My tuppenceworth – Croydon Constitutionalists

The Benefits Trap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main image generated using Grok.

Department of Government Efficiency – Croydon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to ask you a question.

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

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

Another one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On that note, another question for you.

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

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

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

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

Blueprint for Education

At our My tuppenceworth evening on the 19^th February Crispin Williams spoke about his ideas for a blueprint for education.

“I have never had recourse to my knowledge of the cross-section of a rift valley in Africa, or, ever since, had to dissect a fuchsia”

O, for a muse of fire that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention!
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act,
And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
Then should the warlike Harry, like himself,
Assume the port of Mars, and at his heels,
Leashed in like hounds, should famine, sword, and fire
Crouch for employment.

I learnt the Prologue to Henry V by heart in my O Level year, 1968-69 and for some extraordinary reason, I can still remember it, despite not being able to remember what I had for dinner last night.

But what was the point? Apart from impressing (!) my friends, it is completely useless. As are probably 75% of the facts I supposedly learnt at school. I have never had recourse to my knowledge of the cross-section of a rift valley in Africa, or, ever since, had to dissect a fuchsia.

No, the sole reason for learning such things was to pass exams. And (the Shakespeare quote apart) I – like pretty much everyone else – forgot all this type of knowledge by the time the summer holidays started.

“Most children, of whatever ability, leave school without being taught how to boil and egg, wallpaper a wall, manage their finances, understand the small print of a loan contract or change a wheel”

I went to the best school in Croydon (when you could use the word best in a sentence about Croydon!). But even then, and ever since, I have thought our whole education system to be ridiculous.

Most children, of whatever ability, leave school without being taught how to boil and egg, wallpaper a wall, manage their finances, understand the small print of a loan contract or change a wheel. Surely, we should be teaching practical and useful everyday skills before academic niceties.

Of course there is a place for some ‘academic’ skills. Basic arithmetic is essential: it is not very convenient or seemly to open the calculator on your phone to work out Tesco’s best deal on mince. And it is hard to decide where to go on holiday if you don’t know the difference between Austria and Australia (mind you, I’m not sure they teach that anyway).

“We learn small periods in history in minute detail for exam syllabuses but, I for one, have never known the chronology of the kings and queens of this country, or the rough dates of major wars”

So, rather than focussing on very narrow aspects of individual subjects, we should first ensure that all children are taught a broad general knowledge. I will give you examples:

History: We learn small periods in history in minute detail for exam syllabuses but, I for one, have never known the chronology of the kings and queens of this country, or the rough dates of major wars and other significant events throughout the past 2,000 years.

Geography: Yes, I did learn to draw a cross-section of a rift valley in Africa (arguably that’s geology anyway). We should start by understanding the map of the world: where countries are, what their capitals are and then what they are like – hot, cold, mountainous, desert, rain forest, etc. And this, above all other subjects, lends itself to being taught visually with the use of videos.

English Literature: Instead of forensically studying a few classics, we should be taught a broad overview of classic authors’ works. Hence, although I know a lot about Henry V and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, I was given no idea what Hamlet or Macbeth are about.

And so on… The same arguments apply to biology, physics and even, to some small extent, languages.

I have omitted English language. Although language evolves over time, often through ignorance of correct grammar and spelling, in recent years it has been so bastardised by lack of knowledge of correct usage that it is often unintelligible. And this ‘evolving’ has continued at such a rapid pace that, for example, adjectives are becoming nouns (“Unlock your happy”) and adverbs are disappearing in front of our very eyes (“He did bad”).

I have also omitted mathematics, or at least arithmetic, from the list although the teaching of this could be much improved by relating it to everyday matters.

“Artistic children should be encouraged along that route and scientifically minded ones in that appropriate direction. And this may well mean transferring to specialist schools so that all schools do not try to be ‘one size fits all’”

Thus, by the age of thirteen, all children should have a broad general knowledge in every one of the traditional subjects, plus those unfashionable ones like cookery and DIY. By then, a child’s particular interests and capabilities will have started to become apparent, and their continuing education should be geared to their individual talents and preferences. Artistic children should be encouraged along that route and scientifically minded ones in that appropriate direction. And this may well mean transferring to specialist schools so that all schools do not try to be ‘one size fits all’.

Physical exercise is very underrated these days in schools; children should have plenty of opportunity to let off energy as well as keeping fit, but this again needs to be done with an individual approach. Some children, for example, love football while others are useless at it and hate it. So, they should be allowed to take their exercise doing something they do like (or, at least, not hate). Anything – hopscotch, even games of ‘It’.

The latter points of this article lead to a discussion of the structure for providing this type of broad, rounded education. And that will form another document in due course…

Main image generated using Grok.

My tuppenceworth – A Free Speech event, Wednesday 19th February

My tuppenceworth is back, on Wednesday 19th February upstairs at Whispers 5 High St, Purley.

You are the star!

This is your opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you and give your tuppenceworth. Each speaker will have up to 5 minutes to speak about an issue dear to their heart, followed by a short Q&A.

We ask all speeches are non-partisan and remind you the laws of slander still apply!

Come prepared or do off the cuff, this is your opportunity to exercise some free speech.

If you do have notes, we can publish to increase the reach of your ideas as we have for previous events.

If you would like to speak, please let us know by emailing [email protected].

Join us Upstairs, Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF on Wednesday 19th February, from 7pm.

Held as part of our regular #ThirdWednesday drinks, we hold these in association with Dick Delingpole’s #ThirdWednesday Libertarian drinks club, and POLITICS in PUBS a group of people from across the political spectrum who value the freedom to question and to speak openly.

You can also find this as a Facebook event at https://fb.me/e/F1GKs6TXm

GE2024 – None of the above

My tuppenceworth speech by Mike Swadling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcribed by https://turboscribe.ai/dashboard

Campaign for Liberty – My tuppenceworth

My tuppenceworth speech by Mike Swadling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcribed by https://turboscribe.ai/

My tuppenceworth – A Free Speech event, Wednesday 17th July

My tuppenceworth is back, on Wednesday 17th July upstairs at Whispers 5 High St, Purley.

You are the star!

We ask all speeches are non-partisan and remind you the laws of slander still apply!

Come prepared or do off the cuff, this is your opportunity to exercise some free speech.

If you do have notes, we can publish to increase the reach of your ideas as we have in previous years.

If you would like to speak, please let us know by emailing [email protected].

Join us Upstairs, Whispers, 5 High St, Purley CR8 2AF on Wednesday 17th July, from 7pm.

You can also find this as a Facebook event at https://www.facebook.com/events/807716394294269/

Reform of the House of Lords

In November we held our 3rd My tuppenceworth event giving you the opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you.

Crispin Williams spoke on House of Lords Reform and his speech is below.

“it is the only upper house of any parliament in the world to be bigger than its lower house; and it is the world’s second largest legislative chamber after the National People’s Congress of China”

There is fairly general agreement that the House of Lords is in need of reform. It currently has more members (785) than there are physical seats in the chamber; it is the only upper house of any parliament in the world to be bigger than its lower house; and it is the world’s second largest legislative chamber after the National People’s Congress of China. Many peers either rarely attend or just turn up to collect their attendance allowance.

Furthermore, there has been a tendency in recent years to make an increasing number of political appointments to the Lords, often by ‘promoting’ MPs who have lost their seats or rewarding party advisers.

“even if affiliated to a political party, Lords may express personal views without fear of losing their seat and, in fact, often speak out against party lines. I cannot express too strongly the importance of this independence from the politics of the lower chamber”

The purpose of the House of Lords is – or at least should be – as a scrutinising and revising chamber that looks dispassionately at legislation passed by the Commons, often hurriedly and for political expediency, to ensure that it is logical, workable, and fair. This should be done without the constraints of party whips. The growth in the number of overtly political Lords threatens this independence. Nevertheless, even if affiliated to a political party, Lords may express personal views without fear of losing their seat and, in fact, often speak out against party lines. I cannot express too strongly the importance of this independence from the politics of the lower chamber.

I am, therefore, vehemently against an elected House. This would almost certainly just reflect the composition of the Commons, making the Lords even more political and it would inevitably lead to legislation passed by the Commons being nodded through at the behest of the whips. In short, an elected Lords would negate the very reasons for its existence.

“I would argue that its role as a scrutinising and moderating body is essential. To achieve this role satisfactorily, the Lords should be populated with the ‘great and the good’”

There are those who would welcome the abolition of the Lords altogether, but I would argue that its role as a scrutinising and moderating body is essential. To achieve this role satisfactorily, the Lords should be populated with the ‘great and the good’, i.e., people with experience, expertise and intelligence, not just failed MPs, party donors and spotty, brown-nosing ex-SPADS (special advisers).

“This committee would be composed of people in leading positions in public life but nominated by the position they hold, not by personality. Thus, the holders of specific posts would automatically have a say in selection, whoever they may be”

My suggestion is for members of the House of Lords to be selected by an appointments committee. This committee would be composed of people in leading positions in public life but nominated by the position they hold, not by personality. Thus, the holders of specific posts would automatically have a say in selection, whoever they may be.

Below I give some examples of the kind of positions that might comprise the appointment committee. As I say, these are just examples and there can be much further debate as to the final choice.

The Prime Minister and, say, two leading cabinet positions
The Leader of the Opposition and one other Shadow Cabinet member
The Leader of any other party with a given number of seats in the Commons
The Speaker of the House of Commons
The Speaker of the House of Lords
The First Minister of Scotland
The First Minister of Wales
The Mayor of London
The Archbishop of Canterbury
The Prince of Wales
The Governor of the Bank of England
The General Secretary of the TUC
The Director-General of the CBI
The Chair of the Commission for Racial Equality
The Chair of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes

Each of these committee members would be free to put forward nominations for seats in the House of Lords. Nominations could also come from the public via a mechanism whereby anyone reaching a particular threshold would be put forward to the appointments committee.

This would lead to a House of high-quality people being elected by a committee with balanced views. Clearly, some of the above might also be Lords themselves.

This revised House of Lords would comprise 250 members, re-appointed on a staggered 10-year basis, with no restriction on the number of times a member could be re-appointed.

Main Photo by UK Parliament – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sLZBWcPklk @ 01:06, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56761114

Croydon – doing less, better?

In November we held our 3rd My tuppenceworth event giving you the opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you.

Mike Swadling gave an update on Croydon Council and his speech is below.

“Croydon is 29^th on the list of highest real terms increase at 114%. We are paying well over double the real terms rate we were 1993″

We are the Croydon Constitutionalists. Constitutionalists signifies that we believe in the principles of English constitutional government through electoral politics, and the Croydon part is self-evident we are a local organisation. So, 18 months into a new Croydon council led by a new executive mayor what’s happening in our town?

Firstly, let’s take a little step back in time. The Taxpayers’ Alliance (TPA) has published data showing that of the 450 local authorities that have continually existed since the Council Tax was first introduced in 1993, Croydon is 29^th on the list of highest real terms increase at 114%. We are paying well over double the real terms rate we were 1993. We are still de facto bankrupt and we are paying through the nose for it.

“Croydon was one of 47 councils, about 10%, who failed to submit accounts on time. I get that this is doing less, but can it really be called better?”

In an interview in August Croydon’s chief executive, Katherine Kerswell, gave some encouraging words when she said:
“Our ambition is to become an efficient council – to deliver essential services well, offer value for money, to listen to the people of Croydon, and simply do what we say we will do.
So how do we get there? We must do less, better”

Fine words, but what have we seen in practice. To quote: “Croydon council in South London paid 21 staff six-figure salaries last year. Its top earner was chief executive Katherine Kerswell on £192,474.”

I took this information from a June article in the Daily Express. Not able to take it from the TPA’s Town Hall Rich list report as Croydon was one of 47 councils, about 10%, who failed to submit accounts on time. I get that this is doing less, but can it really be called better?

I tried to verify this data on the council’s website as I should be able to. If anyone cares to search it and can find a decent list, please send me the link. Eventually I found a list of job titles listed in an unclear format in a PDF file on the site which is I suppose meeting their statutory requirement.

Again, I get that this is Croydon Council doing less but is it really doing it better? Worse still whist 21 is down on the 29 roles paid over £100K the council had last year; it is up on the 19 roles the year before. Last year was a year of transition and I believe not all these roles overlapped, so it appears, and the lack of clear publications make this hard to see, that top end spending at the council is back on the increase.

“spending public funds on arts that are not viable commercially or via voluntary donations as the council has been doing for years, is no less of a waste of money when it comes from someone else’s funding stream”

Croydon is the London Borough of Culture for 2023. As part of this they are committed to spending £522,500 in 2022/23, and £452,500 in 2023/24. Additionally, £1,350,000 will come from the GLA, and £1,900,000 is expected from Arts Council England and National Lottery Heritage.

I believe spending public funds on arts that are not viable commercially or via voluntary donations as the council has been doing for years, is no less of a waste of money when it comes from someone else’s funding stream.

“Of the £623,000 spent on the London Borough of Culture in that time, £34K went to Redacted, what are they hiding from us?”

As part of this in the last 4 months Croydon Council has published figures of Borough of Culture spending which include £113K that went to Think Events (London) Ltd, £75K went to Stanley Arts, £67K to White Label Publishing Ltd, £42K to Theatre – Rites, and £39K to London Mozart Players, I could go on and on. Of the £623,000 spent on the London Borough of Culture in that time, £34K went to Redacted, what are they hiding from us?

“in 4 months £623,000 of taxpayers’ money spent not feeding needy families, not boosting our town centre, not providing social services for the most vulnerable, but on painted Giraffes and non-commercially viable arts”

May I remind you this is in the last 4 months that data has been published for, May to July. This is 4 months, not one year, not over the two-year programme. That is in 4 months £623,000 of taxpayers’ money spent not feeding needy families, not boosting our town centre, not providing social services for the most vulnerable, but on painted Giraffes and non-commercially viable arts.

Yes, things are better than 18 months ago. We are no longer haemorrhaging money through Brick by Brick, and we are slowly unwinding the commercial property failures of the last administration. But when it comes to transparency and wise use of public funds, it’s hard to argue they are doing things better at Croydon Council.

Build Baby Build

In November we held our 3rd My tuppenceworth event giving you the opportunity to speak to those assembled on an issue that really matters to you.

Mike Swadling spoke on the issue of housing and his speech is below.

“with so much of our housing stock built between the wars it’s seems likely the number of homes in need of replacement will increase rapidly in the next couple of decades”

At the recent Battle of Ideas, I attended a panel on ‘Housing Britain: Yimbys vs Nimbys’. For a contentious topic there was a surprising degree of unanimity among the panel and audience on the need to build, and even what to build. Most disagreement came on the process of how to get it done.

I am firmly of the belief we need to build housing, and we need to build lots of it. There is a general consensus to meet current levels of demand we need to build around 300,000 new homes per year. In 2022 we built 232,000 new homes.

In checking the data for this I found numbers for new build and net new homes seemingly used interchangeably. This may be in part because of property conversions, but clearly these are not the same thing. However, it does strike me that with so much of our housing stock built between the wars it’s seems likely the number of homes in need of replacement will increase rapidly in the next couple of decades.

All this has led to a growing number of concealed households”, now believed to total 1.6 million potential households of people who would like to be in their own home but can’t because of shortages. We are believed to have about 260,000 long-term empty homes in England but even if somehow these were magically all brought back into use they would solve little of the overall problem. Even second home ownership lies at about 3% and is little changed in decades.

Whatever the reasons behind it, we have a problem today with a lack of houses. We have a problem with a younger generation feeling increasingly disengaged from our society when they can’t leave home and build their own lives. We also have a problem with rising costs for care as an increasingly aging population often face a choice between staying in their own home or being in a care home, with little suitable middle ground alternatives. In short, we need to build baby build.

“People will more willingly accept hosing built in their area if they believe we have control of our borders and if local people from the community the homes are built in are given priority”

Necessary Pre-requisites

There are however some necessary prerequisites to oversee a largescale increase in housebuilding. People need to believe these are houses for their families, their community, not just to be brought by overseas property speculators or used to house the worlds migrants coming to our shores. People will more willingly accept hosing built in their area if they believe we have control of our borders and if local people from the community the homes are built in are given priority to fill them.

“At the battle of ideas panel on housing one member of the audience was simultaneously praising the green belt and complaining about the intensification of building in the city”

At the battle of ideas panel on housing one member of the audience was simultaneously praising the green belt and complaining about the intensification of building in the city. As someone who lives on the doorstep of the green belt and has seen 157 flats go up next to my home, I can’t help but wonder if one or two of the farmers’ fields in the green belt near me could be used to provide 157 houses rather than have flats built on what was my town’s main car park.

Don’t worry about us running out of land, it would take about 5 football pitches to build 157 homes at 4 bedrooms (these flats are not 4 bedrooms), that would use 7 of the 17.2 million hectares of farmland we have in the UK. (This would provide 385 million homes, with currently about 30million in the UK).

The green belt lovely though it maybe, ensures we live in ever more crowded cities, rather than expand them as the need for housing expands. We are in Croydon, a Surrey market town built out to accommodate the expanding population of London, why are we insisting that future generations live in ever more cramped environments rather than in new suburbs or towns further out.

“Can anyone cite examples where cramping people into tighter spaces gives good outcomes?”

Can anyone cite examples where cramping people into tighter spaces gives good outcomes? A hundred years ago we were clearing out the slums. The high rise post war blocks of flats were generally seen as a disaster in my youth. I wonder why we are intent on recreating them.

What to do

So, what are we to do? I say we need to build bigger, build beautiful, build better, and build for everyone. What would this mean in practice.

Build beautiful – At last year’s Battle of Ideas, Ike Ijeh the architect, and 2019 Brexit Party candidate, spoke about how he had seen developers have success getting acceptance from the local community for new builds through well laid out design. Beautiful well laid out communities, which could well include a mixture of flats and houses are more likely to be approved than throwing another box of 9 flats on a previous 1 home plot.

“We all benefit from better high-end homes; we all get the chance to move up the market and we will free up what used to be called starter homes”

Build bigger – I was impressed by an article I read last year on ‘how building expensive homes can help people on low incomes’. The article proposes we should focus on building more £5million homes rather than £120,000 ones. To quote the article “adding homes that are better quality than the existing stock allows people to move out of the existing stock into better homes, and frees up existing stock for suppressed households.” We all benefit from better high-end homes; we all get the chance to move up the market and we will free up what used to be called starter homes. Few communities would object to an estate of £5million homes being build on the edge of town, and few property developers would sit on this planning permission.

Build better – We need to build new estates with services, shops, schools, transport, and things that people want. We can’t build just based on environmentalist dreamlands, where someone after a hard day’s work will somehow pick-up the kids from the childminder and pop to the shops on a push bike.

We are not going to build everything we need just on the edge of cities and as much as I don’t believe it should be sacred the green belt has a purpose. After the war we built new towns in Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, Welwyn Garden City, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Northampton, and many other places. These might not make it to your bucket list of destinations to visit but they are good places for work and to raise families.

“Coming into land at Gatwick airport on a sunny day you can see from Croydon to Brighton and view the miles of greenery in between”

Local to us Crawley houses 118,500 people. Coming into land at Gatwick airport on a sunny day you can see from Croydon to Brighton and view the miles of greenery in between. Only the airport and Crawley stand out as major developments. 3 more airports and Crawley’s in the view and it would still be overwhelmingly green, 6 more and you would still think you are viewing the countryside. We could build 2 more Crawley’s in the area of the A22 to A24 corridors and hardly notice.

Croydon has a 10 year housing target from the Mayor of London of 20,790 new homes (2019 – 2028). This on top of the thousands of new homes already built in the borough in recent years. One new Crawley built with the industrial estates, shopping centres, office blocks, schools, doctors and everything else needed to form a community could at this rate supply 60 years of growth needed in Croydon and over a third of our annual UK wide rate of new homes growth.

“with about a quarter of the country having less than £500 worth of savings it is reasonable to assume many will never buy their own home”

Build for everyone – There are not many times I believe government can help, but I increasingly believe we need to build more social housing, and government will need to play a part in this. As someone who was born into the Regina Road Estate council blocks now being pulled down by Croydon Council, I have little faith in their ability to provide property. However, with about a quarter of the country having less than £500 worth of savings it is reasonable to assume many will never buy their own home. We can argue how much government provided housing is needed, who should run it and what right to buy schemes we should have. But, we do need to provide something for the taxpayer and for renters that is not just busting budgets to pay for private rents.

“Why not offer what I might call free ports of housing. Designated areas with council tax holidays for new development or major upgrades to a generation of remote workers keen to get on the housing ladder, encouraged to less fashionable parts of the country”

Some of the problems I have described are local or they are a southeast problem. We have a whole country much of which is not so expensive to live in and could do with attracting more young people. Why not offer what I might call free ports of housing. Designated areas with council tax holidays for new development or major upgrades to a generation of remote workers keen to get on the housing ladder, encouraged to less fashionable parts of the country by an influx of similar people and tax breaks. Let’s level up the country by helping to spread the wealth and helping people better their lives.

We build properties not just for now but for use 100 years from now, we have a changing population, with greater demand and desires. Why not build better, bigger homes, why not let people have second homes, whilst also catering for those who need help. We have the land let’s make use of it, whilst also encouraging people to move across the country. This does require some government action but is best achieved by them laying foundations and then getting out of the way whilst we build baby build.

Picture: Andy F / Building site, Wise Street, Leamington / CC BY-SA 2.0