Category: My tuppenceworth

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!

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 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.

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://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 29th 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 29th 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

My tuppenceworth – A Free Speech event, Wednesday 15th November

My tuppenceworth is back, on Wednesday 15th November upstairs at Whispers 5 High St, Purley.

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 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 done for our events in 2022 and 2019.

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 15th November, from 7pm.

You can also find this as a Facebook event at https://fb.me/e/1FpY4zTjG

Beauty

My tuppenceworth speech by Zachary Stiling

“I propose, from observation, that beauty is an objective truth. Those of us with notions of beauty will agree on what is beautiful. Sunsets, fertile valleys, swallows in flight—who will refute it?”

In post-Renaissance Europe, there can be no excuse for ugliness, and yet it abounds. Some people see no problem; many things which are ugly happen to be cheap and convenient, and perversely popular. This points to one thing: that some people are not receptive to beauty.

It does not point towards one of the most irritating, hackneyed and untruthful phrases in circulation: that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, which implies subjectivity. I propose, from observation, that beauty is an objective truth. Those of us with notions of beauty will agree on what is beautiful. Sunsets, fertile valleys, swallows in flight—who will refute it? If the matter was subjective, would someone not wish to assert that the warm glow of dusk is an aesthetic abomination?

We may quibble over minutiae because beauty is metaphysical, its laws written not in numbers as the language of physics, but perceived through feeling rather than deciphered through equations. But as it exists objectively, we perceive it in broadly the same way.

I now speak only for myself, but as one who feels exalted by beauty, you may imagine how the opposite effect is induced by its absence. A while ago, standing on the platform of East Croydon station, it occurred to me that I could see nothing beautiful, and it occasioned a sadness which was profound enough to be memorable.

“Edridge Road, off the Croydon Flyover. Face south and bask in a sense of homeliness as you look past the modest Victorian bricks and mortar to the spire of St. Peter’s Church. Then have your cosy contentment shattered as you about-turn 180 degrees”

Take also the example of Edridge Road, off the Croydon Flyover. Face south and bask in a sense of homeliness as you look past the modest Victorian bricks and mortar to the spire of St. Peter’s Church. Then have your cosy contentment shattered as you about-turn 180 degrees and look north to the hard, jackbooted tower blocks of the town centre, mocking you with their indomitable girth.

But I am fortunate. I am not entirely cut off from beauty as long so long as I live in leafy suburbia and travel the country for work. Consider the person raised on an inadequate housing estate, forced to drive every day along an anonymous dual carriageway to work in a post-war town centre designed by accountants. What nourishment does their soul get? What lifts their minds higher?

“far from being elitist, anyone may be touched by beauty, and its benefits are limitless. It gives the aimless aspiration, brings joy to the depressed and is something to he who has nothing”

It is common today that certain egalitarians should denigrate true beauty as elitist, because it takes time, money and effort to create, and some people have little aptitude for it. But far from being elitist, anyone may be touched by beauty, and its benefits are limitless. It gives the aimless aspiration, brings joy to the depressed and is something to he who has nothing.

Let us reject the weasel words which justify bad art and architecture — ‘innovative’, ‘diverse’, ‘inclusive’, ‘subversive’, ‘empowering’ and ‘progressive’ — and make planning authorities, developers, the Arts Council and other organisations responsible for the physical and cultural landscape work towards a beautiful world, for everyone’s sake.

How can we ensure there is never another lockdown?

My tuppenceworth speech by Zachary Stiling

“We cannot expect anything good to come from a Chamber stuffed with the scientifically, historically and economically illiterate, or a load of self-serving sociopaths”

There is only one course of action – to totally and utterly reform the government, clearing out every amoral politician and stringently regulating future elections to ensure only those who are demonstrably learned, wise and possessed of a genuine concern for the welfare of individuals are able to enter Parliament. We cannot expect anything good to come from a Chamber stuffed with the scientifically, historically and economically illiterate, or a load of self-serving sociopaths.

Ordinary people have two ways of influencing government policy, persuasion, and force, and both were tried and failed. Scientists and medical professionals, business owners, religious leaders and philosophers all made well-substantiated rational arguments to no avail. Protests were a display of force but achieved little. To dissent was to be ridiculed or suppressed, or even criminalised and brutalised by police.

“The underlying fact is that lockdown is a form of tyranny and must be treated as such”

The underlying fact is that lockdown is a form of tyranny and must be treated as such. Past tyrannies have only fallen with the help of external powers. The Nazi tyranny ended after a war in which millions died. The Soviet tyranny collapsed through weakened governance which Western efforts worked to undermine. The Chinese Communist tyranny has never collapsed because nobody has stood up to China.

Of course, overthrowing the status quo and completely starting again is pure fantasy; it isn’t workable, so I will alter the question because there can be no guarantee against future lockdowns, and instead ask: what should we do in the event of another?

The first thing is to defy it entirely, and maintain normality as far as we are able, hardening ourselves against the threats from government and the frowns of fuzzy-brained neighbours. We must forge connections with those who are of a like mind for the sake of mutual support.

“our next imperative is to become evangelists. We will be mistreated by the media and censored on line, so commence pamphleteering and try to bring one person to reason at a time. It worked well for Martin Luther and Thomas Paine”

If we can thus sustain ourselves, our next imperative is to become evangelists. We will be mistreated by the media and censored on line, so commence pamphleteering and try to bring one person to reason at a time. It worked well for Martin Luther and Thomas Paine. A child will consent to being locked down in his bedroom to avoid the bogeyman until, daring to step outside and goad it, he discovers it does not exist. In the same way, it must take courage and reason to expose the fearful superstition on which lockdowns depend.

Image from https://pixabay.com/illustrations/soil-health-mask-protection-corona-5935148/

Mass Surveillance and CCTV cameras in the UK.

My tuppenceworth summary by District Councillor George Pender

“I was pleased to see the group’s commitment to resistance; to acting against such policies, if they were ever implemented again“

District Councillor George Pender (who represents Ash and New Ash Green in the District of Sevenoaks, Kent) gave a speech about mass surveillance and argued for the removal of Chinese Hik Vision security cameras from public space.  George spoke from notes, so we can’t publish a text here, but he has written about the issue (with a greater reference to his own local area) here: https://georgepender.co.uk/articles/2022-07-parliamentarians-call-for-removal-of-hikvision-cameras/

Councillor Pender also spoke on Lockdown and wrote: I was greatly heartened by the first half of the event, focusing on how we can ensure that the kind of coercive polices we saw for two years following March 2020, can be firmly consigned to Britain’s past.  I was pleased to see the group’s commitment to resistance; to acting against such policies, if they were ever implemented again. 

” It was lovely to hear a beautifully constructed speech on the importance of beauty itself, particularly in art and architecture”

He also wrote in summary of the event as follows: It was great to hear the diverse range topics people addressed in the second half.  I was pleased to be reminded of much of the deeper reasoning for, and benefit brought about by, the right to buy policy of the 1980s, which extended far beyond merely the leg up it gave to the individuals exercising the right.  It was lovely to hear a beautifully constructed speech on the importance of beauty itself, particularly in art and architecture.  I found myself being drawn into further agreement on the need for new UK nuclear, something which we see Government will remain in firm agreement on whoever wins the current Conservative Leadership election.

Mike’s speech on the importance of maintaining humility in local government was very convincing.  This humility should lead us to prioritise the core functions of a local authority, while “getting out of the way” in many other areas.  This was well illustrated by numerous convincing examples from Croydon, under Labour.