Image credit: juicy_fish on Magnific
In the last year or
so, I have written many essays about things that are going on (and, in virtually
all cases, going wrong) in UK politics today. It is, as the image suggests, a
tangled tale. This missive gives a summary of those essays, in enough detail to
enable me to move on to the next phase of my work. That is, diagnosing what has
gone wrong.
I have found myself
concentrating mostly on the following subjects:
· The
green and anti-car agenda, and the role of the UN, the EU and successive UK
governments in it.
· Issues
with local government, both with particular councils and with re-organization.
· Digital
ID and facial recognition.
·
Big Tech and AI.
There have been also
a number of essays not fitting into any of these boxes, which I will summarize at
the end.
The green and anti-car agenda
Why there is no climate crisis
On this strand, I
began with “Why there is no climate crisis.” This did what it said on the tin;
it examined the hard evidence for a putative climate crisis, and found it
severely wanting.
The UK Climate and Nature Bill
1)
Why the United Nations is being allowed to
control UK government policies – and has been for more than 30 years,
regardless of which party has been in power.
2)
What specific evidence there is of the
“degradation of nature” that we, the people of the UK, are accused of having
caused, and that implicates us as individuals in causing it.
3)
Why a private member’s bill is being used to
introduce “by the back door” policies as radical as ending the use of fossil
fuels, political takeover of farming, destroying economic freedom, and
establishing a presumption against nuclear power.
4)
How these policies could possibly be in the
interests of the people of the UK in the current economic situation. Or,
indeed, at any other time.
5)
Why the entire Liberal Democrat parliamentary
party have expressed support for these illiberal and undemocratic policies,
that go against the interests of the people of the UK.
As of now, this
bill is still on the books, but there is as yet no date for its second reading.
A Brief History of the Green
Agenda
This was a series
of three essays, summarizing the history of the green agenda from its inception
in about 1968 up to the time of writing.
The first part
examined the build up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. At which, our self-described
“representatives” signed us up to a whole raft of commitments, that they must
surely have known were utterly opposed to the interests of those they were
supposed to represent and serve. As I like to put it, they sold us all down the
Rio.
In the second part,
I found myself comparing deep green environmentalism to a religion. An
extremely intolerant one, at that. And one that is dishonest, deceitful and
reckless, to a level that once you start to piece together the evidence, you
will find absolutely incredible.
They have sought to
sideline the use of objective science in risk and cost-benefit analysis on
green policies. They have fabricated “evidence” to suit policy. They have
collaborated with the UN and the EU to impose on us all a tyrannical culture of
arbitrary, collective, and ever tightening targets and limits. Which, they
plan, will continue to be tightened for ever.
They have
suppressed the voices of skeptics. They have cited their activist pals in what
are supposedly scientific reviews. “Scientists” among them have acted in
dishonest ways, that are in no way scientific. And instead of following up and
punishing these malfeasances, the UK government whitewashed them.
At the end of the final
part, I concluded that those that have pushed the green agenda, and the climate
scam in particular, have lied to us and deceived us for decades. And we are all
poorer and less free because of the deliberate, planned scams they have carried
out against us.
Our Enemy, the UN
Having looked at
the UN and its history, I concluded that the UN has failed to deliver world
peace, economic advancement and human rights, as it was supposed to. Instead, it
has, bit by bit, taken on and promoted agendas that both hold back economic
activity, and violate our rights and freedoms. What we need is a step beyond
Brexit: UNexit.
That essay was
written before Donald Trump’s recent order to withdraw the USA from a slew of
UN and other agencies, here: [[1]]. That order includes list of proscribed UN
and non-UN organizations. A Reform government would need to do something very
similar almost as soon as it takes power.
Predatory Precaution
This perversion
lies at the heart of many of the problems we suffer today. It violates our
rights in at least three ways. It inverts the burden of proof, denies the
presumption of innocence, and requires the accused – that’s us – to prove a
negative.
Further, it has led
to two serious cultural perversions. One, of arbitrary, collective, ever
tightening targets and limits on what we may do. This has been pushed by the UN’s
World Health Organization (WHO) and the EU in areas like air pollution. The
other, a culture of “safety at any cost,” that throws out all consideration of
objective cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis, and demands that people make
sacrifices for “safety,” even if the costs to them exceed the benefits.
The Clean
Air (Human Rights) bill
This is very like the
“climate and nature” bill, but targeting a different fake issue, “clean air.” If
implemented, it will hand all but absolute power to a commission of petty
despot “experts,” to set ever tightening, and ultimately unachievable, air
pollution limits that, just like “net zero,” will hugely reduce our freedoms
and our quality of life.
These “experts”
must take advice from the UN WHO, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), and the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Yet these organizations are
exactly the sources of our woes! And they must use the “precautionary
principle.” As corrupted by – yes, you’ve guessed it, the WHO, the EU and the
UK government. (See below).
The bill is
currently in a similar state to the Climate and Nature bill.
A Brief
History of Air Pollution in the UK
I traced the
history of air pollution policy in the UK from the Great Smog of London (1952)
through to the present. The pollutants causing that smog were known, at the
time, to be a mixture of particulate matter (PM) and sulphur oxides. Such
mixtures, indeed, have been the culprits in every air pollution event with proven
major negative health effects since about 1930, except the Bhopal disaster.
I also traced how in
2009 UK policies were perverted, by the Committee on Medical Effects of Air
Pollution (COMEAP) – aided and abetted by the WHO – into controls on PM, even
after sulphur oxide emissions had been cut by orders of magnitude. And nine
years later, COMEAP, despite dissenting views from several of its own members,
initiated the demonization of nitrogen oxides, and so diesel cars.
I also related how
the WHO and the EU – hardly unbiased parties! – worked together to force us all
into a noose of ever tighter “clean air” regulations. Indeed, the WHO and EU
jointly funded two studies specifically designed to raise the perception of air
pollution as problem!
Along with the
“safety at any cost” culture, these shenanigans are, ultimately, why we have
been subjected, by successive governments of all parties, to draconian policies
designed to make it both hassleful and unnecessarily expensive for people to
drive cars.
Farncombe Local Streets
“Improvements”
This essay was a
response to a “consultation” on proposed “improvements” (ahem!) to roads in my local
area. My conclusions included the following.
Most of the
proposals will have negative impact on those who need their cars in order to
get around the Farncombe area, particularly those who live up the hill. Yet
they will not lead to any benefits for people in Farncombe. They are not
improvements, but the exact opposite.
With just a few
exceptions, all the proposed changes should be scrapped.
The Corruption of Science
In this essay, I
outlined the scientific method, and examined how well it is followed by the
“science” funded by government today. I concluded that ““Climate science, air
pollution, species extinctions, epidemiology, medical statistics and more, seem
to be geared up to produce, not knowledge, but propaganda that supports dubious
political narratives.” In each case, they fail to use the scientific method
properly.
I also concluded
that the main cause of this corruption is “he who pays the piper calls the
tune.” When the funding comes from the corrupt political state, the tune is
always liable to be a political one, not a scientific one.
I ended with some
(very) good news from across the pond: Donald Trump’s executive order titled
“Restoring Gold Standard Science” [[2]] for all federally funded scientific
projects.
The Case of the Missing
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Here, I told the
sad history of the missing cost-benefit analysis for “net zero” and associated
policies in the UK, and the trail of dishonesties that ensured it was never
done.
I traced this trail
from the biased Stern Review of 2006 to the climate change bill of 2008. Then
on to the “shadow price of carbon” that, in effect, made it impossible to do a
proper cost-benefit analysis on anything involving carbon dioxide emissions. To
the 2019 report on costs and benefits of net zero, which was not a cost-benefit
analysis. And Rishi Sunak’s 2020 “green book” review, that in effect exempted
“strategic” projects like net zero from any requirement for cost-benefit
analysis at all.
Meanwhile, we’re
still waiting for a proper cost-benefit analysis for net zero…
The UN Sustainable Development
Goals
In this essay, I
traced the history of, and looked at the agreements made (without our say-so)
to implement, the UN’s so-called “Sustainable Development Goals.”
My conclusions were
as follows:
·
The United Nations’ “Sustainable Development
Goals” agenda is a blueprint for the destruction of human civilization as we
know it, and for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every
human being alive.
·
For more than 30 years, successive UK
governments have been a major leader in a stampede towards the “sustainable
development” agenda. They have done this without allowing us, the people they
are supposed to serve, any other choice, or any chance to object.
·
The main thrust of the agenda is a global power
grab by an international élite of the rich and powerful, at the expense of
ordinary people. The world-view of its promoters seems to be a globalist,
feminist form of fascism.
·
The agenda is a charter for government meddling
and centralized control.
·
The negative effects of the agenda are now plain
for all to see. For example, in economic turmoil and food shortages in Sri
Lanka. Energy unaffordability in the UK. And serious political disruption to
farming in the Netherlands.
·
As time goes on, it is becoming increasingly
clear that the “sustainable development” agenda, wherever implemented, will
produce results that are quite the opposite of sustainable.
When Reform gets
power, it must revoke this agenda swiftly and completely.
Local Government
Local Government Re-organization
in Surrey
This was our local Reform
branch’s “consultation” response to Labour’s plans to re-organize local
government in the county of Surrey. It looked at several major issues with
these plans.
First, though
presented as “devolution,” the plans in actuality centralize power. Second, the
new West Surrey council will be in debt by £4.5 billion from day one, and this
issue has still not been resolved. Third, the local elections scheduled for May
2025 were cancelled, allowing the Tories two more years in power for which they
had no democratic mandate. Fourth, the “consultation” was a sham, offering a
“choice” between two proposals, neither of which was in the interests of the
people of Surrey. And fifth, waiting in the wings for a couple of years’ time
are plans for a Mayor of Surrey with unprecedented, draconian powers.
Some thoughts on Godalming Town
Council
This essay looked
at how my local town council, Lib Dem controlled but with a significant Green
presence, has chosen to behave towards the people it is supposed to serve.
The current
“corporate plan” is a litany of woke and green nonsense. For example: Equality,
Diversity and Inclusion. Carbon neutrality. Biodiversity Net Gain. Net zero
emissions. Promoting “understanding of the climate and ecological crisis.”
Reduction of individual carbon footprint. Divestment from fossil fuels, and
opposition to development of fossil fuel sources. A “zero-waste town.” And a
blanket 20mph speed limit throughout the area. None of this does any good for
the people of the town, and just about all of it goes against our interests.
In conclusion:
Godalming Town Council is not, in my opinion, what a town council should be.
Its function ought to be to make the town a good place to live, and to supply
local services cost-effectively. Instead, it is seeking to impose on the people
of the town and its suburbs an agenda that is undemocratically being pushed by
the UN and EU. This agenda is a scam, based on lies, scares and bad “science.”
And it goes seriously against the interests of very many of the people of
Godalming. Including me.
Waverley Local Plan “Issues and
Options” response
This is another
consultation response, for the next iteration of the local plan for Waverley
borough (which will be abolished in 2027).
The response is
very wide-ranging. It covers, among much else: Centrally imposed house building
targets that are impossible to meet, and that imply a 53% increase in
Waverley’s population by 2043. The worn-out mantras of sustainability, climate
change and net zero, biodiversity and “nature recovery,” air pollution and
“clean air.” And public transport that doesn’t meet the needs of local people,
and can never do so cost-effectively; implying that a car will remain an
essential for most people in Waverley for decades to come.
The May 7th West Surrey
Local Elections
This essay was, in
effect, a “party political broadcast” on behalf of Reform UK in the run-up to
the 2026 local elections. Unfortunately, we did not manage to get any
councillors elected in our immediate area this time round. It is very difficult
territory for Reform. But many people’s sentiments, I think, are beginning to shift.
Digital ID and Facial Recognition
Response to “Call for Evidence” on
new forms of digital ID
This was another response
to a “consultation,” in which the views of ordinary people were – as has become
normal – totally ignored by government. I identified six specific issues:
·
The idea, that data in computer systems can be
“a single source of truth,” which can override evidence from the real world, is
fundamentally flawed. The whole idea of digital ID checking, therefore, is also
fundamentally flawed.
·
The Home Office, and government in general as at
present constituted, are untrustworthy, and should not be allowed the kind of
power that any new digital ID system would bring.
·
If use of a mobile phone is to be a necessary
part of a digital ID system, some individuals, particularly disabled and older
people, will be unable to prove who they are.
·
There are serious risks to human rights and
freedoms in any digital ID system. These include inaccuracy, overreach,
wastefulness, intrusiveness, violations of privacy and dignity rights, and
failing to act in the interests of, and with the consent of, the people.
·
Digital ID systems could far too easily lead
towards an Orwellian system of total surveillance and control.
·
The call for evidence is asking the wrong
questions. Instead of what new digital ID systems should be developed, it
should be asking whether attempts at digital ID systems in the UK have gone too
far, and should be scaled back or even scrapped.
Response to facial recognition
cameras consultation
This was another
“consultation” response, to the proposal of the then home secretary to make the
UK into a “panopticon.” [[3]]. Here are the last two and a half
paragraphs of my response. ’Nuff said.…
In common with the
other consultations I referred to above, it seems that I am wasting my time
replying to this. The decisions are already made, and no dissenting voices will
be heard.
For the avoidance
of doubt, the option I would pick, given the opportunity, would be a total ban
on the use of facial recognition technology in the UK, except for the sole
purpose of checking passports at international borders. But that option is not
even on the table.
There seems little
point in my trying to answer any of the more detailed questions, so I will
close with a friendly warning. If you really do want to restore public trust in
the police and in government as a whole, you are going to have to start
listening to the public. Really listening. To pass this exercise off as
a “consultation,” when it is obvious that the decisions have already been made
and no disagreements, however principled, will be entertained, is deeply
dishonest towards the people you are supposed to be serving.
The digital ID scam
In this essay, I
took a different approach to a government “consultation.” Rather than waste my
efforts on the deaf ears of bureaucrats, I decided to write for the general
public about digital ID. My conclusions included the following.
Not only does this
project bring to the people of the UK no benefits whatsoever. But it also lays
us open to Orwellian treatment – or even worse – at the hands of the state. And
it will cost us billions in the process.
It is clear that
those driving this project within government have no concern at all for the
people they are supposed to serve. They do not care about our rights and
freedoms, or what we think, or what we want.
It is also clear
that those driving this project are violating the Nolan Principles of Public
Life, to which everyone in government should be bound by the terms of their
employment contracts. (I also wrote an essay on these principles – covered
below).
Big Tech and AI
A sad tale and an AI fail
In this short essay,
I told of an encounter with AI (so-called artificial intelligence) that was
“funny” in more senses than one. I asked Google for the population of a local
village (Brook in Surrey), and their AI told me that the village did not exist!
Then, next morning, it gave me a different answer, also wrong. (Today, though,
it gave an answer close to right. I suppose that’s “progress” of a kind.)
From this
encounter, I learned much. AI gets things wrong, and its results aren’t
reproducible. Therefore, AI isn’t useful as a real-world tool, and to treat it
as such is dangerous. Yet the establishment (and Microsoft most of all) are
pushing for everyone to use it!
I concluded with:
“That is worrying. For having people – likely including government – regularly
using, and believing, an unpredictable tool that makes egregious errors like
these, could easily become a major threat to those few freedoms we still
retain.”
Microslop
I wrote at the
beginning of 2026 about the ructions taking place in the tech world due to
Microsoft’s insistence in trying to force Windows 11, and the AI functions
built into it, on to users who don’t want these things. Among my conclusions
were the following.
It looks to me as
if Microsoft are seeking to turn the PC, which ought to be a tool under the
user’s control, into an instrument over which Microsoft and AI developers have
more control than the user does. Moreover, Microsoft’s approach of “Continuous
Innovation” leads them to force new features on you whenever they feel like it.
This is hardly a recipe for a stable working environment. All this is leading
to the beginnings of an anti-AI political movement. And
this is still growing: [[4]].
In my view, the
prognosis is not good. Not good for Windows as a product. Not good for AI as a
technology. And not good for Microsoft as a company. It looks as if the
eruption, which is starting to build today, may well lead to Microsoft’s greed
and arrogance coming back to haunt them.
I hear that, since
then, Microsoft have started to address some of the issues, notably
performance. But this, I expect, will be too little, too late.
The Case Against AI
In this
short-short, I prised out another issue with AI. AI “learning” comes from the
data on which it is trained. Which will reflect the prejudices of those who
trained it.
Miscellaneous Subjects
A Brief History of England
To be sung, by
those with stamina, to “While shepherds watched their flocks by night.”
Replacement Migration
I looked at the
history behind the mass immigration, which we are seeing today. I traced its
origin to a UN document from 2000, outlining how replacement migration might be
used to contain the effects on nation-states’ economies of providing benefits to
an aging population.
It turns out that
the UK was seen as one of the “easiest” European countries to do this in. That
said, to keep the potential support ratio (of working age people to the
retired) constant would require the UK population to increase to 136 million by
2050. It looks as if successive governments, beginning with Blair’s 2003
granting of unrestricted access to the UK labour market to EU citizens, have
been aiming for this, or as near it as they can get.
This explains why
whenever a government, Tory or Labour, promises to rein in immigration, it
never happens. Indeed, immigration rates always go up, not down. This
UN-sponsored policy is a gigantic scam, which has been staring us in the face
for a quarter century.
The Nolan Principles and DOGGHIE
I looked at the
“Nolan Principles of Public Life,” commissioned by John Major in 1995 from a
team led by senior judge Michael Nolan, to make recommendations “to ensure the
highest standards of propriety in public life.” The result was in due course
incorporated into the employment contracts of many, if not most, government office
holders and employees. It has evolved over the years.
The following is a
synopsis of the seven principles:
1) Selflessness:
Everyone in government must act solely in the interests of the governed. (That
means in the interests of every individual among them, real criminals excepted).
2) Integrity:
No-one in government may allow themselves to be inappropriately influenced.
3) Objectivity:
All government decisions must be impartial, fair, unbiased, and based on merit
and the best evidence available.
4) Accountability:
Those in government must be held accountable for the effects on the governed of
what they do.
5) Openness:
Government must act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner, and
may not withhold information from the governed without very good cause.
6) Honesty:
All holders of government office must be truthful. (Also candid,
straightforward and sincere).
7)
Leadership: Everyone in government must treat
the governed with respect. And they must practise whatever they preach.
I put forward the
idea of Nolan Audits, to check that government officials and employees are
keeping to the standards they are committed to, and take appropriate action on
violations, including dismissal if appropriate. This could be combined with
DOGE style cost control functions into what I call DOGGHIE – a Department of
Good Government, Honesty, Integrity and Efficiency.
Who’s a Fascist?
I examined the
often-trotted-out mantras that Reform UK and Nigel Farage are in some sense
“fascist.” I concluded that, whatever its detractors may say, Reform UK is not
a fascist party. And on the evidence which I have examined, Nigel Farage does
not behave like a fascist. Nor can he justly be accused of racism or
anti-semitism.
In contrast, both
Labour and the Tories have shown plenty of evidence of racist and anti-semitic
tendencies in their pasts. And both of them include elements in their agendas
which, even if not strictly Fascist, are nevertheless fascistic in tone. These include:
Contempt for democracy. Ever increasing taxation and state control. Green and
anti-car policies. Increasing violations of human rights and freedoms. And lack
of respect for the individual human beings, whom they are supposed to serve.
And that’s where we are today…
Contempt for democracy. Ever increasing taxation and state
control. Green and anti-car policies. Increasing violations of human rights and
freedoms. And lack of respect for the individual human beings, whom they are
supposed to serve.
That’s a pretty decent summing up of recent UK governments,
no?
But there’s more. I haven’t written any essays in this set specifically
about the economy, but what is going on is quite clear. They are
de-industrializing the economy, and shutting down the economic free market. They
are making an economy that favours those, that are adept at raking in money
without creating any wealth, over genuine business and working people. As a
result, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. In
particular, the politically rich – those with connections to power, whether
globalist, governmental or big-corporate, are getting richer. And the rest of
us, the politically poor, are getting poorer.
Our enemies are doing these things to us quite
deliberately. They are attacking people like farmers, private schools and small
and family businesses. As a victim of IR35 for more than a quarter century, I
know how that feels. They hate us for our virtues! Indeed, they hate humanity
as a whole, and want to reduce us to no more than numbers in a database.
Moreover, they are attacking anyone who feels a
need for independence, such as car drivers. They are seeking to use regulation
and extortion to squeeze us human beings out of existence.
Successive UK governments have also been seeking systematically
to destroy all trace of the Enlightenment values, which sprung from the people of
Britain in the late 17th and 18th centuries, and held
sway around much of the world through the 19th. Such as individual
liberty and independence, freedom of speech, opinion, religion, association and
protest, the natural rights of human beings, and government with the consent of
and for the benefit of the people. It is no wonder that Reform UK, the only significant
political party not aligned with the state and the establishment, are
finding increasing support across the country.
Meanwhile, our enemies emit a miasma of falsehoods, deceits,
lies, evasions and self-contradictions. And seek to suppress those who want to
tell truth and set the record straight.
And that’s where we are today.
