Originally published in the 17th January edition of Free Speech from Blacklist Press. Mike Swadling wrote about Partygate and the hypocrisy of the PM. Since then we have seen fines issued. the release of Sue Gray’s report, and the revelations of Sir Keir Starmer’s curry and beer in Durham.
None of our political leaders come out well from this, and many in the public are now well and truly fed up with the whole topic. But it did have cut through, and below are thoughts on the Cut Through and Opportunity Partygate created.
” No doubt most reading this broke lockdown rules, some even as early as the spring of 2020. But there is a difference when the rule breakers are those that impose them”
It’s not a bad idea in a democracy to be popular as well as right. One of the depressing things surrounding the stories of Boris Johnson and Partygate has been the number of social media posts from liberty lovers saying the story isn’t the party, instead, the story is that the rules were wrong.
They are right of course the rules were wrong. No doubt most reading this broke lockdown rules, some even as early as the spring of 2020. But there is a difference when the rule breakers are those that impose them. Politics requires cut through, and often requires opportunism, Partygate gives both.
Most people in May 2020 were studiously following the rules, and they simply don’t like the hypocrisy of the PM, cabinet members, senior civil servants and their assistants, being out partying when we couldn’t get together with family to bury a loved one. Yes the rules were wrong, but saying the rules were wrong 2 years ago doesn’t have the cut through of pointing at a ruling class laughing at us.
“John Locke wrote that ‘freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone’”
There is another issue here that really matters, the Government must follow the same rules as the governed. Magna Carta set out the need for the Monarch to follow the law as much as the commoner. Today much the power of Monarch is effectively held in 10 Downing Street, and rather than taking their cue from Runnymede our current government seems to have looked to Versailles. John Locke wrote(1) that ‘freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone’. The rule of law is a common enough expression, indeed according to the National Curriculum(2) it is a fundamental British value.
“can we effect change or even build a majority by saying never again can the government be able to act outside of the laws it requires us to follow?”
I firmly believe the best case for liberty is made when liberty lovers connect with a broad swath of voters and show the hypocrisy of government and the desperate need we all have to constrain it. Can we build a majority that says all people must be free to act with complete liberty? I doubt it. But can we effect change or even build a majority by saying never again can the government be able to act outside of the laws it requires us to follow? Absolutely!
“The meetings were productive, although I can’t pretend hugely fascinating. They were however an opportunity to support the head of the school and provide some insight from the commercial world into the world of education”
It’s FA Cup third round weekend again and I have spent much of the Friday in a number of meetings with one of the schools I’m a governor at. The meetings were productive, although I can’t pretend hugely fascinating. They were however an opportunity to support the head of the school and provide some insight from the commercial world into the world of education.
As soon as the draw was made for the Cup, we knew this one would be a little special. My team Palace were playing local rivals Millwall at the New Den, and as we hadn’t played them for a few years, we knew it would be quite some match.
Last year during the period between lockdowns, a friend and I ran a ‘Palace Day’ at a local members club (what used to be called a working men’s club), in aid of the club’s charity. It provided an opportunity to draw more people in to watch the match that day, helping raise some much-needed funds for the club and the charity.
This match would provide a similar opportunity, a chance to get the charitable collection for the year started and encourage people out to the club on a miserable January day. Between the time of first goal, picture quiz and lucky dip we managed to raise about £100 for charity and bring in some extra trade – not bad for a lunch time game. Of course, the result also went Palace’s way. (Crystal Palace went on to make it to the semi final where they lost of Chelsea).
“As someone who believes in less top-down government control and more local and personal responsibility, it’s been remarkably easy to help be that change”
As someone who believes in less top-down government control and more local and personal responsibility, it’s been remarkably easy to help be that change. Being a school governor, I have a direct involvement with the school system in my area. We’ve been able to support a local business and a local charity. These activities have stretched me and helped me gain new skills. With government encroaching evermore into every part of our lives, let’s make sure liberty lovers are involved in building communities that can push back.
Mayoral and council elections are fast approaching in our borough. Of course, it’s easy to heckle from the cheap seats if you’re not running, but if I may ask your indulgence, I wanted to share my thoughts on what I think our first elected Mayor should be focusing on in office.
Find out how bad the problems really are
Croydon has twice issued a Section 114 notice, and is either about to, or came close perilously close to issuing a third one due to a misalignment of capital and revenue funds. The new Mayor should go in and ask each department to ask them to rapidly ‘bring out your dead’, the officers need to let the new Mayor know every problem and add them to a risk or issue register, with an assigned cost to resolve. The Mayor needs to be clear with the local officers that now is the time to come clean without prejudice, but anything they try to hide will be used against them in the future. The mayors team can only fix the problems of Croydon Council once they truly know how bad they are.
“Why are the council continually arguing with their auditors? Yes, auditors can be a royal pain, but that’s their job. The Mayor should invite the auditors in to sit with department heads and detail the problems that didn’t make it to the ‘Reports in the Public interest’”
Change the culture
Croydon council appears to have a frankly toxic culture towards the people of Croydon, quite a few of the staff, and some of the councillors. The council recently voted to stop using their auditors Grant Thornton in what appears to be a response to the auditors continually finding problems in the running of the borough. Why are the council continually arguing with their auditors? Yes, auditors can be a royal pain, but that’s their job. The Mayor should invite the auditors in to sit with department heads and detail the problems that didn’t make it to the ‘Reports in the Public interest’. It’s far from just the Audits, it’s the planning department that doesn’t care to listen to residents, it’s the phones that go unanswered. When the council was making national headlines for the problems at the Regina Road flats in South Norwood, it was clear the council lacked basic crisis management skills, no war room, no briefing for the Council Leader Hamida Ali, no plan of action to make some rapid improvements or even speak to residents. The council needs to stop operating as if in a bunker where everyone else is the enemy and start acting as a professional partner and service provider.
Fix planning
The councils’ involvement in planning is a mixture of policy setting and sitting in judgment on individual planning cases. The legal details that need to be met mean planning in the borough is far from a quick problem to solve. Firstly, the local plan needs to be updated and approved, it appears all Mayoral candidates are committed to holding the submission of the plan over whilst they review and focusing on a new plan that doesn’t attempt to exceed the required numbers from the GLA would be a great start. As would a greater focus on houses rather than flats, more in setting with most of the borough. Planning is a legal quagmire, and any new Mayor is likely to disappoint more people (at least initially) than they please, but with some local sensitivity to planning and a much less aggressive attitude from councillors and council officers, things can improve.
“To suggest that a likely Labour or Conservative Mayor works with councillors from the other party may be a heresy to many, but that is part of the fundamental problem with Croydon’s politics”
Work across the borough
One of the main selling points from the DEMOC (democratically elected mayor of Croydon) campaign was that a Mayor would need to secure votes from across the borough and would therefore govern for both Purley and Thornton Health, not being able to win re-election without a decent support from both. Croydon is 2 to 3 different types of area, and many small towns brought together in one borough. One size doesn’t fit all, and a town hall that respects that diversity will make for a much happier and more successful borough. A new Mayor would do well to focus planning as locally as possible, target services at a local level, work with residents’ associations and dare I say it councillors in each local area for the success of the borough. To suggest that a likely Labour or Conservative Mayor works with councillors from the other party may be a heresy to many, but that is part of the fundamental problem with Croydon’s politics. I can understand why in the swing wards in Addiscombe this might prove impossible, but in safe wards like Sanderstead and South Norwood, there is no reason why collecting the bins needs to be a partisan issue, and a Mayor should try to bring together all elected officials to work to the betterment of each area.
Children’s Services is spiralling out of control again
Croydon’s Children’s Services department has been in and out of Special Measures over the past few years. Children’s Services looks after the most vulnerable people in our society, there is a moral as well as legal imperative that of all the councils’ services, this is the one that we make a Rolls Royce solution. A new Mayor should move the best and the brightest into this department to make improvements. Any blocker to increasing capacity needs to be removed, and we need social services working with key community services, forming hubs around local schools and medical practices. No easy answers on how to do this, and a constrained financial environment won’t help, but keeping the Children’s Services on track should be an early focus of a new Mayor.
Do something with the town centre
I fundamentally believe the best people to decide how to run a shop are shopkeepers, the best to decide how to run a pub are landlords, and the best to run a restaurant are restaurateurs. In all these cases the worst people to decide how to run the business are politicians, with local government officers a close second. If you needed any proof of this look no further than Croydon town centre. Brilliant planning schemes have led to the collapse of our main shopping centre. I think a Mayor would be best to leave the next steps for the town centre to the experts, the landlords, retailers and business groups that own and operate the towns main shopping areas. That’s not to say there aren’t any areas the council can help with. People need to feel safe in the town centre and the council can co-ordinate with services like the police to make sure Croydon is a safe place to shop. People need to be able to get to the town centre, buses in Croydon seem to be routed ever further from the shopping areas, and car parking has become ever more expensive. We do have new cycle lanes, but who seriously believes we will ever see large numbers cycle to go shopping or for a night out? Get the basic infrastructure right and leave the enterprise to the entrepreneurs.
“buying hotels and shopping centres, new building companies, massive redevelopments of the Fairfield Halls, Boxpark, £10,000 for someone to defecate on stage, all bright ideas brought to you by Croydon Council in recent years, all ultimately helping lead to the borough’s de facto bankruptcy”
Stop coming up with bright ideas
Westfield, buying hotels and shopping centres, new building companies, massive redevelopments of the Fairfield Halls, Boxpark, £10,000 for someone to defecate on stage, all bright ideas brought to you by Croydon Council in recent years, all ultimately helping lead to the borough’s de facto bankruptcy. With the financial problems the council faces, the planning problems, the risks in Children’s services, and many more issues on the new Mayors plate, they need to stop coming up with new bright ideas and focus on these priorities. This might not suite everyone, many at the council might want to undertake new and exciting work, well they can leave, that will help drive the cultural change the council so desperately needs.
KPIs
The Mayor needs to ensure that the council can delivery its basic services well on the limited budget available. They will be negotiating with central government for grants, investments, and probably more bailout funds, and they will need to show they are delivering the service to the people of Croydon. The new Mayor will have few places to hide, the buck will stop with them. As discussed, the councils’ offices need to undergo cultural change to start responding to the people of Croydon and focus on delivery of basic services on budget rather than generating big ideas. One way to keep a large organisation like Croydon Council on track is to implement Key Performance Indicators or KPIs at each level to ensure departments are delivering on the tasks asked for. KPIs aren’t a panacea, and it can lead to misaligned priorities, but all these priorities, misaligned or not will be on delivering key services not on big new bold spending plans.
Let us know at [email protected] what you think of these priorities. If you have some of your own, why not write them up for us to publish?
Mike Swadling was interviewed recently by Lorena Serantes Prieto, about the Croydon Constitutionalists, Brexit and the state of the Conservative Party.
Lorena’s blog covers a range of interviews with people engaged in politics in the UK, she can also be found on Twitter at @LoreSerantes.
“Broadly we are in favour of Brexit, Low Taxes, Free Speech, Free Markets, and Rational science not climate alarmism. We try to find national organisations or groups we can partner with on a local level to campaign for these things.”
“I don’t believe it’s possible to negotiate a reasonable deal with a party that doesn’t believe you are an equal. I believe the EU regards the UK as somewhat of a renegade province and it these circumstances it is not possible to negotiate as equals.”
“What is the purpose of a Conservative Government if we have high tax, high spend, high cost of living and low home ownership? The Conservatives risk losing their core support”
For most people in the UK if they are aware of Ben Shapiro, it’s due to his 2019 interview with Andrew Neil. Whilst not one of Shapiro’s finer days, it was an early indication of the extent to which Neil whilst the best on the BBC, is very much an establishment figure who won’t leave the left’s Overton window.
There are endless Ben Shapiro destroys videos, and The Ben Shapiro Show is considered the 5th biggest podcast in the World with 2.6 million daily listeners. The show is published by The Daily Wire an organisation Ben created with Jeremy Boreing and which is fast becoming one of the most interesting news and entertainment organisations in the US. Originally focused on news with a conservative slant, it has attracted new broadcasters including Candace Owens last year.
Having filled the space left by so main mainstream media broadcasters who ignore those with conservative (in the American sense), libertarian, or classical liberal views more recently they have started to expand into wider entertainment to fight back against the woke. Actress Gina Carano joined after she was cancelled by Disney, and they acquired all of PragerU’s content. But it doesn’t end there, with Disney taking a political stance against Florida’s Parental Rights In Education Bill, The Daily Wire is expanding (with a $100 million investment over 3 years) into children’s entertainment.
“Watching the entertainment channel TBS, you are suddenly subjected to adverts for other shows telling you how conservatives are subverting free speech (and I thought it was Trump who was banned from Facebook and Twitter)”
Is there a market for all this? Well, my personal travels around Florida suggest there is. Watching the entertainment channel TBS, you are suddenly subjected to adverts for other shows telling you how conservatives are subverting free speech (and I thought it was Trump who was banned from Facebook and Twitter). As already mentioned, Disney with a significant base in Florida have decided to weigh in against the state’s popular governor. The Oscars, Wil Smith and Chris Rock aside, was a wokeathon which comparative to 10 years ago nobody watches, and Harry’s Razors possibly the most masculine of products pulled their adverts from the Daily Wire following one complaint on Twitter.
“Joe Biden ‘I did that’ stickers pointing at the price you are paying on petrol pumps, are I’m told ubiquitous”
Florida does lean Republican, but I mostly spent my time in major cities and you were never far from a pro-Trump t-shirt, flag or hat. Joe Biden ‘I did that’ stickers pointing at the price you are paying on petrol pumps, are I’m told ubiquitous, and Chick-fil-A’s, the famously Christian chicken restaurants have long queues of cars at them. My personal favourite, the ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ slogan is something I managed to see most days on holiday. It’s a slogan that does more than almost any other to highlight the two political Americas. For those that don’t know the story a sports reporter hearing the crowd chant ‘F*** Joe Biden’ decided to tell the audience she heard ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ a reference to one of the participants. As anyone who watches televised football in the UK knows, sports commentators are best to ignore many of the crowds’ chants, or if they must mention them, simply apologise to anyone offended by the unkind comments.
“None of this is to say I think it’s a good thing. Driving America into separate camps, watching different news, sports reports, eating at difference restaurants, and increasingly doing this from childhood is unlikely to end well”
Much like the growing success of GB News here, The Daily Wire is tapping into an audience deserted by the mainstream news and entertainment industries. They are not alone, Heroes of Liberty, Little Libertarians, and PragerU, all make inroads into an audience desperate to be served content they consider suitable for them and their family. None of this is to say I think it’s a good thing. Driving America into separate camps, watching different news, sports reports, eating at difference restaurants, and increasingly doing this from childhood is unlikely to end well. But it is incumbent on the rollercoaster and cartoon provider to stay out of debates on state education law, and entertainment programs to at least pretend to entertain rather than lecture, to foster a societal bond. As Michael Jordan said “Republicans buy sneakers, too”.
What about men’s razors you ask? The Daily Wire even expanded into that. Jeremy’s Razors was set-up by Jeremy Boring and The Daily Wire, they already have 45,000 subscribers, more some say that CNN do for their new streaming service. For good or ill, if you don’t like the business the market is increasingly providing you an opportunity to not buy from them.
Mike Swadling of this parish was live on LibertariDan, a political discussion from a libertarian perspective.
The home and abroad topics were, Ukraine, Putin and the western response; and Brexit: has it happened? Article 16, and what’s going on with the NI border?
Most Croydon residents will have a memory of the Croydon Park Hotel, for me some its of work dos, a venue for giving blood and some slightly clandestine visits to the hotel bar conveniently situated in central Croydon but somewhere you’d be unlikely to bump into anyone you didn’t want to see. Pictures of the hotel still adorn travel sites, a reminder of what a great asset to the town the hotel was. Of course that was before lockdown and the benevolent hand of Croydon Council.
“sold at a loss of some £5 million. Ironically a loss of this magnitude is pretty small fry compared to the disaster that Croydon Council has been in recent years.”
News came this week that the hotel purchased by the council in 2018 has been sold at a loss of some £5 million. Ironically a loss of this magnitude is pretty small fry compared to the disaster that Croydon Council has been in recent years. The purchase was of course hailed as a great success at the time, the council was borrowing cheap money to make a strategic investment and return revenue to its overall budget. Of course things didn’t workout quite as planned, to quote Croydon council’s internal auditors:
“The investments in The Colonnades and Croydon Park Hotel were not grounded in a sufficient understanding of the retail and leisure market and have again illustrated that the Council’s strategy to invest its way out of financial challenge rather than pay attention to controlling expenditure on core services was inherently flawed.”
It is easy to be clever after the event, who could have known at the time the things would go so badly wrong? Well whilst no one likes a ‘told you so’, we, err, ‘told you so’. Writing about the hotel purchase together with the purchase of the Colonnade shopping centre in March 2019 we were able to point out the council has no expertise in running commercial property, we calculated the investments only needed a 3% downturn in revenue for taxpayers to be burdened with the costs of servicing the debts funding these projects. Indeed the council has now confirmed the hotel itself had a running cost of £610,000 a year without even being used as a hotel.
Who knows what would have happened without the pandemic but this was foreseeable. The council had already undertaken an upgrade to the famous Surrey Street Market at a cost of 1.1 million resulting in a lost of both casual and permanent traders, costing over £91,000 per trader lost.
I’m reminded, as is often the case with our local authority of Ronald Regan’s famous line that “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help”.
“it removes the conflict of interest, where the council gives planning permission for, and permits licensing of businesses it’s in competition with”
If any good comes from this aside from removing the ongoing running costs from the council, is that it removes the conflict of interest, where the council gives planning permission for, and permits licensing of businesses it’s in competition with. Let’s hope Croydon Council will now stay out of commerce, and instead focus on just doing its basic job right.
As a group that came together to fight a referendum on membership of the EU, we thought we would ask you, what your views are on Net Zero, a possible Referendum, and more generally the environment.
Part 4 in our series of your views. More responses can be found from Part 1.
Thanks to Crispin Williams, Helen Spiby-Vann, and Mike Swadling for their responses.
“I can remember back in the 1960s when the doom-mongers were heralding the start of another ice age! … so I am by nature and experience a sceptic”
I can remember back in the 1960s when the doom-mongers were heralding the start of another ice age! I have also lived through the panics of Aids and the Millennium Bug, both of which were supposed to ruin life as we know it but fizzled out as a major threat, so I am by nature and experience a sceptic. However, I am inclined to believe the graphs that show global temperatures have soared since 1980. Therefore, my proper answer to the question is yes, it is a threat.
1980? Hmm. The temperature rise seems to mirror the rise of industrialisation in China and India. Anyone who has travelled to these and similar countries will have witnessed the high levels of smog and pollution, far worse than we used to have in Britain when we were renowned for our ‘pea-soupers’. In short, we British are not the cause of the problem.
But should we be taking the lead in addressing it? In practical terms, it is a waste of time us ruining our economy to shave off a fraction of the 1% of carbon emissions that we generate. It is well documented that China can – and will – increase their output by this amount in a few weeks, if not days. So it is patently nuts for us to be spending billions of our taxpayers’ money on reducing our miniscule contribution to the problem.
Should we have a referendum on net zero targets?
No. That’s not how we do things in this country. Switzerland can have one as it is part of their democratic processes but there is virtually no precedent here. Referenda should be reserved for constitutional matters only. Anyway, the subject is too emotive and the general public would not be given the full range of facts to make an informed decision.
What action should we be taking on the environment?
Buy lots of sun block, nice shades and swimmies and sod the next generation…
Yes, that was a joke. That said, what we could and should do is pressure the worst polluting countries into reducing their emissions. How? Well, as a suggestion, we could put a ban (or very high tariffs) on imports from them until they address the problem. Of course, this would increase the cost of goods we buy but I suspect the total would be a mere fraction of what we are intending to spend on net zero. And it would stimulate our manufacturing base.
Finally, if we are intent on reducing our emissions, this would best be done through market forces rather than government diktats, artificial target dates and huge subsidies. Once electric cars are cheaper than petrol ones and heat pumps are cheaper than gas boilers, then we will naturally move towards lower emitting technologies.
“Kenya successfully banned plastic packaging in 2017, Rwanda in 2008. We don’t need plastic packaging. We have paper, cardboard, tin, glass, compostable and natural fibres”
‘I’m not going to replace the polyfoam with paper food trays until the government makes me.’ Said the chip-shop man nonchalantly. Not so long ago I got into an uncivilised wrangle over a chip tray. My teenager left the shop in horror at my indiscretion.
However unreasonable and hopeless it may seem, small changes will make a huge difference.
Is global warming a threat?
I believe global warming is a threat. However, as a Christian, my divine calling is unconditional advocacy for compassionate stewardship of the earth’s creatures and plants. Plus to foster equitable sharing of the earth’s resources.
Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?
I think this would be a good idea as it will create awareness about the implications across the board. Open discussion and critique from a range of opposing positions will stir hearts into action. Assuming it is approved, it will strengthen the resolve and mandate of this movement. Unfortunately, there is so much ‘greenwashing’ at large, a person can be forgiven for thinking they are helping the planet by buying more plastic Petunias.
What action should we be taking on the environment?
Lifestyles: More cherished, forbearing and Godly. Less materialism, disposable and excess.
Plastic packaging: ‘I was shocked, when I came to the UK, there’s plastic wrappers on everything in the supermarket.’ (Confessions of my Kenyan friend in London).
We don’t need plastic packaging. We have paper, cardboard, tin, glass, compostable and natural fibres that are part of circular economies. Supermarkets are selling more and more items in plastic packaging. This is not acceptable. We can solve the plastic packaging problem simply by not producing it in the first place.
Moreover, we should be extending this to manufacturing by promoting ‘Cradle to Cradle’ type standards: healthy, socially just and authentically sustainable. Producing no waste and using natural energy flows that do not pollute.
Energy: We have been building wind turbines and paying for them to be switched off. There must be a better way to manage our sustainable energy assets so we can phase out fossil fuels.
“we have a situation where the political/media classes all agree they need to lower our standard of living, which I firmly believe people don’t want (note they don’t seem to want to lower theirs)”
Mike Swadling one of the Croydon Constitutionalists.
Is global warming a threat?
Humans are exceptional. 200 years ago Global life expectancy was under 30, today life expectancy in the poorest counties 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 mean 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. Climate has changed for millennia before mankind, during our existence and will for many more to come without our interference. For over 30 years ‘experts’ on hefty grants have told us of impending doom from global warming, rising seas levels, agricultural failures, and a scorched planet. None of this has happened, and the planet is greening every year.
Is global warming a threat? Maybe, but human ingenuity will not just rise to any challenge, we will excel and overcome it.
Should we have a referendum on enforced Net Zero targets?
All of the major parties are in lockstep on Net Zero. For all of the challenges of a referendum, we have a situation where the political/media classes all agree they need to lower our standard of living, which I firmly believe people don’t want (note they don’t seem to want to lower theirs). Unless or until a party currently outside parliament makes a breakthrough, the people have no real choice. For all of the challenges off a Referendum on Net Zero, today we have the people pitted against parliament, and like Brexit, I can only see that a referendum will allow us to set parliament back on a path of striving to improve rather than diminish our lives.
What action should we be taking on the environment?
We should protect the environment we live in. In our borough, every small patch of land is being built on. New blocks of flats out of character of the area they are built in keep popping up. Council and government policies have made where we live a less pleasant environment, we need to change this.
Globally we should protect at risk species of animal and plant. I believe this is best achieved by balancing the environment concerns and economic concerns of the local populations. Chickens are not at risk of extinction because they are good source of food and economically useful. Horses are often well looked after because they work and are raced, so are economically useful. Dogs are not at risk of extinction because they work and provide companionship. There is no threat of extinction of lawn grass or corn. Whether through tourism, food, work or altruism, animals and plants that are economically viable thrive.
We can best protect the environment by making bio diversity an economic benefit. To achieve this we should focus on raising the standard of living of the poorest across the globe to the point that they have the capacity to choose to invest in, and protect their local environments.
This is the forth set of your responses, further responses can be found from Part 1 and in Part 5.
Mike Swadling proposed the debate, and below is his speech delivered to the society. As always with this friendly group the debate was good natured, very well opposed and drew out some great views from the audience.
‘Lockdown does/did more harm than good’ – Proposing the motion
Lockdown, all of the lockdowns, were a challenging time for all of us, I’m sure. As we thankfully move out of them, we need to be careful not to look back with rose-tinted glasses, for the price of lockdown is a cost we now are all forced to bear.
“We had a shared sacrifice through lockdown, we don’t like to think that was in vain, but we must avoid what economist call the ‘sunk cost fallacy’.”
What surprised you most about your lockdown?
What did you do / stop doing that surprised you? I would like to tell you about the great skill I learnt, or hobby I engaged in, but for me and this may sound a little odd, it was that I used aftershave more. Now to avoid confusion this was not eau de toilette, perfume, or eau de Cologne. This was cheap aftershave.
Going into an office since I was a teenager I would shave ever day, or at worst every other day. In lockdown, suddenly shaving a was much less common event and I needed some cheap aftershave to somewhat painfully help my face recover after a weekly shave.
I don’t doubt you have better surprise experiences from lockdown, but whatever they are, we should avoid confusing the revelation from adversity with a positive experience. We didn’t see our friends and families for a long time. Many lost their jobs, and their businesses in lockdown, many lost hope.
We had a shared sacrifice through lockdown, we don’t like to think that was in vain, but we must avoid what economist call the ‘sunk cost fallacy’. This being our tendency to follow through on an endeavor if we have already invested time, effort, or money into it, whether or not the current costs outweigh the benefits.
And Lockdowns costs, way outstripped Lockdowns benefits.
I want to for a moment separate lockdown from the pandemic and endemic problem of Covid. Many people lost their lives to this terrible virus. But the virus is quite separate from the actions we take to manage or deal with it.
We have seen around the globe a mixture of measures to handle Covid. Some countries have in effect locked Covid out of their land, this has worked for Australia and until recently New Zealand, some have staid in almost permanent lockdowns, some taken a very limited response like Sweden, and some like the UK, US and Switzerland with more federal systems have adopted different approaches across their countries.
All of these counties took different approaches, to fight the same virus. I will argue we should have taken a very different approach to fight lockdowns, and that Lockdown did more harm than good.
The idea of a Lockdown was such an anathema. Government ministers telling you how long you were allowed out of your home, and police forces flying drones to check who is visiting beauty spots. The burden must lie with on those in favor of lockdowns to prove they had an invaluable and undeniable contribution to make in fighting covid.
If the last 18 months have taught us anything it’s that lockdowns didn’t stop the virus, didn’t control the virus, but did cause untold damage to our society.
For lockdowns to be justified they must in my opinion pass the following 3 tests:
That comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stops or slows the spread of the virus in the community and saves lives.
That the impact of the lockdown is sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs as still outweighed by the original benefit.
That in the free society the benefits of lockdown is so significant that it justifies a transfer of our freedom to government, and that the government proves it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives.
I will demonstrate lockdowns have failed all 3.
Did “comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stop or slow the spread of the virus in the community and save lives”?
The original plan for dealing with a virus was messaging to increase hygiene, some voluntary social distancing, and protecting the most vulnerable until heard immunity had built up to protect them naturally. Indeed you will remember that we originally ‘locked-down’ for just 3 weeks to ‘bend the curve’, to protect the NHS. This would flatten the peak number needing medical treatment for Covid, and ensure hospitals didn’t run out of capacity. It was never expected that the total number who would need hospitalization, or who would die would significantly change as a result of lockdown.
We have now had 18 month of those ‘3 weeks’ and we can compare those countries who followed their original plans more closely with those who undertook severe lockdowns. The comparison suggests frankly as a result of lockdowns, not much changed.
Now I am going to talk about deaths. Death has so far proved to be 100% unavoidable. People will die, and will die at a higher rate when a new virus is doing the rounds. An individuals death is tragic, but for policy purposes, we need to look at which policy saw the least deaths, and ideally the least years of a fulfilled life lost.
“What does all this data tell us, frankly not a lot. Which does show, that whatever the ingredient was that lead to a higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown”
The Oxford Covid-19 Government Response Tracker, collects systematic information on policy measures that governments have taken to tackle COVID-19. The different policy responses are tracked since January 2020, cover more than 180 countries and are coded into 23 indicators, such as school closures, travel restrictions, and vaccination policy. They rank countries on how strict their lockdown policy was from 0 to 100, with 100 being the strictest.
The UK sits at 80 out of 100, France at 88, Spain 82 and Italy 69. Germany comes in at just 64 and all the Scandinavian countries are in the 60s, with Sweden the lowest at 65. How does this compare to the Covid death rate?
At over 2000 per million, the UK and Italy had the most death, with France and Spain not far behind. Germany and Sweden had similar numbers of deaths at about 1300 and 1450 per million respectively, and limited lockdown Norway and Finland we’re bottom with both less than 200 deaths per million.
Incidentally Bosnia at the high rate of 90 in severity of lockdown and Hungry at a lenient 66, were the two countries in with the highest death rates from Covid in Europe. Iceland with the least lockdown, ranked at just 50 out of 100, and had the least deaths per million, with just 33 deaths in total.
What does all this data tell us, frankly not a lot. Which does show, that whatever the ingredient was that lead to a higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown.
If you don’t believe the data from Europe or have some reason to dismiss it. Let’s look at the US, a society, where different legal jurisdictions are more comparable.
It’s been widely reported the New York and California have had serve lockdowns, and generally high compliance rates among the population, yet they come in 5th and 33rd among the 50 states for death rates.
Texas at 20th and Florida ranked 9th by death rate, have had some of the least restrictive and shortest lockdowns. Arkansas 10th, Iowa 25th, Nebraska 42nd, North Dakota 23rd, South Dakota 12th, Utah 45th, and Wyoming 35th, by rates of deaths, are the only states that did not issue stay at home orders in early 2020.
The very scattered nature of death rates shows once again that whatever the ingredient was that lead to higher or lower death rates from Covid, it certainly wasn’t lockdown.
In the first lockdown rates were falling before the lockdown was brought in, in the autumn rates continued to rise as lockdown came in and death rates peaked in the middle of the winter lockdown. As we have opened up society we’ve not seen any increase in death rates as pubs, stadiums, theater’s opened and schools returned.
There is simply no evidence that ‘comparted to our society being free, lockdowns stopped or slowed the spread of the virus in the community or saved lives’.
Now to address the second test.
Was the impact of the lockdown sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs are still outweighed by the original benefit?
Now I believe I have demonstrated there was no benefit from the original lockdown, but even if you believe there was, does it outweigh lockdowns undeniable costs?
I have said this before to this grand society, but it bears repeating. The Great Frost of 1709 was the coldest European winter during the past 500 years. It caused widespread crop failure and economic devastation. 2020 was the worst economic contraction since 1709. Let’s just put that into some perspective.
In the intervening years we have faced, Jacobite revolution, a global 7 Year war with Louis XV’s France, fought in and lost the Americas, seen off Napoleon, fought two World Wars against Germany, seen massive economic changes with agricultural and industrial revolutions, introduced and repealed The Corn Laws, seen global economic depression in the 1930’s, formed a Union with and given independence to Ireland. Gained and lost the world’s largest ever Empire, Yet none of these created as big a fall in GDP as we faced last year.
To remind you, Lockdown caused more damage than the Luftwaffe.
“Put simply the richer a country is the longer people live. We have in one year for no good reason, destroyed more wealth in the UK, than any other year for the past 300. How can that not have serious ramifications?”
The UK has an average life expectancy of 81, Uganda 63. Canada is 82, Chad 54. France 82, Fiji 67. Germans with their love for beer and bratwurst, outlive Gambians by 19 years.
Having spent some time working in Belgium, a country of endless rain. I know it’s almost not possible to eat a meal there without a large helping of potatoes, yet even they live 20 more years on average than the people of tropical Burkina Faso. Singaporeans, live on average 11 more years than neighboring Malaysians.
What separates these countries? One word, wealth.
Put simply the richer a country is the longer people live. We have in one year for no good reason, destroyed more wealth in the UK, than any other year for the past 300. How can that not have serious ramifications?
“during the year to July 31st, Barnardo’s saw a 36% increase in the number of children referred for foster care. We know the NHS saw a 28% rise in children being referred to mental health services in late 2020”
But it’s not just an economic cost, it’s a societal one.
We know for instance that during the year to July 31st, Barnardo’s saw a 36% increase in the number of children referred for foster care.
We know the NHS saw a 28% rise in children being referred to mental health services in late 2020.
We know the number of children in need of urgent or emergency care, rose by 18%, compared with 2019.
We know in the decade preceding the pandemic, the mean IQ score for children aged between 3 months and 3 years of age hovered around 100, but for children born during the pandemic that number tumbled to 78.
We are taught to socialize puppies but for a year we didn’t socialize baby children, who were at basically no risk from Covid.
We know as of June, there were 10,000 fewer patients in England starting treatment for breast cancer, than in the year before. Either we believe breast cancer has disappeared or this will have long term consequences to their health.
We know rates of depression in early 2021 were more than double those observed before lockdown.
We know studies of school pupils show a consistent impact of the first lockdown with pupils making around 2 months less progress than similar pupils in previous years.
We saw people die alone in care homes, and hospitals. We have given out two years of frankly guessed GCSE and A Level results. We have supply chain problems globally and we have printed money like it’s confetti and inflation is once again rearing its ugly head.
All of this was for lockdowns, that we can see when compared to the countries that didn’t lockdown, made not a blind bit of difference to the spread of the virus. Do the ‘ongoing costs, outweigh any original benefit’. Absolutely not. The third and final test I passionately believe is the most important.
‘In the free society are the benefits of lockdown so significant that they justify a transfer of our freedom to government, and does the government prove it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives?’
If I may again repeat my words from a previous debate. The income tax was first introduced in the Napoleonic Wars as a temporary measure and is still with us today. Blanket restrictions were applied to pub opening times during World War One, and left largely unchanged until 1988 and rationing stayed in place for 9 years after the end of the second world war.
“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program” to quote Milton Friedman.
Since 1215 with Magna Carta, through the 1689 Bill of Rights, to universal suffrage, freedoms have been hard won. Those in power always want more, and by necessity will sacrifice your liberty to take it. Any didn’t they just do that.
Lockdown broke articles 3, 5, 13, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 27, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is not a partisan point, as our supposed opposition parties were just as enthusiastic about granting politicians, civil servants, medical chiefs and the police ever more power over our lives.
Did the governing class justify this power grab? Let’s look at a few cases.
Prof Neil Ferguson who’s alarmist and thoroughly disproven predictions sparked the first locked had to resign when it was reported that a woman he was said to be in a relationship with visited his home in lockdown.
At the time, then Health Secretary Matt Hancock, yes that Matt Hancock said it was that it was “just not possible” for Prof Ferguson to continue advising the government.
Matt Hancock of course was having a secret affair with his closest aide whilst couples, if living in separate households were not allowed to meet under rules his department was responsible for. In his hypocritical case, ‘Hands. Face. Space’, were both health instructions and almost unbelievably a seductive technique!
The Welsh Tory leader resigned after he was seen drinking in the Senedd during a pub alcohol ban in Wales.
And of course Dominic Cummings drove 264 miles, and popped to Barnard Castle, whilst the rest of us were in lockdown.
Rules for thee and not for me, has been the mantra of those in power.
“Of course not everyone was unmasked, the staff, the people serving them, those not privileged to move in these lofty circus, needed to retain their muzzles when serving the great and good”
We saw earlier this year staged photos of world leaders in masks during the G7 Summit in Cornwall, next to photos of them all unmasked enjoying normal conversations. Of course not everyone was unmasked, the staff, the people serving them, those not privileged to move in these lofty circus, needed to retain their muzzles when serving the great and good.
We saw the same at Wimbledon in the Royal Box, where only staff need to were a face covering, and again recently at the Met Gala in New York.
Rules for thee and not for me, shows the moral bankruptcy of those who govern us, and show how ‘the government has proved it does not have the moral authority to exercise control over our lives’.
“The vaccines have protected many and saved a lot of lives, but in a free society people must be free to choose if they want them. They must be free from the coercion of vaccine passports”
Freedoms are returning, lockdowns have in large part lifted. But we must be ever vigilant. The vaccines have protected many and saved a lot of lives, but in a free society people must be free to choose if they want them. They must be free from the coercion of vaccine passports.
We must free from the zero covid strategy being implemented in much of Australia which is seeing in, Melbourne of all cities Police use rubber bullets on people protesting lockdowns and coerced vaccination.
Lockdowns didn’t work, they did more hard than good, their harm is sadly enduring. As frustrating as it is to know we wasted a good year in lockdown, we must acknowledge that due to their immense harm lockdowns must not be allowed to happen again.
Summary
I set 3 tests for Lockdown
That comparted to the society being free, a lockdown stops or slows the spread of the virus in the community and saves lives.
That the impact of the lockdown is sufficiently mild on the economy, and general functioning of society, that the ongoing costs as still outweighed by the original benefit.
That in the free society the benefits of lockdown is so significant that it justifies a transfer of our freedom to government, and that the government proves it has the moral authority to exercise control over out lives.
When we compare countries, who took different measures, lockdowns in no way demonstrate they worked stem the spread of Covid.
We know the impact of lockdown on the economy, on society, on children’s education, and on all our health in the long term. In no case will it be good.
We have lost freedoms, that are proving slow to return. The government and those more broadly in power have not demonstrated they are fit to govern, and take our freedoms.
Lockdown did more harm than good, and I urge you to support the motion.
Independents for Liberty held their 2021 Annual Conference, ‘Restoring Liberty, Rebuilding A Free Country’, on Saturday, 25th September.
They are an association of pro-liberty individuals and influencers aiming to restore liberty and rebuild a free country.
Their mission as individual associates of Independents for Liberty is to make the case for freedom, promote political activism that supports your liberty and grow sustainable economies that enhances long-term freedom.
Michael Swadling of Croydon Constitutionalists shares tried and tested campaign strategies every independent libertarian candidate should be using for their local election campaigns.
Mike’s contribution:
On Council run events: “…why should the taxpayer be forced to subsidise my weekend?”
“All councils have to publish a report of everything they spend that’s over £500 …what’s really useful is identifying the budgets that have more controversial items …the payments councillors can award themselves…”
“We had a petition to make sure no one is paid more than the Prime Minister in the Borough. …to say no one in the Town Hall is doing a more important job than the Prime Minister. …you can start to call out some of those.”
“‘As poor as a Council Executive’ is not a common phrase people will hear.”
Christopher Wilkinson opens the first annual Independents for Liberty conference by outlining how the association will help rebuild a free country:
Harry Fone, Grassroots Campaign Manager for the Tax Payers’ Alliance, tells what we can expect from the Tax and NI increases, Government and Council waste, and highlights important points for independent libertarian candidates to campaign on:
Gareth Seward, speaking at the 2021 Independents for Liberty conference, explains the coming consequences of government economic policy. An essential primer for understanding current events.
