccer traditions to the US.

Match day means a few drinks to warm up for the game. Fan zones nearer the ground and general enterprising zones of pubs further away. The Stars and Stripes were ubiquitous but then they often are in the US. The crowd on route was a mix of accents, races, regions, all routing for one thing, the USA.

“These Americans no matter where they were born were proud to be American; ‘why aren’t we left with that impression from Hollywood and our media’?”

It’s fair to say many people on route did wonder who these people were in sports kits. Soccer for all its progress is still a minority sport in the US. But once people knew that the USA, their team, their nation, was playing at frankly anything, they could not have been happier to see us, even to see the English bloke tagging along.

Back to my two questions. These Americans no matter where they were born were proud to be American, ‘why aren’t we left with that impression from Hollywood and our media’?

“To quote C J Cregg from the TV show The West Wing, “Being considered an ‘average American’ is something Americans find to be positive and comforting”

The media, political, ‘expert’ class who frankly blight our lives too much don’t get it. To quote C J Cregg from the TV show The West Wing, “Being considered an ‘average American’ is something Americans find to be positive and comforting”. I think this is equally true if most Brits, all too often we’re just not meant to show it.

Maybe it’s that bad news sells, but surely somewhere we should see that Americans love America, they couldn’t be happier to celebrate their nation, which in many cases is their new nation. It’s common among US soccer fans to have their state name and the number it joined the union embraced in the back of their replica shirts. This leads to little more than some gentle ribbing and largely becomes a great conversation starter. You would struggle to imagine that in the UK.

Which makes me wonder ‘how do we get some of that in the UK. or even just England?’ There have been various initiatives to get the Union Jack n government buildings. Although it often feels they are swapped out as quickly as possible. It’s never been the case that local councils, government agencies, schools and other state institutions routinely fly the flag or flags.

“For societies to function we don’t need high taxes or welfare systems, but humans do need to feel part of a community at multiple levels.”

The 1st century BC, Hillel the Elder said “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”. The elites might not be, but Main Street USA is certainly for the USA. For societies to function we don’t need high taxes or welfare systems, but humans do need to feel part of a community at multiple levels. For us to respect each other’s rights to say things we disagree with, the ‘man on the Clapham Omnibus’ needs to feel the other person is stuck on the same bus with them.

Here in the UK, we could stand up that bit more for the country, for our nation within the UK and for the country as a whole. For all the problems with our history we should remember all the good our nation has done, we should remember we are part of a 54-nation commonwealth. We are a democracy and broadly, although under constant attack, we have free speech. We should also remember we have no hope of living in a harmonious society, if we refuse to believe in the nation, we live in.

It was great to see unabashed patriotism in the US. A belief in their state, their team, their country. I don’t for one moment think waving a flag, or all the flags of the UK will bring everyone together and solve all of society’s ills, but in a world where more people are from more places, we need to find ways to build communities. Unashamedly getting behind our flag, and our nation, isn’t a bad place to start.

This article was originally published in Blacklist Press.

Into Battle

By Mike Swadling

One of the many things that surprised me during the Brexit campaign was the extent to which old political divisions were rearranged and formed into new constitutional and cultural groupings. I had always enjoyed listening to Claire, now Baroness Fox on the Moral Maze, and in various TV appearances, but I had never expected to find myself agreeing with her as much as I have over the last 6 years.

Aside from being sound on Brexit, Claire Fox is the director of the Academy of Ideas. Alastair Donald, the Associate Director of the Academy spoke at our first My Tuppenceworth event about the risks to freedom from identity politics, and also appeared on our Podcast. The Academy “has been committed to organising free and open public debates for over 20 years”, and one of these debates is the Battle of Ideas.

The Battle of Ideas or #BattleFest as it’s known on social media holds events around Europe and the UK with major events in Buxton and London. I attended the Sunday of the London event in mid-October, and frankly can’t wait to go back.

The format of the day was set around panels of 4-6 people discussing topics such as ‘Age of ‘ISMS’: What happened to ideology?’, ‘Climate Emergency: Catastrophe or Catastrophising?’ and ‘How do we solve the housing crisis?’, with a scattering of lectures thrown in. Up to 10 panels are run concurrently and for the most popular sessions you need to arrive early. In addition around the main conference hall were a series of stalls from among others, the Free Speech Union, and the Reform Party.

“I picked my choices for sessions to attend based on a mixture of the topic and those on the panels, taking advantage of the opportunity to see Rod Liddle, Shaun Bailey, and Christopher Snowdon”

I picked my choices for sessions to attend based on a mixture of the topic and those on the panels, taking advantage of the opportunity to see Rod Liddle, Shaun Bailey, and Christopher Snowdon. The day also afforded the opportunity to catch-up with a few people I know. The panel discussions felt fairly informal, with a mix of views across the panellists. Even where they differed the conversations were polite and mostly very friendly. Audience participation was a major part of the day with plenty of time for people to ask questions. As someone who has run Q&As from a large crowd it was a fascination for me to see the mastery with which the panel chair’s managed to generally keep questions as questions, rather than speeches, and move the discussion along.

The crowds were largely what regular readers of this website might call sound, and of a cultural libertarian bent, although a range of views were present. Given the views of most attendees a special congratulations need to go to the panellists who, so rarely for today, came willing to speak to a crowd who weren’t on side.

“Hearing from an architect on the panel how building well designed attractive houses generally overcomes local planning objections was especially interesting and rang true in my local area.”

My personal favourite session was on housing, where frankly I haven’t made up my mind on how we meet the desires of local communities to keep their character, verses how we build the new houses we need. Hearing from an architect on the panel how building well designed attractive houses generally overcomes local planning objections was especially interesting and rang true in my local area. In the suburban area I live, the objections to new houses are far lower than the objections to yet more flats.

An all-round great event with lots you can agree with, some things to challenge you, and lots to make you think. Checkout their website for upcoming events. I look forward to attending both days in London next year.

Video’s from the day can be found at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUJGOCM8cUJnVjZwlSACrNQUrO14O41lJ

Have they never heard of the Laffer Curve?

Photo by The original uploader was Blakwolf at Italian Wikipedia. – Transferred from it.wikipedia to Commons., CC BY 2.5

First published in February Mike Swadling writes about the Laffer Curve. It felt for a short while under Liz Trust and Kwasi Kwarteng as if the Conservatives had rediscovered the problem with high taxes, but alas no more. Once again, we are back in the situation described by Winston Churchill as “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

“The curve shows that at a 0% tax rate no income is raised, similarly at a 100% tax rate no income is raised, as no one would work to pay all the earning to government. Somewhere in between is a tax rate that maximises revenue for government”

Johnny Leavesley the former Conservative Party treasurer party donor, in an article in the Telegraph asked of the Government “Have they never heard of the Laffer Curve?”. You have to wonder. Surely a Conservative government, a Conservative government would have heard of the Laffer Curve, but alas it appears not. This is a government that has increased corporation tax and is increasing National Insurance rates. Do they really believe this will raise more money?

Whilst it is unlikely anyone reading Free Speech is unaware of the Laffer Curve it is maybe worth just noting what it is in case anyone from the government is reading. Named after Arthur Laffer, the Laffer Curve illustrates the relationship between the rate of taxation and the resulting government revenue. The curve shows that at a 0% tax rate no income is raised, similarly at a 100% tax rate no income is raised, as no one would work to pay all the earning to government. Somewhere in between is a tax rate that maximises revenue for government.

Separate to a moral case for keeping more of your own income, even if you believe in a high spending government, higher tax rates make no sense. People often assume the higher the tax rate, the higher the tax take but this is not the case. As a little thought experiment do you believe more income would be raised with an 80% tax rate or 20% tax rate? If you think of your own circumstances, it’s likely that at a 80% tax rate it would not be worth your while working in your current role. It is quite possible you would look for cash in hand work and you certainly wouldn’t be looking to take on more hours in a role taxing you at 80%. Whereas at a 20% tax rate is possibly less than you pay today. You might be tempted to work more hours or take on a more stressful but rewarding role knowing you get to keep more of your money.

“Strangely none of us could remember the Minister or the Senior Civil Servant coming in to help us with our work at the weekend, but somehow, they were always there to help us with the income for it.”

My own experience with the Laffer Curve came some years ago working with a team of engineers who were all approaching a new higher tax bracket. Much of our work involved weekend overtime and everyone’s hand would shoot up at first opportunity to work a lucrative Saturday. Then suddenly our incomes that year had breached the threshold, we noticed we were no longer taking home the lion share of our income for the weekend, instead it was split fairly evenly with government. Strangely none of us could remember the Minister or the Senior Civil Servant coming in to help us with our work at the weekend, but somehow, they were always there to help us with the income for it. From that point onwards finding someone to cover a weekend became increasingly difficult, and ‘bribery’ in the form of overtime no longer automatically worked.

The great mistake people often make is to forget that working itself is a cost, the cost is your free time, your energy, time not spent with your family or friends. This all has to be weighed up against the rewards you receive for working. This is equally true for businesses, setting up a business requires an investment of money and energy. Many people set up businesses in areas they’d already worked and where they could already draw decent income. When you take on the risk and extra effort of running your own business you need to see the extra reward. What feels like a small increase in corporation tax maybe the difference from someone starting their own enterprise, employing people, and creating value or staying in a role they have today and letting somebody else hold the risk.

Nevertheless, the government seems committed to the idea that raising tax rates will raise the revenue needed so recover from the economic armageddon of lockdown. Prior to the pandemic the UK government had been spending just over 39% of GDP, it shoots up to over 52% last year and is likely to remain over 40% for some years to come. What does the government know that we don’t, and why do they think increased tax rates will somehow help?

“The basic rate income has been as high as 35% and as low as 20%. The top rate has been as high as 83% and as ‘low’ as 40%. Yet the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never exceeded 37.5% of GDP.”

Since the 1970s tax receipts have never exceed 38% of GDP, mostly that have hovered around 35%. In this time, we have had governments of Labour, Conservative, LibLab Pacts, Conservative Liberal coalitions, the UUP prop up James Callahan, and the DUP prop up Theresa May.

The basic rate income has been as high as 35% and as low as 20%. The top rate has been as high as 83% and as ‘low’ as 40%. Yet the total tax take has never been lower than 32.5% of GDP and never exceeded 37.5% of GDP.

Higher tax rates don’t increase tax revenue, something this government has clearly never heard of.

This article was first published in the Blacklist Press Free Speech newsletter.

Incentives – How the fiscal statement will change behaviour

Image by Stefan Schweihofer from Pixabay

“why do we think that “changing the incentives will in no way change behaviour”?”

The September 2022 fiscal statement from Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, is proving controversial for among other reasons, the ‘cost’ of the tax cuts it contains. For a tax cut to be a ‘cost’ you need to make a couple of assumptions, that (1) allowing people to keep their own money is a ‘cost’, and (2) that changing the incentives will in no way change people’s behaviour.

To tackle the first point that “allowing people to keep their own money is a ‘cost’”. If last month you worked some overtime and say earned an extra £300, but this month you didn’t have the same opportunity to work the overtime, would you say your costs had gone up by £300? Of course not, no one would say that. Most January’s many businesses will put on sales often cutting prices by a third or more. Do we refer to these price cuts as an increase in costs? Do the price cuts get added as Expenditure to the company’s accounts? For both personal and business expenditure we see reduced revenue as just that, reduced revenue, not a new or increased cost. Many people don’t particularly want to work overtime, valuing free time more than the money they earn from extra work. In the case of businesses, we don’t bemoan the cost of reduced prices, we see this as an opportunity for the business to get rid of old stock, gain market share, or simply get more sales. Reduced prices provide an incentive that changes the behaviour of consumers. So why do we refer to changes in tax rates as a cost? And to the second point above, why do we think that “changing the incentives will in no way change behaviour”?

Why do sin taxes exist if not in part to disincentivise people from undertaking the sin?

I have written before about the Laffer Curve _{(Blacklist Press)}, _{(Croydon Constitutionalists)}, the theory that cutting tax rates can result in increased total tax revenue, but even if you are sceptical of this, we all know taxes change incentives. Why do sin taxes exist if not in part to disincentivise people from undertaking the sin? Why are ISAs tax-free if not to encourage savings? Why does the government offer businesses R&D tax relief if not to encourage more Research and Development?

“It might be fair to say these changes are not incentive enough to make up for the reduced revenue of the tax cuts (I would disagree) but it is not reasonable to argue that there is no change to behaviour”

Clearly cutting taxes will impact the behaviour of people. Lower National Insurance rates incentivises employment, lower taxes on profits incentivises business investment, and lower taxes on income incentivises both increased work and releasing invested funds for personal use. It might be fair to say these changes are not incentive enough to make up for the reduced revenue of the tax cuts (I would disagree) but it is not reasonable to argue that there is no change to behaviour as a result of these changes.

The government didn’t just change tax rates in the ~~budget~~ fiscal statement. We heard about changes both to the Inland Revenue rules known as IR35, and the cap on bankers’ bonuses. Wikipedia refers to IR35 as “anti-avoidance tax legislation designed to tax ‘disguised’ employment at a rate similar to employment”. First introduced in April 2000, the rules have changed over the years, with the latest change being to repeal the 2017 and 2021 reforms.

“The naïve assumption behind IR35 is that by changing the tax rules for contractors, you will simply earn the same gross pay and pay more tax, receiving less net pay. Of course, this is nonsense”

IR35 was trying to stop people filling basically the same role, from being taxed differently based on how they are employed. This sounds reasonable, except of course that how you are employed does affect your role, and in some cases means different incentives, in this case partly via taxes, should apply. I have worked in the same industry as an employee, what is referred to as Inside IR35 (in effect agency staff), and Outside IR35 (via a limited company) often referred to as a contractor. The naïve assumption behind IR35 is that by changing the tax rules for contractors, you will simply earn the same gross pay and pay more tax, receiving less net pay. Of course, this is nonsense. Being a contractor comes with additional risks and costs, you really need an accountant, you invariably need to take out additional insurances, and a private pension. You tend to change role frequently as companies only want you on the books for peak demand, and your lack of security of tenure both provides an incentive to be productive and means you tend to have a good buffer of savings for those periods when you are not earning.

You might wonder, why anyone would be a contractor with all these downsides? Well of course it’s because you are incentivised by earning more. These earnings are both in gross pay (invoices into your limited company) and net pay (working via a company being more tax efficient). When the Inland Revenue changed these incentives, did they see lots of people stay as they were and simply pay more tax? No of course not, change the incentives and people move. The costs and risks stayed high, but rewards reduced, so guess what, people moved to lower risk roles. It’s not clear to me that the government has ever made more or less money when I have been employed via any of the different methods available. But what is clear is that the economy has lost flexibility in its labour force, business savings, purchasing of goods and services, charity donations and productivity, when I and others like me simply don’t have the money or the incentives needed for these.

“Over the same period salaries improved to retain and recruit staff in a competitive IT market. Total reward didn’t change much but the incentive structure did”

Lastly, bankers’ bonuses are not a subject likely to draw huge amounts of sympathy. But that doesn’t mean private enterprise shouldn’t be able to pay people via the incentive method they believe is best suited for the role. I worked in banking during the financial crisis and saw my bonus structure change and total bonus reduce. I should say I worked for a retail bank in the IT department, so the sums involved were far away from those being earned by city traders, but to me and my colleagues they mattered. Over the same period salaries improved to retain and recruit staff in a competitive IT market. Total reward didn’t change much but the incentive structure did. If you believe that moving from a pay structure that in large part rewarded outcomes, to one that mainly rewarded showing up, didn’t have an impact on productivity, we must discuss terms on that bridge I have for sale.

Removing the bankers bonus cap doesn’t increase costs or total reward, it changes the incentive. Changes to IR35 and tax rates are not costs to government, they change the economy and provide the opportunity (they haven’t gone far enough), to develop the more dynamic high growth economy that will benefit us all.

Is this how a council is meant to function and Does democracy travel at 20mph?

In three articles from 2016 and 2017 Mike Swadling writes in the Croydon Citizen – ‘Is this how a council is meant to function?’, ‘Does democracy travel at 20mph?’ and about a local Special Needs School, St Giles.

Is this how a council is meant to function?

“Alison Butler, answered most of these questions. It is fair to say that the cabinet councillors’ answers did little to pacify the view of those that I was in the room with. This is understandable given the amazingly dismissive attitude that councillor Butler displayed”

“Two answers underlined the attitude. When asked about traffic problems, cabinet member for transport and environment councillor Stuart King didn’t know the difference between the A232 and A23”

“The whole meeting continued on this theme: we didn’t see councillors debating the issue of Croydon, instead we saw politicians point- scoring. Given the lack of local media coverage of these meetings they were mainly doing this for their own party members”

Full article: https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20190509180817/https:/thecroydoncitizen.com/politics-society/council-meant-function/

Does democracy travel at 20mph?

“The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of democracy includes the definition of “the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges”. This leads to a question – why is Croydon Council looking to have a two-tier democracy in the borough?”

“The people had a chance to respond to the opinion surveys, and they responded in favour of the 20mph speed limits. Whatever your personal view on the speed limits, believers in democracy would therefore agree that they should be implemented”

“Why are council officers, people paid by us to serve us, recommending taking away our right to a democratic process?
Why does the Labour council not consider the people of Coulsdon, Kenley, New Addington, Shirley, Waddon and other areas worthy of having the same democratic rights as the people of Thornton Heath and Addiscombe?”

Full article: https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20190509174356/https:/thecroydoncitizen.com/politics-society/democracy-20mph/

St Giles: a very special school indeed

“Croydon has six dedicated special schools and over a dozen Enhanced Learning Provision units inside mainstream schools. These schools meet a wide range of needs for pupils with profound, severe and moderate learning difficulties, autism, physical disabilities and speech and language difficulties. The six schools have between them over 700 pupils on the roll.”

Full article: https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20190509173851/https:/thecroydoncitizen.com/politics-society/st-giles-a-very-special-school-indeed/

Britain, suffering from a lack of Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain

By Mike Swadling

“I don’t feel I would have this problem if I worked for the government. I mean for starters they don’t seem to have anything that works”

I have a habit of referring to things that work as Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain. Many of you will remember the 1990s advert that proclaimed that Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain, does exactly what it says on the tin.

One of the challenges with this and my many other 80s/90s British TV references is that in these increasingly interconnected times the person I’m speaking to either isn’t in the U.K. or doesn’t remember most of the 90s let alone the 80s.

I don’t feel I would have this problem if I worked for the government. I mean for starters they don’t seem to have anything that works and there is certainly nothing that does exactly what it says on the tin.

“Surely, they are driving the water companies to invest more and improve services. They must surely be imposing fines on water companies for reduced service to customers through hosepipe bans. No, quite the opposite”

The list is endless, as I write this, we have had a drought declared in some parts of the country. We have also seen many news stories lamenting the lack of any new reservoirs in a period the population has increased by about 10 million. Thames Water has a desalination plant they have never used, whilst at the same time they are imposing hosepipe bans.

With all this going on where are Ofwat the water regulator? Where is the Environment Agency? Surely, they are leading the fight to get people water. Surely, they are driving the water companies to invest more and improve services. They must surely be imposing fines on water companies for reduced service to customers through hosepipe bans. No, quite the opposite. Ofwat commissioned a 2018 paper “to analyse and present the options available for making deep reductions to per-capita consumption over a minimum fifty-year period”. Water companies are far from blameless for the failure to keep a plentiful supply of water flowing, but when Thames Water did try to build a new reservoir in Oxfordshire, the Environment Agency blocked it on the grounds there was apparently no need for it. This isn’t all that new, the 2014 flooding of the Somerset Levels, was widely blamed in part on the Environment Agency’s decision to stop dredging the rivers, something they were tasked with undertaking, for the purpose of reducing flooding.

But it’s not just water management that doesn’t work in the UK. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy exists yet our island made of coal, with gas and oil reserves and an advanced nuclear power industry, is not expected to have enough power generation this winter. Of course, as is made clear in a March statement to Parliament, the department puts every barrier in the way to fracking. Not long before he became Deputy Prime Minister, that visionary Nick Clegg expressed his opposition to new nuclear power stations as they would take too long to come online. Of course, the prediction had they been commissioned then is they would have come online about now, right when we need them!

Net Zero and the green agenda are in large part behind these departments working towards grand environmental plans, rather than for the benefit of taxpayers. But it’s not just on the environment our government lacks the essence of doing what it says on the tin, take for example public health. Public Health England before they were dissolved had some 5,000 staff, who whilst very productive at telling us how to live our lives were woefully under prepared for Covid 19. Public Health didn’t protect the publics health, they did however lead to the shutdown of our economy and massive loss of freedom.

Failure is in all parts of our government. Paul Lincoln the disastrous Director General of the Border Force from 2017 to 2021, described ‘bloody borders’ as ‘just such a pain in the bloody a***’. Nationally the Police failed to solve a single theft in 84% of neighbourhoods in the past 3 years. 70% of Metropolitan Police officers didn’t make a single arrest in the past year and the RAF has seemingly stopped recruiting on ability but now recruit based on wokery. We have a Bank of England that is charged with keeping inflation at around 2%, yet no one is losing their well-paid jobs as inflation soars above 10%. None of these departments are Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain, they are not even close. The departments we pay taxes for, and the regulators we rely on, are consistently working against us.

“we need some desire from government to actually act to improve the lives of the citizens of the UK. Let’s assume for a moment the next Prime Minister ushers that in, and I’m not saying I expect them to, but it is a prerequisite”

What can be done about this? Firstly, we need some desire from government to actually act to improve the lives of the citizens of the UK. Let’s assume for a moment the next Prime Minister ushers that in, and I’m not saying I expect them to, but it is a prerequisite. We need to start with a requirement government departments and quangos act to improve the standard of living of law-abiding UK citizens.

The improvements they are planning to deliver needs to be codified, and for this all-government departments at all levels need published Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or targets. Much maligned as targets are, without them we simply have no measure of success, or even an indication of what a department is trying to achieve. There will be problems, some departments will focus on targets to the exclusion of other activity. Some may cook the books on the numbers, and if staff submit fraudulent data, then action should be taken. Others will set easily achieved goals, fine, better to achieve an easy goal that benefits us, than to actively work against our interests. We will be able to see what an area of government believes is its purpose, and what success it has in achieving that goal.

It seems as if nothing in government works. Let’s get back to first principles across the state, with for instance a Police force who police, a Border force who protect the borders, water regulators who believe in ensuring people have water. And with a costs of living crisis upon us, and a few troubled years ahead, lets hope someone in government apply the principles of Ronseal Quick Drying Woodstain, to provide the services we pay for.