(Neil Lock, 07 March 2024)
I have looked at the Reform UK party’s PDF “Our Contract
with You” (Working Draft): [[1]]. Here
are some of my questions, suggestions, congratulations and brickbats, for the
policy people to chew over.
The basis of my position is a hard-core libertarian and
individualist one, which leads me to agree with many of Reform UK’s policies,
but to disagree fundamentally in certain areas, like human rights and policing.
Thus, I regard myself as being on the radical wing of the party. My comments,
as you will see, are also quite wide-ranging.
By the way, to issue such a draft at this stage is, I think,
an excellent way to gauge reactions from interested parties.
0.
Our Contract with You
0.1)
Is the word “You” singular or plural?
0.2)
The downloaded file name doesn’t match the title
of the document. This is confusing, as there have been versions with the same
file name but different titles.
0.3)
“Britain needs Reform and Reform needs you.”
This may seem like a dumb question, but what does Reform UK actually mean by
“Britain?” Is it, perhaps, a synonym for the political state called “the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?” Or does it mean something more
like “the British people?” Or “the nation?” (In that case, which
nation?) Is it a geographical entity, or a cultural one, or a political one, or
a combination of these, or something else? It would be good to know exactly what
Reform UK means by this word, which is so central to its rhetoric, and which it
so much wants to “save.”
0.4)
“It [the economy] is being wrecked by record
taxes, wasteful government spending and nanny state regulations.” I’d add “bad
green policies” at the head of that list.
0.5)
“Record mass immigration has damaged our
country.” That’s true, but in my view, it is the planned nature of this
immigration that is the major problem. It has been planned by successive
governments since at least 2004 – and not for the benefit of the people of
these islands.
0.6)
“Net Zero is making us poorer and colder,
damaging British industry and forcing motorists off the road.” A pedantic
point, but it is not just the “Net Zero” agenda which is forcing us out of our
cars through ULEZ and similar; it is more the “clean air” agenda. Historically,
the two have been separate. “Net Zero” is about CO2 emissions, and
has been driven since the 1970s mainly by the UN. “Clean air” is about
pollutants such as PM2.5 and sulphur and nitrogen oxides, and has been driven
mainly by the EU (at the behest, initially, of the Germans) since the early
1980s.
0.7)
“A vote for either [Tories or Labour] is a vote
for more incompetence, dishonesty and defeat.” “Defeat” of what, by whom?
But beyond that, it is an understatement. I’d say
something more like “A vote for either Tories or Labour is a vote for more of
the same, or worse.” Then add to the list of their characteristics a few more,
such as: arrogance, corruption, hypocrisy, bad faith, disdain for the people
they are supposed to serve, lack of transparency, evasion of accountability.
And recklessness, too. In my view, all the mainstream political parties today are
just gangs of psychopathic criminals. That is why I haven’t voted in a UK
general or local election since 1987. (My Brexit party candidate in 2019 was
withdrawn). I do not wish to see Reform UK go that way, or anything like it!
0.8)
“The two-party system has failed.” True, but again
an understatement. In my view, the entire political system of nation-states and
sham “democracy” has failed. Radical thinking is necessary in order to move
forward from here. Does Reform UK have that?
0.9)
“Maximise Britain’s vast energy treasure of oil
and gas.” I’d prefer “make use of” to “maximise.”
1.
Contents
1.1)
“Costings can be found at the end of each policy
section.” This is not so. The costings are all together in the final section of
the document (page 29).
2.
Slash Government Waste
2.1)
“Save £5 in every £100.” That’s a start for the
first 100 days. But it’s got to go a lot further than that. Inside a few years,
I’d like to see the performance of every government employee and sub-contractor
audited, to assess what value for money taxpayers are receiving for what they
do. Those that have failed to deliver value for money, deserve to be sacked. That
should reverse the 600,000 rise in public sector workers, and well more. And those
that have acted against the interests of those who pay their wages, or have
acted dishonestly towards the people in any way, deserve not only to be sacked,
but to have their cushy pensions cancelled too. This should be done at all
governmental levels: national, devolved and local.
2.2)
“We make these saving” should be “We make these
savings.”
2.3)
“Cut Foreign Aid by 50%.” The whole “foreign
aid” circus is a hangover from Willy Brandt’s commission in the early 1980s. It
should be stopped altogether, except for those very few cases in which there is
a clear moral imperative.
3.
Economy – Personal
3.1)
“Smart tax cuts create growth and pay for
themselves.” Oh, how I hate the word “smart!” I’d prefer something like “Properly
thought through.”
3.2)
“Trust the British people to build a thriving
economy.” Yes. Who else would you trust?
3.3)
All the reforms listed here look like winners to
me! As long as the numbers add up.
4.
Economy – Business
4.1)
“Reform is urgently needed to enjoy a high
growth, low tax economy that is critical for Britain’s future.” This doesn’t
read right to me. I’d prefer something like: “A high growth, low tax economy is
critical for Britain’s future. Reform is urgently needed to bring this about.”
4.2)
The critical reforms look good. Particularly
abolishing IR35, of which I personally have been a victim for almost 25 years
now. IR35 has excluded me from the market, ruined my career, and dashed my
pension plans, unjustly leaving me poor in my old age. But for 70-year-old me, of
course, this is far too little, far too late.
Missing full-stop after “receive no sick pay,” by
the way.
4.3)
“Support Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.”
Yes, of course. But it is important also to reverse the culture in government,
that over many decades has persistently favoured big businesses over small, and
the biggest companies and multinationals most of all. Not just in things like
IR35, but in areas such as COVID workplace closures too.
4.4)
“On-line Delivery Tax at 4% for large,
multinational enterprises.” It’s nice to see a tax idea that hits the fat cats
for once, instead of the “little people.” But I still don’t have any feel for
how such a thing might work. The devil will be in the detail.
4.5)
“Cut entrepreneurs’ tax relief to 5%.” If this
is the scheme that is now called “Business Asset Disposal Relief,” isn’t this
an increase in the relief, not a cut?
5.
Immigration
5.1)
“Uncontrolled mass immigration has pushed
Britain to breaking point.” As above, the real kicker is the fact that the
whole thing has been planned.
5.2)
“Labour and Tories will never control our
borders.” Indeed so: for they were the ones that planned all this in the first
place! And the Lib Dems were complicit in it, too. That said, I’m no fan of national
borders – just as I am no fan of the nation-state. Personally, I’d like to see
migration controlled at a much lower, more local level.
5.3)
“Smart immigration” – that word again!
5.4)
“Leave the European Convention on Human Rights.”
No, I think this is a very bad way to go. I expect human rights, such as
freedom of speech and privacy, to become big issues over the next few years, as
people come to realize just how badly their rights have been violated (for
example through the “on-line safety bill,” or tracking by cameras), and fight
to get them back and then extended.
One can, of course, argue about whether the European
Court of Human Rights should be allowed to intervene in the affairs of a
democracy – my take is that their decisions should be regarded as advisory
only. But to abrogate the Convention is another matter entirely. I
actually think the Convention doesn’t go nearly far enough! For Reform UK to
have rejected the only framework currently available for securing these rights,
without providing any alternative, I would see as a serious strategic error.
Not to mention the difficulties it might cause in relation to Northern Ireland.
Bear in mind also that the European Council,
to which the Court belongs, is a different and less vicious animal than the
European Commission, which is the (anti-democratic) governing body of
the EU. Besides all that, doesn’t ECHR article 5.1(f) already cover “illegal”
immigration, which seems to be the main sticking point, satisfactorily?
5.5)
“Pick up Migrants out of Boats and take back to
France.” This is how the boats problem should have been dealt with in the first
place. It is essentially a French problem, and should be shoved back down their
throats.
5.6)
“Asylum claims [claimants?] that arrive through
safe countries will be processed rapidly offshore in British Overseas
Territories.” In my view, asylum seekers should be processed wherever they apply,
including in France or in a British overseas territory. The Rwanda programme
is, and always has been, complete silliness – particularly since Rwanda hasn’t
been a British territory for more than 60 years.
5.7)
“Stop the Illegal Working Scandal.” Be careful
what you wish for. Schemes supposedly to prevent “illegal” working could too
easily be used as part of a more general tyranny. Indeed, there’s a case to be
made that IR35 has been just such a scheme!
6.
NHS
6.1)
“Sadly, the NHS is being let down by incompetent
management, bureaucracy, waste, cover-ups and scandals.” Yes, indeed. But I
reckon you could find lots of other areas of the public sector where the same
applies. In fact, very probably, the majority of it.
6.2)
“The NHS has a crisis in leadership.” Yes, but
it’s not the only part of government that has that problem. Police have it too.
As does the public sector as a whole. I think these problems are all related.
They will need a solution which is cultural, not political.
6.3)
Critical reforms needed. Generally, these are
good.
6.4)
“All frontline NHS and social care staff to pay
zero basic rate tax for 3 years.” This goes against equality before the law, by
making exceptions for certain (types of) people. Better, I think, to pay them
more, and do something like ring-fencing the tax taken from them so it goes
back into the same NHS budget.
7.
NHS – continued
7.1)
“Focus on results, not targets.” This is, to my
mind, the best positive idea Reform UK has put forward yet. The culture of
“targets” may well have been a major cause of demoralization for many NHS
staff. But I think that the focus on results ought to be applied to all
areas of government, thus constraining it to work just as a private company
doing a similar function would have to. I think this idea is so important, that
it even deserves to be promoted to the “Our Contract with You” page, following
“Slash government waste and red tape.”
7.2)
“Excess Deaths and Vaccine Harms Public
Inquiry.” Great idea, but how to prevent it being de-fanged and side-tracked,
as seems to have happened to the current COVID inquiry? Such an inquiry must uncover
the true facts and the full story, get them out to the general public, then hold
the guilty accountable and compensate the victims properly. There are lots of
skeletons (no pun intended) in that closet!
I would also like to see an inquiry into the
violations of the human rights of workers who refused to take the vaccines, and
in particular the 40,000 sacked care home workers. And a just resolution to
their cases.
There also needs to be an inquiry into how model
“predictions” that turned out to be grossly wrong were allowed to drive policy,
in particular lockdowns and mask wearing. The interface between science and
policy has become in recent decades full of dishonesty and skulduggery. Both in
this area and in environmentalism.
8.
Energy and Environment
8.1)
“Our air has never been cleaner.” Indeed so. But
there is an ongoing push, which appears to originate from the WHO and is
supported by all the mainstream parties, to keep on forcing more and more reductions
in pollutant levels, regardless of costs to the people; and to continue doing
so for ever and ever. There ought to be public debate on what are acceptable
levels of pollutants, and on costs versus benefits of seeking reductions. (In
my view, no measures should ever be taken unless the benefits are, clearly and provably,
greater than the costs. “First, do no harm.”).
8.2)
“Net Zero is the wrong bit, at the wrong time,
in the wrong timeframe.” I think this grossly understates the true case. In
reality, Net Zero is not necessary, nor is it desirable. Nor, indeed, can it
ever be achieved in practice. To try to oppose Net Zero with arguments such as
“now is not the right time” is, I think, to concede on the most important issue
of all. That issue is that, objectively, there is no “climate crisis,” and no
hard evidence that, even if there was, reducing CO2 emissions would have any
effect of “mitigating” it. The proven environmental benefits of “net zero” are,
no pun intended, absolutely zero. The entire accusation against us is, and has
been all along, a fraudulent pack of lies. I have written extensively on this
subject, for example here: [[2]].
Further, there needs to be a public inquiry into how
Net Zero and the rest of the “green industrial revolution” became policy over
the course of three decades and more. Questions to be answered should include: Where
is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that there is a problem with the climate? Where
is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that emissions of carbon dioxide, or other
greenhouse gases, from human civilization are a significant cause of any such
problem? Even if there was such a problem, where is the hard evidence that Net
Zero policies actually would “mitigate” it? How well or badly has government
behaved over this matter towards the people they are supposed to serve? Is
“climate science” a sound scientific discipline, and does it use the scientific
method properly? Why were the three “Climategate” inquiries all whitewashes? Why
has no honest cost-benefit analysis been done on Net Zero or associated
policies? Why was the Green Book updated in 2020 to exempt “strategic” projects
from rigorous cost-benefit analysis? Why have people opposed to the green
agenda been rubbished or ignored throughout? In my opinion, there are as many
skeletons in that closet as in the COVID one; if not more.
8.3)
“We are better to adapt to warming, rather than
pretend we can stop it.” Bull’s-eye! Particularly given we don’t really know
how much warming is likely to happen, or how much of it is due to anthropogenic
CO2 emissions, how much to other human influences (like land use changes and the
urban heat island effect), and how much is independent of human activities.
8.4)
“The UK cost of Net Zero… is so big that no one
really knows.” This is absolutely inexcusable, and the main reason for it is
that successive governments, Labour, Coalition and Tory, have gone out of their
way to ensure that no proper cost versus benefit analysis on CO2
emissions can be done. I have written on this, too: [[3]].
8.5)
“Scrap Annual £10 Billion of Renewable Energy
Subsidies.” Absolutely right: but why bring in new taxes, rather than just
scrapping the subsidies? Those that have taken those subsidies should also be
made to clean up the sites when they have become no longer economically viable.
8.6)
“Renewables are not cheaper.” True, and
demonstrable. So, have those, that have claimed that renewables are cheaper
than other forms of energy, not been committing fraud against us?
8.7)
Doesn’t mention reversing the ban on fracking. I
think it should.
8.8)
Could mention that to scrap Net Zero will require
withdrawal from the Paris agreement, and from the CoP and IPCC processes. These,
I think, are desirable objectives in their own right.
9.
Policing
9.1)
“Police leadership is badly failing.” This is a
big problem. Every time police numbers go up, policing gets worse; and this has
been going on for decades. Until the leadership problem has been fixed, any
other measures taken cannot work, and will probably be counter-productive.
In my view, we don’t need more police, but better
police. The problems in police culture must be solved first. If you throw money
at a corrupt system, it will be at best wasted, and at worst badly mis-used.
The NHS is another example.
9.2)
Could mention that police spend far too much
time on “revenue generation.” Like waiting to catch “speeding” motorists who
are not committing any real crime.
9.3)
“Commence Zero Tolerance Policing.” No. This is
a recipe for a police state. Far from protecting the public, it is likely to make
many people afraid to go out, for fear of being mistreated by the police.
Remember Ian Tomlinson. Do you really think that the police today are on the
side of the people?
9.4)
“Increase Stop and Search substantially.” This
goes back to the subject of human rights, one on which I find myself in very substantial
disagreement with Reform UK’s line. No-one should ever be stopped or searched
without there being reasonable, evidence-based suspicion that they have
committed, are committing or are planning to commit a real crime. I am
surprised and very disappointed that Reform UK favours increasing stop and
search, when less than a year ago, Baroness Casey’s summary report [[4]]
recommended “a reset of Stop and Search” by the Met Police. And this is an
issue that has been “live” for more than a decade: [[5]].
It seems Reform UK is trying to pander to the Old
Tory far-right with these policies. But I think these ideas are likely to
alienate far more people than they enthuse; including me.
9.5)
“Common Sense Policing not ‘Woke’ Policing.”
Despite my disagreements with Reform UK on other policing matters, I agree with
this one.
9.6)
“Without fear of favour.” Should this be
“without fear or favour?”
10. Policing
– continued
10.1) “Scrap
or Reform Police and Crime Commissioners.” The job of the PCC – to hold the
police to account, and so to prevent police misconduct – is an important one.
If the system is not working, then it needs to be reformed or replaced. Either
way, the police must be held to account, by parties working on behalf of the
people.
11. Justice
11.1) I
am a bit surprised that there is no mention of the Post Office scandal, and the
way in which so many wrongful convictions were rammed through. How would Reform
UK propose to punish the perpetrators of this large scale, malevolent
perversion of the justice system? And what would be the proposed solution to stop
such problems happening again?
11.2) “Urgent
Sentencing Review with Automatic Life Imprisonment for Violent Repeat
Offenders.” I do not agree with the removal of judges’ discretion to modify
sentences in those cases where it is appropriate. Centrally planned one-size-fits-all
“solutions” are always likely to lead to miscarriages of justice.
This will have a knock-on effect on “Commence
Building of 10,000 New Detention Places.” This, I think, is again a case of
Reform UK pandering to the old Tory right.
If there is a problem with the quality or
impartiality of magistrates or judges, then that is a separate issue, and will
have to be addressed urgently.
11.3) “Change
the definition of Hate Crime.” Yes, all of us are at risk of being accused of
trumped-up “hate crimes.” The same is true of “misinformation,” “harmful
communication” and other similar invented “crimes,” where the standards by
which guilt is to be judged are not objective. Those of us, who do not believe or
fall in line with the establishment narratives, are in constant danger of
having our voices suppressed.
Indeed, this is also a criticism of the “on-line
safety bill” as a whole, which not only greatly multiplies such cases, but
incentivizes Big Tech to remove doubtful material “just in case.” See my
thoughts on these, and many other related matters, at [[6]].
11.4) “Increase
budget for both the National Crime Agency and the National Drugs Intelligence
Unit.” I suspect that these organizations may well have leadership problems
similar to the police. Some of the NCA’s predecessors certainly had. As one who
agrees with Blackstone that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than
that one innocent suffer,” I cannot support this idea. Again, we need not more,
but better.
12. Justice
– continued
12.1) “Reform
the Child Maintenance Service.” Not my area of expertise, but if it isn’t doing
its job, it needs reform. Also applies to “Child Protection Services.”
12.2) Youth
crime and “High Intensity Training Camps.” Not sure about these: shouldn’t the
youths have been educated properly in the first place? Which leads into…
13. Education
13.1) “We
want an education system that ensures young people learn the skills, character
and values to succeed in life.” Absolutely. It must also teach them how
to think, not what to think. And to look hard at all the facts before
making any major decision; particularly if the decision affects others.
13.2) “Ban
transgender ideology [in schools].” I think you may mean “stop making taxpayers
pay for transgender ideology to be spread.” If so, agreed.
13.3) “Ban
critical race theory.” As above.
13.4) “It
is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race…” Absolutely: individuals
should be judged, not on who they are, where they come from, or what their skin
colour is, but on how they behave.
13.5) “Tax
relief of 20% on all Independent Education.” A really good and positive idea,
and also a fine riposte to Labour’s plans to tax private schools, or even to ban
private education altogether.
13.6) “Scrap
interest on student loans.” I think this is only part of a multi-faceted set of
reforms, which are necessary to tertiary education. I would say, fix the
obvious problems like loans, then encourage competition, and private schools
and universities. Let the market sort out the underlying problem.
14. Education
– continued
14.1) “Cut
funding to universities that undermine free speech.” Yes, and impose fines on
them. “Cancel culture” deserves itself to be cancelled.
14.2) In
that context, it is unfortunate that Richard Tice chose recently to “cancel” a
party candidate whose utterances, however crass they may have been, were not
objectively harmful to anyone.
14.3) I
basically agree with the other policies too, except for the two-year courses,
which should be an option only.
15. Benefits
15.1) “We
need an efficient welfare system that helps the genuinely disabled, sick,
vulnerable and unemployed to find work.” Absolutely. People must be encouraged
to be as independent as their abilities and disabilities allow them to be.
15.2) I
can agree with all the specific policies here.
15.3) “Work
is a cure not a cause” is key. It can give people good reasons to feel proud of
themselves.
16. Brexit
16.1) “The
Brexit that 17.4 million voted for has been betrayed.” Absolutely, and those
that have done this are quislings.
16.2) “Scrap
EU regulations with immediate effect.” Yes. This (along with getting away from
the ECJ) is a key part of the Brexit I was looking for. And not just EU
regulations, either. Reform UK must look to scrap all regulations that have
been made by or on behalf of undemocratic external parties, and withdraw from
all “agreements” with those parties. This includes the UN and its “sustainable
development goals,” Paris agreement, Gothenburg protocol and the like. After
Brexit, the next stage should be UNexit.
Along with this, the entire culture of collective
“targets” and “limits” that was imported from the EU, particularly in
environmental matters, must be gotten rid of. Such collective restrictions are
likely to lead to ordinary people being screwed (as over ULEZ) while the elites
simply act as if they are exempt from the whole thing. As “focus on results,
not on targets,” so also “focus on results, not on limits.”
16.3) Leaving
the ECHR. See what I wrote above in (5.4).
a)
“British laws and judges must never be overruled
by a foreign court.” I suggest that decisions of the ECHR (Court, not
Convention) should be regarded as advisory only.
b)
“UK courts must be able to protect British
citizens from EU arrest warrants.” Totally agree. (But do these warrants have anything
to do with the European Convention?).
c)
“Abandon the Windsor Framework.” Ultimately, the
Northern Ireland problem can only be solved by an agreement with the Irish. The
EU ought not to be involved. If feasible, we should seek to return to the
situation before the EU existed, and talk to the Irish to bring things up to
date from there.
d)
“Independence for Britain’s armed forces.” Yes.
The idea of an EU military is anathema. That said, we the people of these
islands should be able to ally with and share information at need with
neighbour countries such as Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Benelux, France.
17. Defence
17.1) There
is clearly a culture problem within the UK military. Procurement has been a
laughing-stock for decades. More recently, there have been problems with
housing, and insensitive rule changes, which appear to be causing valuable
officers to leave. And there are serious problems with recruitment.
This must also be considered in the light of changing
UK culture as a whole. Today’s young people have seen through the skulduggery
over Iraq, and the failures in Afghanistan and elsewhere. There is also rising
sentiment against war in general, as shown by reported reactions to a general’s
recent remarks about conscription. One pundit described the reaction as: “sod
off, we’re not going to do anything for you!”
The war in Yemen, in which the UK has little or no
strategic interest, is attracting condemnation. And Boris Johnson’s seemingly
deliberate destruction of the Ukrainian peace process has left a very sour
taste in the mouths of many people. Why the hell are we being expected to pay
for bloodshed and over-pay for energy, when the Ukrainian situation could have
been defused almost two years ago?
17.2) “Increase
defence spending…” I have to say, again, what I said about the police. And the
NHS. The cultural problems must be solved before it makes any sense at all to
throw money at the military.
17.3) “…ensuring
our lead role in NATO.” NATO may have been a useful tool during the Cold War,
but I question whether it may now have passed its last-use-by date. Most UK
military policy now seems just to be as lackey to the USA’s school-bully
aggressions. In my view, UK military forces should be defensive and retaliatory
only, and should not take any part in conflicts in which the UK is not itself
directly threatened. There is a need for public debate over matters like these.
17.4) “Protect
our servicemen and women on active duty inside or outside the UK from civil law
and human rights lawyers.” This is a reversal of the Tory efforts of a decade
ago to withdraw human rights protection from service people! But I think it
goes too far the other way. The state has already far too much power over
ordinary people. To allow soldiers immunity for what would be crimes if done by
ordinary people (immunity that was recently struck down in Northern Ireland),
would be to go in the wrong direction.
17.5) It
might be useful to have something about reviving and resuscitating strategic
industries, such as steel-making, which would be required urgently in any
situation of conflict.
18. Department
for Veterans
18.1) I
confess I am a bit surprised at the huge level of importance Reform UK seems to
attach to this whole topic. But I do think that the proposal “Preferential
Qualification for Key Public Sector Leadership Roles” is a good one. The career
transition from army to police is not an uncommon one, and if there is now a
flow of competent, honest captains and majors leaving the army, re-purposing
some of them to try to fix the culture problems in the police would be worth a
try.
19. Housing
19.1) “Population
to grow by nearly 7 million between 2021 and 2036.” This contradicts the figure
of 14 million given on page 5.
19.2) I
can’t disagree with anything else here, except for the bit about “smart
infrastructure.” As one who objects even to “smart meters” (on the grounds that
they enable individual customers to be arbitrarily cut off without warning or
legal recourse), I cannot accept that digital systems should ever be allowed to
control people’s lives against their wills.
20. Children
and Families
20.1) Not
my area of expertise as a lifelong single person, so I will pick on only a few
small points.
20.2) “Mandate
single sex spaces.” While I can see the rationale for this, it would not work for
very small places, e.g. in a small church with only one loo, it must be unisex.
20.3) “Review
the On-line Safety Bill.” Yes, and not just for the reasons you give here. See
what I said earlier (11.3) about “misinformation,” “harmful communication” and
so on.
21. Transport
and Utilities Infrastructure
21.1) “Scrap
HS2.” Absolutely.
21.2) “Stop
the War on Motorists.” Yes, but needs to go much further than just these!
There needs to be an inquiry into “clean air”
policies, and the science behind them. From my recent readings, I have come to
suspect that for many years there have been failings in COMEAP, the “advisors”
tasked with providing a scientific basis for these policies. There may well
have been dishonesties comparable with those in SAGE or even the IPCC process,
resulting in restrictive and unfair policies (including ULEZ) that have no
objective justification. I plan to work on this over the next few months.
There also needs to be an inquiry into the over-safety
or “safety at any cost” culture, that now permeates government at all levels, and
which I discussed in reference [6]. For example, see Surrey County Council’s
plans here: [[7]].
Over 20 years, creeping speed limits have been introduced in my area to such an
extent, that except for two dual carriageway A roads, virtually every road
already has a speed limit of 40mph or lower. (When I moved here in 1986, the
national 60mph limit started at the end of my road). And they want to force us
to go slower yet?
This is typical of the attitude of those that want
to micro-control our lives in every detail. (I believe all this comes,
ultimately, from one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, to which we
were committed in 2015 without being allowed any say at all). Every restriction
on motorists ought to have to be objectively justified. And where restrictions
imposed for “safety” are found not to have had measurable positive effect, they
should be removed. As with the NHS, “focus on results, not targets.”
21.3) “Integrated
Transport Infrastructure.” Judging by the specific proposal below it, I would
have called this “Integrated Road Maintenance Infrastructure.”
22. Agriculture
22.1) I
agree with all this. For me, farming is much more important than the military!
You can survive without missiles, but you can’t survive without food.
23. Agriculture
- continued
23.1) Can’t
disagree with anything here, either.
24. Fishing
and Coastal Communities
24.1) Broad
agreement here, too.
25. Fishing
and Coastal Communities – continued
25.1) No
disagreements here, either. This is getting boring.
26. Pensions
and Social Care
26.1) It looks as if there
is much more work Reform UK needs to do on this subject.
27. Constitutional
Reform
27.1) “We
are ruled by an arrogant and out of touch elite.” Yes: see above, (0.7). “The
two-party system is broken.” Yes again, (0.8).
27.2) “The
social contract is broken.” Yes, and it is broken in at least two ways. First,
government ought to serve the people, not rule over us; and it ought to be
allowed power only with the consent of the governed. Yet today’s political
classes simply do to us what they will, without regard for our needs or
desires, without any consideration of our interests, and without allowing us
any real say over what is done to us. We are in effect ruled over by criminal
psychopaths.
Second, some people – including myself – are coming
to reject the whole idea of a “social contract.” Under no circumstances would I
willingly subject myself to being ruled over by anyone with a political agenda!
Like John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris
Johnson, or Rishi Sunak. Or by a prat of a “king,” that is a WEF crony, and such
a hypocrite that he has arrived by helicopter to give lectures on reducing CO2
emissions, and by private jet to attend CoP conferences.
By the way, I wouldn’t sign this “contract
with You,” either. Because it contains elements – such as increased stop-and-search
and the denigration of human rights – which I cannot accept.
27.3) “Leave
the European Convention on Human Rights.” As above, I disagree.
27.4) “Commence
reform of the House of Lords.” Yes. As long as parliament exists in its present
form, there is a need to restrain it. A second chamber is one way to try to do
this, though historically it has not been very successful. My own idea is that
restraint might be better applied through a new and properly designed quality
assurance system. There should be debates over these topics.
27.5) “Immediate
end to political appointees” [in the Lords]. Yes, agreed. No-one in the new
chamber should be a current member or a current or past official of any
political party.
27.6) “Commence
reform of the Civil Service.” Yes, very much so. But I don’t like the idea of
the private-sector people being political appointees – particularly in light of
the previous paragraph, and of what is said about the civil service in the next
paragraph. And you have missed out what ought to be one of the key features of
these reforms – cutting the size of the civil service by orders of magnitude.
27.7) “Enforce
the Civil Service code of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.”
Yes, I totally agree. But doing this, I suspect, will prove a Herculean task.
Particularly since, if it is to be enforced in the civil service, it should
also be enforced in all other areas of government.
Pondering further on the above, I am coming to think
that all government employees and sub-contractors – i.e. anyone whose
work is paid for by taxpayers’ money – should be required to sign up to
something similar to this. That would include MPs.
27.8) “Proportional
Representation.” I am not convinced that PR, as it exists today, actually works
effectively: it merely pushes the politicking up a level. Look, for example, at
what is going on in the Netherlands. That said, I agree that
first-past-the-post has failed. Personally, I think that far more radical
changes are needed.
27.9) “A
British Bill of Rights.” This would be a good idea, if it wasn’t for the fact
that the Tories have already tried to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with a
cleverly named “Bill of Rights Bill.” Which, in the words of the Justice Select
Committee, “weakens rights protections” and “undermines the universality of
rights.”
Make no mistake, though, a proper Bill of
Rights would be an enormous advance on the ECHR. But this is a very large
subject – on which I plan to do some writing in the next few months.
27.10)
I would like to see also some plans for reform
of local government. Its ever-escalating costs are not sustainable. It has used
its powers, as was deviously planned by the UN, to move us all towards a green
agenda, to which we have never had any chance to object. Those in local
government are not held accountable at all, not even to the minimum of scrutiny
which MPs receive. And relations with national government are obtuse, as shown
by Mark Harper’s failure to overrule the ULEZ expansion. I think that local
government, like the civil service, needs to be down-sized in a big way. In
general, the public sector needs to be cut back and radically slimmed down.
28. Reclaiming
Britain
28.1) “Christian
values are under threat.” As an agnostic, I think it would be good to make here
a list of the particular values which are in danger.
28.2) “Affirm
British Sovereignty.” In my political-philosopher hat, I regard “sovereignty”
as a big part of the problem. Sovereignty à la Jean Bodin is the origin of the two-tier system
of “sovereign” and “subjects,” which in my view violates the rule of law, and
the ethical equality which must support it. I think what is actually needed is
self-determination, not sovereignty. That said, I strongly support all the
individual policies listed in that paragraph.
28.3) “Replace
the 2010 Equalities Act.” As one who rejects “affirmative action” and the like
with the same vehemence with which I reject the racism that originally spawned
the idea, I agree with the need for major reforms in this area. I would
certainly support the scrapping of all “Diversity Equality and Inclusion” posts
and bureaucracies.
28.4) “Comprehensive
Free Speech Bill.” I agree with the vital importance of free speech in all its
forms. “No more political bias in public institutions” is a good thing to aim
for, too. Sharia law I think is a different issue: it doesn’t make sense to have
two separate legal systems being applied to different people in the same place
and time.
28.5) “Commence
reform of the BBC.” I’d sell off the bits (like sports) which can actually make
decent programmes, and simply shut down the rest.
28.6) “Launch
a Westminster Anti-Corruption Unit.” There are a whole lot of issues in this
area, including how to prevent this unit itself becoming corrupt. But yes,
there is a need to “go after” those in government, advisors, quangos or
commissions that have shown dishonesty or political bias towards the people
they were supposed to serve.
29. Funding
of Reform UK Plans
29.1) There
are others far better qualified to comment on these numbers than I am, but it
looks like a reasonable place to start.
To sum up…
There are many policies and ideas here, with which I can heartily
agree. These include: Ditch Net Zero, and ditch anti-car policies and other
planks of the green agenda. Scrap HS2. Sane and sensible policies on energy,
including forcing renewables to be cost-competitive. Slash the size of
government and the public sector, and the scope of what it does. Cut taxes
radically, and encourage economic growth. Encourage people to get back to work.
End centrally planned mass immigration. Stop favouring multinationals and big
companies over the “little people.” Reform to end corruption and to cure
leadership crises in the NHS, police and other parts of government. Public
inquiries into excess deaths and vaccine harms. Draw the fangs of “hate crimes”
and other unjust impediments to free speech. Stop “woke” ideologies being
taught in schools, and cancel “cancel culture.” Encourage independent education
at all levels. Scrap EU regulations, and other regulations made at the behest
of non-democratic, external parties. Treat farmers and fishermen fairly. Reform
the Lords, civil service and other parts of government, improving ethical
standards and stressing integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. Ditch
“diversity, equality and inclusion” bureaucracy.
There are a number of areas, in which I think the proposed
reforms do not go far enough. For example, I would like to see public inquiries
into: The interfaces between science and policy. The injustices committed against
those who refused vaccinations. And how Net Zero, “clean air” and related
green-agenda items became policy, in the absence of proven cases for them.
There are also some policy areas in which I, more or less
strongly, disagree. Including: Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.
Zero tolerance policing, increased Stop and Search, and other increases in
police resources, particularly given that today’s police have not demonstrated
that they are worthy of the public’s confidence. Sentencing policy which goes
beyond the bounds of justice and reason. Throwing resources at the military,
without first fixing the cultural problems from which it is suffering.
I believe that, if Reform UK is to make progress towards a
better Britain (whether or not it is eventually able to form a government), it also
needs to succour some major changes which are cultural rather than political.
For example: Trust the people. Focus on results, not arbitrary “targets” or
“limits.” Recognize the psychopathic traits in many of those that have been
mis-ruling over us: such as their arrogance, dishonesty and hypocrisy. Recognize
that the political system has failed, at a level well beyond what can be fixed merely
by proportional representation, or by changing the faction currently in power.
Ensure that all government projects are properly analyzed for benefits versus
costs to the people, before they even start. Self-determination: ditch the
influence of undemocratic external parties. Ditch the culture of collective
“targets” and “limits.” Ditch the culture of “safety at any cost.”
If this set of proposals were an answer to an exam paper, I
would score it at about 80%, and give it a B.
