Where We Are Today

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

This was a live issue in July 2025, when the essay was written. The bill aims “to require the UK to meet climate and nature targets,” and a whole lot more. I concluded by asking:

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 the 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

In the 1990s and early 2000s the UN, EU, corporate interests and UK and other governments perverted the “precautionary principle” from its original – “Look before you leap” – into something more like “If in doubt about a risk, government must act to prevent it.” This made it into a tool for tyranny and predation.

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 7^th 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 17^th and 18^th centuries, and held sway around much of the world through the 19^th. 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.

---

[[1]] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-international-organizations-conventions-and-treaties-that-are-contrary-to-the-interests-of-the-united-states/

[[2]] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/restoring-gold-standard-science/

[[3]] https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/uk-home-secretary-dreams-of-ai-powered-panopticon

[[4]] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-american-rebellion-against-ai-is-gaining-steam/ar-AA23w1HH?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds

The UN Sustainable Development Goals

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

In earlier essays about the bad environmental policies with which we have been bombarded for more than 30 years, I have discussed various United Nations agendas. Today, I’m going to look at the Sustainable Development Goals, agreed in 2015, also known as Agenda 2030.

This is the last in a series of essays I began in June 2025, documenting many of the bad political agendas, that have brought us to the mess we are in today.

History

I shall begin by relating the timeline of the development of this agenda.

Agenda 21

Agenda 21 was one of the agreements, to which John Major and co signed us up, without our say-so, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. It was a first blueprint for the kind of world the political élites have been trying for more than three decades to force on us. They envisaged a deeply green and feminist world, with recycling all but a religion, people crammed into cities and using “high-occupancy public transport” with a “culture of safety.”

The Millennium Development Goals

In 2000, the UN held a Millennium Summit. This led to an agreement between the UN member states on a set of Millennium Development Goals, to be achieved by 2015.

This was the start of the tyrannical and all-pervasive culture of arbitrary, usually collective, and ever tightening targets and limits in matters environmental, which has plagued our lives ever since. The EU has been probably the most eager of the spreaders and enforcers of this culture. But it is the UN that, most of all, has driven the process along. Assisted, of course, by green extremists, and by all the mainstream UK political parties – Tories, Labour and Lib Dems – whenever they have been in government.

The Sustainable Development Goals

In September 2015, the UN convened a Sustainable Development Summit, attended by more than 150 world leaders. These included then UK prime minister David Cameron. At that meeting, they agreed a document called Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This was, in essence, an update to and extension of the Millennium Development Goals.

You can find the text at [[1]]. It’s pretty nasty stuff.

What’s in there

The remainder of this essay is a précis of a far more detailed piece from 2022: [[2]].

When I first skim-read that document, I thought of it as little more than an earnest-sounding wish-list. But when I was moved to read it again, I was horrified. I called it “nothing less than a blueprint for the complete destruction of human civilization as we know it today, and for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every human being alive.”

Arrogance

One thing that comes over from the document is the incredible arrogance of those that wrote it. “This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity… All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan,” they say. It is to be achieved through “universal and transformative Goals and targets.” And: “As we embark on this great collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.”

But who are they, that they claim a right to tell everyone in the world, including all individuals and all democracies, what direction each of us should be taking? Including those of us, who want nothing at all to do with the UN or its environmental agendas? Or, indeed, want nothing at all to do with any top-down or globalist political organization?

They say: “We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path.” That is, simply put, a lie. In reality, the hype about climate change, nature degradation, biodiversity loss and all the rest is just that – hype. For those, like me, who look for hard evidence and facts, and are persuaded by nothing else, it is clear that no proof beyond reasonable doubt has ever been provided that there is any real problem in any of these areas. Still less is there any proof that humans are responsible for any such problems, even if they did exist.

The arguments for “bold and transformative steps,” claimed to be “urgently needed,” are no more than a set of carefully crafted false narratives. These narratives are put out by those that want to destroy individual human freedom, industrial civilization and the prosperity it has brought; and to substitute for them the absolutist rule of a global cabal of élites, that includes themselves. Anyone that spreads these narratives, or promotes, supports, makes or enforces any political agenda derived from them, is a traitor to human civilization and to humanity.

There is a stench of collectivism, of top-down command and control, about this whole Agenda. The promoters seem to have let their arrogance run away with them to such an extent, that they are looking simply to do all this stuff, regardless of the consequences to the people impacted by it. They are behaving like psychopathic criminals. Recklessly, dishonestly, and without any empathy or remorse towards their victims.

The sustainability agenda is unsustainable!

The UN defines sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Though, strangely, the Agenda document does not repeat this definition.

But have the policies, that have been implemented in the name of the sustainability agenda, actually met the needs of the present? What, for example, were the effects in practice of the attempted transition to organic agriculture, that in 2021 was forced on Sri Lankans by their government as part of a “sustainable agriculture” agenda? Harvest failure, collapse of the economy, and at one point 22 per cent of the population needing food aid.

So much for the claim that “we are determined to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions.” That same claim is also given the lie by what has been and is being done to Dutch farmers, the second most efficient food producers in the world.

Or what about UK policies, that have put in place a strategy of trying to run an industrial economy on “renewable” energy, that anyone with even half an ounce of common sense can see can never be reliable and affordable? These policies have led to de-industrialization, job losses, increasing poverty and worsening health. Not only for the people directly affected, but in the longer run for their children too. So much for the promise to “ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality.” How can people fulfil their potential in a modern economy, if they are denied necessities like reliable, affordable energy?

Moreover, I know what the word “sustainable” really means: “able to endure into the future.” And I know that truly sustainable development is dynamic and progressive, like the Industrial Revolution in its heartland of the UK. The Industrial Revolution was sustainable in the same way that a bush-fire or a nuclear reaction is sustainable. That is sustainable development.

I also know what a truly sustainable economy is. It is one from which no wealth is lost. In which those, who fairly earn wealth, can spend it on goods and services from people like themselves. And keep it away from the vested interests, politicians, bureaucrats, political activists and the like, that want to rule tyrannically over us and against our interests.

“Degradation”

The agenda says: “We are determined to protect the planet from degradation.” But what is degradation is, to a large extent, a subjective matter.

For example, when the ancient Athenians quarried large amounts of marble to build the Parthenon in the 5^th century BC, did they degrade the planet? To anyone who appreciates human civilization, the utility and beauty of the Parthenon were big positives. Only a humanity-hater could have preferred to leave that marble where it was.

Prosperity, fulfilment and harmony with nature

“We are determined to ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature.”

Yeah, right. So, the UN’s sustainable development agenda is making our lives more “prosperous and fulfilling”? That’s not what I’m experiencing. I am far less prosperous today, and feel far less content or fulfilled, than I was back in the 1980s. And the decline has been pretty much continuous. What about you?

Moreover, if real economic, social and technological progress are to take place, they must be in harmony with our nature, human nature. It is in our nature to be creative, to build civilizations, and to take control of, and leave our mark on, our surroundings.

Any human being worth the name knows, deep down inside, that this planet and its resources are ours to use as we see fit, in order to make a home and garden fit for a civilized species. Is that not our right, as much as lions have a right to catch and kill zebra, and giraffes have a right to pick fruit and leaves off the tops of tall trees? To deny us this right, and to seek to subordinate human beings to some idol they call “nature,” is treason against our species.

And to those that want to do these things to us, I say: You think this isn’t our planet? Then it sure as hell isn’t your planet. Get yourselves off our planet, you traitors to humanity.

Peace, justice and inclusion

“We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence.” Well, I can tell you how to hugely reduce violence and wars. We must get rid of the institutions and individuals that seek to make violence and wars.

And what is the name of the political institution today, into whose very foundations war is built? It is the state. “War is the health of the state,” said Randolph Bourne. And he was right. Yet, the UN explicitly oppose tackling the issue at its roots. For they say: “We reaffirm that every State has, and shall freely exercise, full permanent sovereignty over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activity.”

Moreover, what do they mean by just? Do they want a milieu of common-sense justice, in which every individual is treated, as far as practicable, as he or she treats others? Or do they seek a system of “justice” in which those with political power may do whatever it suits them to do? Including enriching themselves and their cronies, and doing severe injustices to people who don’t agree with their agendas?

And what is inclusive? I can only feel part of a society, if I agree with its aims and objectives. I don’t want to have anything to do with any organization that is hostile to human flourishing. Including the UN, the EU, and governments of any of the establishment political parties.

Health and well-being

Goal 3 seeks to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.” Yet the small print underneath includes items like: “Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol.” (Think: What happened with Prohibition?) “By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.” “Strengthen the implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate.” These are not policies for health and well-being, but for tyranny.

Education

Goal 4 seeks to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” But when you look at the small print, this is merely a recipe for ever-increasing central control over education. And there is no mention at all of those whose responsibility it is to provide their children with education, and whose right it is to decide how best to educate them; parents.

Gender equality

Goal 5 seeks to “achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.” The agenda here is explicitly sexist.

Myself, I take the view that it shouldn’t matter who an individual is, only how that individual behaves. Under this view, discriminating against (or for) people merely because of their gender is simply silly and wrong.

Inequality

Goal 10 claims to seek to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” And urges governments to “adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.”

This is a recipe for government micro-management of everything, and total destruction of economic freedom. We already know that such a system can never work for the people, most of all for the “little people.” In fact, it will simply make the politically rich richer, and the politically poor poorer. As current policies are, indeed, doing.

Safety

Goal 11 seeks to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” Here is the root of the intolerable culture of “safety at any cost,” which subjects us to ever more and tighter restrictions, while spying on us to catch us out in the smallest violation.

It also says: “by 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.” If I read that right, it means “force us all into cities.” No, thanks.

“Resource mobilization”

Goal 17 seeks, among other things, to “strengthen domestic resource mobilization… to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.” So, now we know (if we didn’t before) that we are to be treated as no more than “resources” to be taxed and “mobilized” at the will of a self-appointed élite class. There’s another word for that: slaves.

The agenda’s world-view

I have come to the conclusion that the world-view of those peddling this UN agenda is a globalist, feminist form of fascism. In which, “the Fatherland” is replaced by “Mother Earth,” and the planet is to be worshipped as fascists worship the nation.

Moreover, in consonance with the gender change from male to female, women are to be regarded as superior to men. And everyone and everything is to be “mobilized” in support of the agenda of “sustainable development.”

To sum up

·       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 the 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 food shortages and economic collapse 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.

The promoters, supporters, makers and enforcers of this agenda are traitors to human civilization and to humanity as a whole. It is high time that we human beings started to organize ourselves to push back. Both against their agenda, and against them.

---

[[1]] https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

[[2]] https://libertarianism.uk/2022/07/31/on-the-uns-sustainable-development-goals/

Protest against digital ID today

 

The digital ID scam

A very wise man – his name was Brian Micklethwait – once said to me: “Don’t try to talk to your enemies. Talk about them.” Having been asked to respond to yet another government consultation on digital ID, I have decided, on this occasion, to act on his sage advice. Rather than just pour my arguments against digital ID into the deaf ears of government, I decided to write on the issue for the interested public. I have given up on trying to talk to the cabal of enemies of humanity, that masquerades as a government. Instead, I will talk about them.

Now, I am active in the civil liberties organization Together, as well as being campaign manager for my local branch of Reform UK. I was also a member of NO2ID two decades ago. About seven months ago, I responded to a “Call for Evidence” on Labour’s digital ID project. That response is here: [[1]]. A week ago, Together announced that on Saturday April 25^th they would be holding simultaneous rallies against digital ID in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Just three days ago, I was reminded that the digital ID project had reached the formal “consultation” stage: [[2]]. And all this despite a parliamentary petition against digital ID, which last autumn garnered almost three million signatures.

Summary of my first response

Here is the summary section of my response to the call for evidence.

“I am strongly opposed to any plan for any form of compulsory digital ID. It would violate the human rights to dignity and privacy. And it goes against the values of British culture – the culture which sparked the Enlightenment, and nurtured the Industrial Revolution.

I will list six specific issues I identified:

·       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.”

The parliamentary petition

The petition can be found here: [[3]]. It garnered 2,984,192 signatures from the public. It specifically opposed introduction of a digital ID card; but most of those who signed it were opposed to all forms of digital ID.

But the response from government proved its deafness to the views of millions of the people it is supposed to serve. “We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon.”

The more detailed response to the petition stated that the new national digital ID would be “not a card but a new digital identity.” Clever, that – and devious. Give way on one detail, but continue as if nothing had happened. Typical bad faith from government.

Going digital

I think I see a pattern in the way government is trying to force us to “go digital” in everything. We have had “making tax digital,” and refusal of government to accept tax payments by tried and trusted methods. (I myself was exposed to attempted fraud by someone in the Post Office, because HMRC stopped accepting cheques for corporation tax payments). In the “private” sector, companies wanting people to go “paper free,” and banks closing branches, are other aspects of this. It is as if they want us to live our entire lives digitally, not in the real world.

But I, as an evidence-based person who does not trust anything I am told unless I see real-world evidence for it, have – despite being myself a technologist – moved increasingly away from using on-line services. Something you do on-line is, in a sense, not real. Even if it has real-world consequences. Without an audit trail, you can never be sure of what happened. And an electronic audit trail can be lost if your computer dies.

The Internet is great for information, and useful to do things like booking appointments. But for actually doing transactions, personal contact and traditional methods of commerce are best. Unlike on-line transactions, they are also private between you and the other party.

This “consultation”

In responding to several government consultations in different subject areas, I have become increasingly cynical about the value of the “consultation” process. In every case, I found that the “consultation” was a complete sham, because the result had already been decided. And the voices of those who are opposed in principle to whatever scheme is being put forward are completely ignored.

What about this particular one? It is very clear, from the way the subject matter is presented, that it is no exception to this rule. The decision to go ahead with the digital ID project has been made. Damn the people who don’t want it, and damn the consequences to them! The whole exercise is no more than box-ticking.

Of the issues I identified in my earlier response, only one – difficulties in using a mobile phone – is even mentioned. Even there, the problems have been over-simplified or glossed over.

Moreover, there is no mention in the consultation document of the human right to dignity – to be treated as a human being. And the many potentials for violations of human rights, that are inherent in any digital ID system, aren’t addressed at all. The problems in treating a fallible database as a “single source of truth” – as shown so clearly by the Post Office scandal – aren’t acknowledged. Nor is there any acknowledgement of previous government failures to secure individuals’ data, nor any plan to prevent such failures in the future. My expressed concerns have been totally ignored.

Further, as Big Brother Watch have put it: “The government argues that digital ID is more privacy-friendly than traditional forms of identification because it allows selective data sharing. However, this completely overlooks the critical issue of what is recorded and shared in the background. Even if only limited information is shared in a given interaction, sensitive data about when, where and how the ID was used could still be collected and stored.”

What is digital ID for?

Digital ID is touted as a foundation for “a new digital state – that will be there for you when you need it most.” Yeah, right. The political philosopher in me knows, without any doubt, that the political state is an existential problem for the people it rules over, not a solution to anything. Beyond receiving services I have already paid for, such as a pension and the health care I need, I don’t want to have anything to do with the state at all.

I certainly don’t want to have to prove, at the state’s slightest whim, who I am. That way lies tyranny. For what happens if the system fails me, even once? By malfunction, by hacking, or perhaps by a decision of some state functionary that has taken a dislike to me? “The computer says No!” Does that not violate my right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Digital ID is for everyone?

Then I see, said of the scheme: “It must be for everyone.” Revealing words, which give the lie to any idea that it will be optional. Even if they were not meant to be read so.

And it will “come together in the GOV.UK App on your phone.” Useless, and by implication dangerous, for those of us who are not dexterous enough to use a mobile phone effectively.

Public interest

Then there is: “We know there’s been a significant level of public interest in the digital ID system, which is why we’re launching this national conversation, so you can have your say on how it is built.” But the “significant level of public interest” has been coming mainly from those millions of people who, like me, don’t want the damned thing at all.

Scrap it, and you’ll save both your time and our money. Which could far better be spent on things we do want and need, like auditing government to ensure it is always honest towards the people it is supposed to serve. And thereby making sure that government never again uses taxpayers’ money on any scheme, that goes against the interests of those taxpayers.

Legal obligation

“There will be no legal obligation for people to have or present the digital ID.” Well, that does seem to be a concession – at least, for this month. But don’t these goons understand that many, many people have totally lost all trust in government and everything it does?

We have been lied to or misled so often, and promises have been broken so many times, that we have come to expect what government tells us to be misleading, deceptive or a downright lie. And almost everything government does to us, it does in bad faith. Like its response to the petition: dropping the “card” from “digital ID card,” but keeping the “digital ID” part.

Why do this at all?

And then: “Above all, the digital ID will be useful. It will help people to prove who they are and things about themselves, like their age, in the public and private sectors.” But why the hell should I have to prove who I am? Or my age?

I know who I am! Anyone, whom I want to know who I am, already knows who I am. And when I introduce myself to someone new, people who know me will vouch for who I am. I have already made arrangements for those situations where something more formal is necessary, such as bank cards. Why, then, should having to prove who I am ever be necessary in anything but the most exceptional circumstances?

As I recall, the first time I ever had to prove my identity, except for passing through a national border, was when opening a business bank account in 1993. I even bought my home in 1986 without needing to have any ID checked. Since then, governments have mushroomed the occasions on which people need to prove who they are. They are pushing digital ID as a “solution” to a problem they themselves brought on us.

That leads me to ask: did they create this problem in order to force digital ID on us? With the follow-up: once a digital ID is in place, won’t they want to use it to mushroom the situations in which we are required to prove our identity? And so, to collect a more and more detailed picture of everything we do? Every financial transaction, every journey anywhere, every item bought in the supermarket, every drink bought in the pub, for example? A picture that can then be policed, perhaps by AI bots looking for patterns of behaviour different from the desired norms du jour? Such a system smacks of the tyranny of George Orwell’s “1984.”

As to proving age, it is insulting to ask anyone over about 25 – particularly women – their age. “Adult” is perfectly sufficient. And I’ve been officially an adult for more than half a century. Once an adult, always an adult.

The “People’s Panel”

The document proposes a “People’s Panel for Digital ID.” This is horribly reminiscent of the “UK Climate Assembly” of 2019, which was lectured by biased “experts,” then produced an extremist report. Extremist in favour of the establishment-desired policy of “net zero,” of course. That was a complete travesty of “democracy” and “consulting the people.” So, no doubt, will this be.

Digital Driving Licence

Does the upcoming introduction of a Digital Driving Licence imply that people will no longer be able to renew their driving licence by post? This will create serious problems for people over 70 who need to renew their licence every three years, and may force people over 70 into getting a digital ID just for this one application. Would this not invalidate the statement that “Across all uses, the digital ID will be optional?”

Revocation of ID

Section 2.2 gives government power to revoke an individual’s digital ID. This will be “governed by robust processes,” whatever that means.

As Big Brother Watch puts it: “I do not want to live in a society where your ability to exist and be recognised as a citizen with rights is dependent on a digital ID check.” And “If the digital ID becomes a requirement for everyday life, then this sets a dangerous precedent, by which people can be locked out of accessing basic services.” Just like the “unpersoning” of Syme in George Orwell’s “1984.” Or the instant “de-banking” of people who are unable to provide “know your customer” data on request, as the banks are threatening.

“Transformative” nature

Part 3 says: “The national digital ID will be transformative for government services and sectors across the economy.” This word “transformative” has an extremely unpleasant ring, sounding like the verbiage used by the United Nations and the WEF. Government should be serving us, not trying to “transform” us or itself.

Universal unique identifier

“We are considering developing a universal unique identifier (or similar approach) tied to the digital ID and GOV.UK One Login, to enable consistent reference across government services.” Won’t having a single reference, which can be shared with third parties, encourage those parties to collect as much data as they can on individuals and link them to the reference, so they can pester people with personalised ads and the like? And does this not negate all the protections put forward in the section on “Privacy by design and default?”

Big Brother Watch have identified the same pitfalls within government as well. “Rather than empowering me to choose what information I share with specific departments, this proposal risks linking all my records behind the scenes, removing meaningful control over my data.” Indeed so. “I am not a number” may be a cliché, but that does not make it any less true.

Biometric data

A digital ID will require “a current, high-resolution biometric facial image that meets specified requirements.”

I cannot respond better to this than to quote Big Brother Watch: “If the government’s databases are breached, which is highly possible, information which uniquely identifies me through a deeply personal identifying feature will be compromised – and unlike changing a password, I cannot simply change my face. Concerningly, the consultation also highlights that my photo could be repurposed as a mugshot used by the police in a digital line-up for facial recognition searches. I completely oppose this.”

Buying alcohol

Section 3.3 says: “The Home Office will update the alcohol mandatory licensing conditions to allow for age verification using registered DVS [digital verification services] when buying alcohol.”

Does this mean that people who don’t have a digital ID won’t be allowed to buy alcohol, even though they are obviously older than 18?

Does it also mean that whenever someone with a digital ID buys alcohol, this information will be logged on a database in a way that is accessible to government or to third parties?

Right to work

The section “How right to work checks could change” is rather vague and confusing. Does it imply that someone with a valid UK passport but no digital ID would be refused the right to work? What if the passport has expired?

The price

As Big Brother Watch puts it: “A digital ID will not help my life… There are much simpler ways to inform me and help me to access public services; indeed, if the digital ID system is voluntary, as promised, these other methods will have to continue to take place in any event.” And: “Building a multibillion-pound digital ID system is not a sensible use of public funds at this time and I wholly oppose it.” I concur heartily with all these statements.

To sum up

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.

The Nolan Principles

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. These principles include:

·       Selflessness: everyone in government must act solely in the interests of the governed, and never against those interests.

·       Openness: acting and taking decisions in an open and transparent manner.

·       Honesty and truthfulness.

·       And treating the people they are supposed to serve with the respect and dignity due to us as human beings.

Are those pushing the digital ID project on us behaving in these ways? I leave you to answer.

In conclusion

The entire digital ID project is a scam against the people. It must be scrapped. Now.

---

[[1]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/response-to-call-for-evidence-on-new-forms-of-digital-id-by-neil-lock/

[[2]] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/making-public-services-work-for-you-with-your-digital-identity/making-public-services-work-for-you-with-your-digital-identity

[[3]] https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194

The May 7th 2026 West Surrey Local Elections

 

Image credit: Unsplash

I am writing to inform Reform UK supporters and potential supporters in our constituency of Godalming and Ash about the background to the May 7^th elections for the new West Surrey unitary authority.

If you are not already a Reform UK member or supporter, I say to you, welcome. If you feel you want to join or to donate to Reform UK, you can do so via our donations page here: https://donate.reformparty.uk/godalming-ash.

Management Summary

On May 7^th, you will be able to vote for councillors to form a new local council called West Surrey Unitary Authority. Who gets elected will have repercussions. On your local services, your roads, your freedom to drive, your green spaces and your council tax bill.

Context

·       West Surrey is a newly created council.

·       The councillors you elect on May 7^th will not take on their powers until April 2027.

·       Until then, the current councillors will continue to run Surrey County Council (SCC) and the borough councils.

·       West Surrey will begin life with a huge debt, estimated at around £8,000 per elector.

·       The number of councillors in Surrey will be reduced from more than 450 in SCC and the boroughs to just 162. Of these, 90 will be from West Surrey.

The facts

The Tories, since 2021, have managed Surrey County Council in a way that does not represent the interests of people in the more rural parts of Surrey. Particularly in transport policy, where they have been consistently hostile to drivers of private cars and vans.

Without a very significant Reform UK presence in the new West Surrey unitary authority, the erosion of the freedoms of the people of Surrey will inevitably continue.

The vision that Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens all have for Surrey’s future is a “woke” and green one. They see “environmental responsibilities” and “equality, diversity and inclusion” as more important than serving the people of Surrey.

The local government changes, that have brought West Surrey into existence, are touted as devolution, but they are not. Labour are seeking to centralize power into mega-councils. And the Tories have eagerly co-operated with the Labour plans.

The huge debt that West Surrey will inherit is the result of Tory councils, particularly in Woking, making unwise investments. It is unjust that people in Waverley and Guildford should be expected to pay off other councils’ debts.

There is a longer-term plan for a “Mayor of Surrey,” with wide and sweeping powers. This is likely to result, as it has in London, in top-down control and zero concern for the needs and desires of local residents.

House building targets have been set, which amount to an increase in the population of more than 50% in Waverley borough and 30% in Guildford borough over the 20 years to 2043.

All this is likely to lead to:

·       Less local representation.

·       Increasing pressure on roads and council services.

·       Increasing pressure to build on green belt land, and to sell off green spaces for building.

·       Ongoing council tax increases.

Why vote Reform UK?

Reform UK will be prudent and responsible with how we use your money. Reform-run councils have already saved £325 million in council spending in 2025/6.

Reform UK are the only party who are against net zero, and against anti-car policies such as blanket 20mph speed limits, chicanes and speed bumps (many of them broken). Reform will stand up for the rights of safe drivers to get around West Surrey unimpeded.

We have so many road works and road closures at the moment, that it’s often really difficult to get from A to B. Reform UK will push for highway contractors to co-ordinate and expedite their works better.

Our streets are riddled with potholes, that keep on coming back because repairs are done on the cheap. Reform UK will demand higher standards, and push for getting the job done right the first time.

Labour, like the Tories before them, want to cram more and more people into our part of Surrey. Reform UK will push back against unrealistic house-building targets.

If you care about the people of Surrey rather than about woke and green policies, Reform UK is your only voting option on May 7^th. Even if – particularly if – you have never voted in a local election before, or the last time you did was many years ago.

Woking, Spelthorne and Runnymede

Since around 2015, there has been increasing pressure on local authorities’ finances, at both county and borough levels. And there is, rightly, a limit to how fast they can raise council tax. This led a number of councils to take financial risks in an effort to cover the deficits.

One of these was Woking Borough Council. It was Tory controlled for almost all of the period 2007 to 2019. The Tories lost control to the Lib Dems at the 2022 elections, and it was not long before the problem of Woking’s debt became public knowledge. The debt, of more than £18,000 per resident, came about because the Tories had used borrowed money to make unwise investments in large-scale building projects.

By 2024, Woking had a debt of about £2 billion. Spelthorne had £1 billion, and there was £2.5 billion of total debt at the other councils, including Surrey County Council. Woking and Spelthorne had the two highest council debts in the whole country, and Runnymede was fifth.

Surrey County Council’s ambitious plans

All this took place at the same time as Tory-controlled Surrey County Council (SCC) reached peak green mania. In the name of Boris Johnson’s pursuit of net zero and other projects, that the Tories thought were “strategic.”

They wanted a Surrey where “Everyone lives healthy, active and fulfilling lives, and makes good choices about their wellbeing.” Where “Residents live in clean, safe and green communities, where people and organisations embrace their environmental responsibilities.” With “No one left behind.” “Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).” “Growing a sustainable economy. Tackling health inequality. Enabling a greener future. Empowering communities.” They even went so far as to join UK100, “a network of local leaders who have pledged to lead a rapid transition to Net Zero with Clean Air in their communities ahead of the government’s legal target.”

Well, I don’t know about you, but myself, I am opposed to just about everything there. That’s a big reason I support Reform UK. The party is pledged to scrapping net zero. And I agree. Not just because we can’t afford it, but because CO₂ doesn’t cause any real problems, so net zero wouldn’t bring any benefits at all!

Reform is also against the ban on new petrol and diesel cars. And against anti-car policies more generally, such as ULEZ style schemes, low traffic neighbourhoods and blanket 20mph speed limits. As a safe driver of 55 years’ standing, who knows, without any doubt, that the health risks from air pollution are grossly overstated, I too am against all these things.

As to “equality, diversity and inclusion,” I take the view that such schemes are morally wrong, since they discriminate between people, not on the basis of their behaviour, but by skin colour or other characteristics outside their control.

And don’t think that the Lib Dems or Greens are any less zealots for the woke, green religion than the Tories have been. Lib Dem controlled Godalming Town Council want to: “Support and promote Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.” “Promote at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain on private land and ensure it on land that we own.” “Promote an understanding of the climate and ecological crisis amongst our community and work together on strategies for reduction of individual carbon footprint.” And “Support divestment in fossil fuels and oppose development of new sources for fossil fuels through ‘fracking,’ ‘acidisation,’ drilling and other unsustainable approaches.” Madness.

What have we actually got for our money?

What have SCC actually delivered for us in their term of office? That started in 2021 under Tory control, but as residents have vented their anger at successive by-elections, the Lib Dems have been the beneficiaries. The council is now under no overall control.

The Tories have set a transport policy in Surrey that is aggressively anti-car. But Lib Dems and Greens have a similar mind-set, too. They do not seem to understand that the remoter parts of Surrey, including ours, are rural areas. In which public transport, away from the major train corridors, is very limited. For anyone who lives, or needs to go, outside these corridors, a car is all but essential. Drivers pay council tax too, and they deserve service, not persecution.

In recent years, potholes have been the biggest problem on Surrey’s roads. This winter, they have been worse than ever. But right now, the profusion of road works and road closures, often over long periods, is an even bigger issue. Road blockages seem to spring up without warning; sometimes two on the same route at the same time, as recently in Farncombe and Binscombe. SCC is treating the road users it is supposed to be serving with disdain.

Meanwhile, we already have 20mph speed limits in Shalford, Shackleford and Puttenham. There are draconian “traffic calming” proposals for Compton, which lies on a strategic through road. And proposals for junction narrowing, raised tables and speed bumps, and 20mph limits on just about every road within a mile of Farncombe centre (including two steep hills), have just finished the second round of “consultation.”

Moreover, council tax goes up every year, by as near 5% as they can make it. And some parts of it (like Godalming Town Council’s) go up even more. My next year’s bill is £2,000, as near as damn it. And that’s with the single person discount.

Influence of the WHO

There is also a “Vision Zero” road safety scheme, particularly pushed by the Lib Dem caucus. This is a project of the UN, originating with its World Health Organization (WHO). You may recall the WHO’s support for China and for lockdowns during COVID, and its desire to take total world-wide control of responses to future pandemics. This is not an organization I, for one, want to have any say at all in how I live my life.

Indeed, the WHO has also been the driver of UK policy on what the government call “clean air,” which you and I know as “air pollution.” And the UK Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP), have tried, in ways I consider dishonest, to make out that air pollution today is a far bigger problem that it is in reality.

Local government re-organization

Before about 1965, the organization of local government in the UK was two-tier, with more than 1,000 county, district and town councils. In the late 1960s, Labour sought to consolidate the structure, to one that was single-tier over most of the country. But the Tory victory in the 1970 general election meant that the two-tier system was retained. This produced the existing county and borough structure, which came into effect in 1974.

The recent change, which has resulted in the creation of West Surrey, is being sold under the banner of “devolution.” Devolution ought to mean bringing government closer to home, making smaller units that are more flexible to local needs and desires. But what Labour are doing is precisely the opposite.

SCC had signed up to a “devolution” agreement with the Tory government early in 2024, which gave SCC itself new powers. But in September 2024, the incoming Labour government published a plan. This identified the likely option for places like Surrey as: “non-mayoral devolution or division into two or more unitary councils.”

Labour’s “devolution” white paper in December went much further. It said: “Our goal is simple. Universal coverage in England of Strategic Authorities – which should be a number of councils working together, covering areas that people recognise and work in.” And: “these reforms should be treated as stepping stones towards more ambitious settlements within the next few years, in line with our detailed regional recommendations.”

As to the longer term: “A potential alternative path to deeper devolution would be for Surrey to unitarise the county… The next step could be the establishment of a mayoral combined authority at the county scale, with the several unitaries as constituent members.” That does, indeed, seem to be the direction in which Labour are heading with regard to Surrey’s future.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities

Labour’s attitude is that “the benefits of devolution are best achieved through the establishment of combined institutions with a directly elected mayor.” In time, they want to impose mayoral systems everywhere. Even in areas which have never before had mayors above the level of individual towns. Again, this is centralizing power, not devolving it.

Mayoral Strategic Authorities can include “constituent authorities,” defined as “local authorities where a strategic authority exists.” In Surrey, the unitary authorities would eventually be constituents of a giant strategic authority, likely run by a “Mayor of Surrey.”

Mayors will have considerable powers, both formal and less so. How the unitary councillors are to represent local people in the face of a mayor is, to say the least, unclear. But we know already that unitary councils will not be able to overrule a mayor’s transport plan. And as we know from the ULEZ expansion, even local MPs are powerless against an activist mayor. Labour’s vision of “devolution” is one of top-down command and control, not one that allows local people to do things in the ways that are best for them.

And what will a “mayoral strategic authority” do, beyond what local councils do at the moment? It will have: “Ability to introduce mayoral precepting on council tax.” “Active Travel England support for constituent authority capability.” “A duty to produce a Spatial Development Strategy.” “Ability to raise a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy.” “Heat network zoning co-ordination role.” “Green jobs and skills co-ordination role.” “A strategic role on net zero in collaboration with government.” “Responsibility for co-ordinating delivery and monitoring of Local Nature Recovery Strategies.” “A bespoke statutory health improvement and health inequalities duty.” Yeah, right. Lots of stuff we don’t need or want, and nothing that we do.

All this is in the future, and the dates are unclear. But without a very significant Reform UK presence in the new West Surrey unitary, the erosion of the freedoms of the people of Surrey will inevitably continue.

The cancellation of the 2025 elections

In December 2024, the minister for local government wrote to the leaders of two-tier councils, including SCC, warning that they would be required to supply proposals very soon for re-organization into unitary authorities. SCC Tories responded eagerly, requesting postponement of the elections scheduled for May 2025. Which was granted.

With hindsight, those elections weren’t postponed; they were cancelled. Voters lost all chance to change the direction SCC was going in. And the next time they had a chance to vote, it would be for a new system they hadn’t even been consulted on. Meanwhile, the Tories got themselves two extra years in power, for which they had no democratic mandate.

Most of the borough and district councils in Surrey (understandably) disagreed with SCC’s desire to postpone the May 2025 elections. But they were ignored. Instead, a “final plan” for re-organization was prepared, and rammed through SCC by the Tories, over the protestations of the other parties. This plan offered us a false “choice” between two setups, one where Surrey was split into two unitary authorities, and one where it was split into three. The sanest option, of sorting out the financial issues first and then deciding, slowly, what was the best way forward for the people, was never even considered.

There was a “consultation” over the summer, allowing us to choose between the two. Within this restricted choice, the Lib Dems favoured the three-unitary option, and so did our local Reform UK branch. But as usual, the consultation was a sham; the result had already been decided. The two-unitary setup won.

A tale of two unitaries

So, we are now taking the first steps of a re-organization that Labour and the Tories wanted, and just about no-one else.

Eleven borough councils, eight of which were reasonably functional, together with SCC itself, will be abolished in April 2027. They will be replaced by two Unitary Authority mega-councils, West Surrey and East Surrey. In the process, the more than 450 councillors on the county and borough councils will be replaced by just 162. This is devolution? This is bringing local government closer to home? Pull the other one.

Meanwhile, the current councillors continue to run the show, without any democratic mandate. The establishment parties continue to impose on us their pet virtue-signalling projects, like cycle greenways and 20mph speed limits, that are negatives to many of us. And, because the newly elected councillors will not take on their powers until April 2027, the incumbents have carte blanche to continue doing these things to us for another year!

West Surrey is born

West Surrey will be formed in April 2027 from six former boroughs: Waverley, Guildford, Surrey Heath, Woking, Runnymede and Spelthorne.

All three of the boroughs in big financial trouble have been placed in West Surrey. This is bound to cause big problems for people in our constituency, which spans part of Guildford borough and part of Waverley. The debt West Surrey will have when it starts is estimated at £4 billion. Spread across a population of around 685,000, this is just under £6,000 per resident, or £8,000 per elector.

And who will be expected to pay off that debt? Council tax payers. Not just in Woking, Spelthorne and Runnymede, but in Waverley, Guildford and Surrey Heath too.

House building targets

A major issue in local politics, about which few people seem to be aware, is house building targets. The population of the UK is increasing, mostly through immigration. Those people have to go somewhere. And both the Tories and Labour seem to have singled out our part of Surrey for a particularly large population increase.

They have set (mandatory) house building targets for Waverley, which amount to an increase of more than 50% in the population in the 20 years to 2043. And this is in an area 80% of which is protected, either as Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Waverley Borough Council are, rightly, objecting to the target as unachievable. Meanwhile, Guildford’s target is not much lower, amounting to a population increase of more than 30%. There is no doubt that the character of our beautiful area, and our green spaces, are under serious threat.

Reform UK support development only on “brownfield” sites, that have previously been developed. We oppose large scale development on green belt land, and it is important to us that local people must give their consent to development proposals.

In conclusion

If you have read this far, thank you. I hope you will agree that, for anyone who cares about the people of Surrey rather than about woke and green policies, Reform UK is the only voting option on May 7^th.

I will end as I began: If you feel you want to join or to donate to Reform UK, you can do so via our donations page here: https://donate.reformparty.uk/godalming-ash.

Neil Lock is campaign manager for Reform UK Godalming and Ash branch.