Friday, 3 October 2025

Our Enemy, the UN

Today, I’m going to identify, and try to help you understand, the organization that is the primary enemy of humanity and our freedoms today. I refer to the United Nations.

This is the headpost of a series of essays, which will address the many perversions of our political environment, that have been brought about by the UN, its agencies and its cronies. Those cronies include the EU, multi-national companies, various international organizations including the World Economic Forum (WEF), and many, if not most, national governments. Including the UK.

Regardless of which party has been in power, the UK government has been among the most active in helping along the UN’s mischiefs. And all four mainstream parties – Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens – have had their fingers in these pies for decades now.

The genesis of the UN

The United Nations is generally held to have been instituted in 1945. But its roots lie several years earlier. An “Atlantic Charter,” a 1941 joint statement between US president Franklin Roosevelt and UK prime minister Winston Churchill, set out a plan for policies to be implemented once the nazis had been defeated. These included “the fullest collaboration in the economic field between all nations,” “economic advancement and social security,” and that everyone “may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.”

At the beginning of 1942, 26 governments, all of which had declared war on the nazis and their Axis allies, signed up to a “Declaration of United Nations,” affirming their support for the Atlantic Charter. The USA and the UK were joined by the Chinese, who had been fighting against Japanese invaders since 1931. They were joined also by the Russians, as soon as Hitler had reneged on the Ribbentrop non-aggression pact. These were the “Big Four,” to which France was added after its liberation in 1944.

The UN Charter

The United Nations formally began in 1945, after the UN Charter [[1]] was agreed.

The preamble to the Charter stated its three main goals affecting ordinary people as follows. “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” “To regain faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” And “To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” (What “in larger freedom” actually means is rather unclear). And one way it was to achieve those goals was “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.”

The four stated Purposes of the United Nations, in Article 1, can be summarized as follows. To maintain international peace and security. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all. And to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 7 established the principal organs of the UN. The General Assembly. The Security Council, comprising five permanent members – the “Big Four” plus France – and six non-permanent ones, since increased to ten. The Economic and Social Council. The Trusteeship Council. The International Court of Justice (ICJ). And the Secretariat. Subsequent articles put some “flesh” on what each of these organs was to do.

For an overview of the UN’s history, and how the beast looks these days, Wikipedia is as good a place as any: [[2]].

ECOSOC

It is worth saying a little here about ECOSOC, the UN Economic and Social Council. The acronym surely has an Orwellian ring to it. Fullthinkers unbellyfeel ECOSOC! And the organization is responsible, in one way or another, for many of our woes today.

ECOSOC is “responsible for coordinating the economic and social fields” of the UN. It provides means for thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including many activist ones, to influence what the UN does. In 2011, it produced a highly activist report called “The Great Green Technological Transformation.” Additionally, it oversees the implementation of the UN’s “sustainable development” agendas.

Specialized UN agencies, which report to it, include the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The International Monetary Fund (IMF). UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The World Bank Group. The World Health Organization (WHO). And the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

UNESCO and UNEP

UNESCO started the green agenda rolling in the first place, with a “Man and the Biosphere” project, started way back in 1971, and still going today.

Since its establishment in 1972, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has taken a leading role. It describes itself as “the United Nations’ leading global authority on the environment, driving transformational change on the triple planetary crisis: the crisis of climate change, the crisis of nature, land and biodiversity loss, and the crisis of pollution and waste.”

UNEP and its director Maurice Strong were responsible, back in 1982, for the “World Charter for Nature.” A UN resolution (I wrote about it here: [[3]]) which said, in essence, that “nature” and wildlife were more important than us human beings. And 111 countries, including the UK, passed it! Is there any successful non-symbiotic species on this planet that regards other species as more important than its own? And aren’t governments supposed to be for the benefit of the people who pay for them – not for anyone, or anything, else?

Moreover, I know there isn’t a climate crisis today. And I’ve written essays to prove it. I am still waiting for an answer to the question I have often asked environmentalists: name one species to whose extinction I have contributed, and tell me what I did, and approximately when, to contribute to that extinction. And I know about the huge reductions in pollution of many different kinds, which have been made over the last 70 years. As to waste, the problem I see is not one of physical waste, but governments wasting taxpayers’ resources on insane agendas like “nett zero.” So, where the heck is the evidence for a “triple planetary crisis?”

The WHO

The WHO is perhaps the most actively destructive of our rights and freedoms among all the UN’s agencies.

It has perverted the science of air pollution toxicology, and so been a major driver (no pun intended) of the anti-car policies we are subjected to. It has instituted an insatiable, never-ending drive to cut air pollution to levels so low they can never be met in a free economy. It is also responsible for the ever-tightening speed limits and regulations with which we are being bound, because of its unachievable wet dream of reducing road deaths to zero [[4]].

Moreover, the WHO’s performance over the COVID-19 pandemic was atrocious. In particular, it was late to recognize human-to-human transmissibility of COVID-19, and wrongly deferred to the Chinese political stance of “lockdown at any cost.” And it seems over-keen to get countries to commit to a common pandemic strategy, regardless of individual countries’ cultures and situations. Indeed, its attitude seems all but dictatorial.

UNECE

ECOSOC includes, as one of its regional commissions, the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). This has been extremely active in providing “collective policy direction in the area of environment and sustainable development” in Europe. It also promotes so-called “smart cities.”

Wikipedia describes the smart city as “an urban model that leverages technology, human capital, and governance to enhance sustainability, efficiency, and social inclusion, considered goals for the cities of the future.” A smart city uses digital technology to collect data from “citizens, devices, buildings, or cameras,” and to operate services. Further, as early as 1992 in “Agenda 21,” the UN painted a picture of us all crammed into cities, using “high-occupancy public transport” and ruled over by a “culture of safety.”

Yet no-one ever even asked for our consent to these things. If I had been asked, my response would have been along the lines of “bugger off.”

No wonder the UK establishment are so intent on forcing digital ID on to us all! In their eyes, our status is no higher than cameras or technological devices, or even numbers in a database.

I remember, back in 2005, being told that the databases they were then proposing would be a “single source of truth.” Otherwise said, “the computer is always right.” Now think what was the effect on hundreds of innocent sub-postmasters, who on exactly that premise were wrongly prosecuted for fraud by the Post Office.

And if you think the UN doesn’t take a positive view of digital ID, try this: [[5]]. Isn’t that a far cry from the UN Declaration on Human Rights’ recognition of “the inherent dignity of all members of the human family” and “the dignity and worth of the human person?”

Political status of the UN

The UN has taken for itself many of the moral privileges of a sovereign political state. Its property is immune from search or confiscation by any of its member states. It is exempt from taxes, customs duties and import/export restrictions. It has diplomatic immunity, and its officials also have “functional immunity” from prosecution when carrying out their duties. Its employees, in effect, pay what taxes they pay to the UN itself. It even issues its own passports.

The UN is like a state, yet beyond all other states. Those that reach high positions in it are undemocratic, powerful and unaccountable. The UN looks like a perfect vehicle for psychopaths to take over the world, and make it into a Big Brother nightmare for us all.

One thing the United Nations has not done, though, is take anything away from the sovereignty of its member states. Would you not have expected that an organization, formed to prevent war, ought to have done its very best to lessen the war-making powers of nation-states, that by their design are empowered to make wars in the first place? Should they not have sought agreement on the idea that “states may no longer make aggressive wars?” Or, at the least, could they not have persuaded their member states to cap military spending at, say, 1 per cent of GDP? But no. Political states still commit aggressions, and can get away with them if their military strength is sufficient.

The UN’s record

What about the UN’s successes and failures on its stated goals?

Peacekeeping

As a peacekeeper, the UN’s performance has been mixed. There is a basic problem; how can the UN be an effective peacekeeper, when so often individual member states have their own agendas on one side of a conflict or another? This was a particular issue during the cold war.

Beyond this, the UN has not been able to counter political de-stabilization of other countries by powerful world states, such as US meddling in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba or Panama.

As to its stated goals: Has the UN managed “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war?” Nyet. One condemnatory resolution apart, it has done nothing to halt or to cut short the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As to Palestine versus Israel, the UN’s intervention in 1947 not only failed, but led to a civil war. And they are still peddling their failed solution today!

Human rights

The UN’s record on human rights began reasonably well, with the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, billed as “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Though, particularly from article 22 onwards, some of the claimed rights reflect a collectivist view of the world, and a few are simply misguided.

Within the UN framework, the Declaration has been carried forward into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Both came into force in 1976. But since then, very little progress has been made. Indeed, the UN Commission on Human Rights, after years of internal squabbles and lack of effectiveness, had to be replaced in 2006.

Since then, the UN has set out to advance groups to whom it is over-sympathetic, notably women. But how does the UN’s desire for preferential treatment of women over men tally with “the equal rights of men and women?”

Has the UN, overall, helped us “to regain faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small?” Not at all. Our rights and dignity are being violated on many fronts, for example by Starmer’s scheme to kill our privacy with compulsory digital ID.

The ICJ climate change opinion

The recent advisory opinion of the ICJ on climate change, discussed here [[6]], leads to some interesting considerations.

The opinion says that “the adverse effects of climate change may impair the effective enjoyment of a wide range of human rights.” Yet it does not seem to address the human rights aspects of government policies that are imposed in the name of “protecting the climate system.” Does not the “nett zero” policy, for example, go against the claimed right to “freedom from want,” by making it unaffordable for poor people to heat their homes?

Further, the idea that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases cause bad consequences to “the climate system” is not a proven fact, despite incessant claims to the contrary from the UN itself and its hangers-on. If it was proven beyond doubt, they could point to such a proof, based on facts alone, without any political influence. But there is no such proof.

Have not those of us, who refuse to accept such a statement without proof, been denied our right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? And have we not been denied “a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal?” Particularly since our voices – including those of our experts – have been suppressed for decades by organizations like the BBC?

Social progress

And what has become of the UN’s goals “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” and “economic advancement and social security?”

Our freedoms are being trashed. In large part, by policies that have been driven by the UN. As to what “larger freedom” means, I am reminded of George Orwell’s “Freedom is slavery.”

As to better standards of life, food bank usage in the UK has almost trebled in the last 10 years. That is economic advancement? That is social progress? Pull the other one.

To sum up

To sum up the UN’s sad story. Far from delivering world peace, economic advancement and human rights, the UN has, bit by bit, taken on and promoted agendas that both hold back our economy, and violate our rights and freedoms. I call “fail” on the UN. And “foul,” too.

Today, like moths around a candle, political parasites that seek gain for themselves, and pests that want to rule over people harshly and against their wills, seek to join together to use UN programs to further their aims. As I listed some of them above: the UN and its agencies, the EU, multi-national companies, various international organizations, and many, if not most, national governments.

When, back in 2016, we the people residing in the UK set about the process of throwing off the chains of the EU, few of us understood then that the EU was only one part of the problem.

The EU was, in effect, acting as policeman for agendas, that were ultimately being driven by the UN and its supporting cabals – including successive UK governments. With hindsight, we can now understand why we have never enjoyed the fruits of the Brexit we sought, like lower taxes, a “bonfire of the regulations,” and a government that benefits the people of the UK rather than globalist élites and their cronies.

It is high time, in my view, that people come to understand that the UN today does not deliver, or even support, the high-minded goals that were initially touted for it. Instead, it is a major driver behind agendas that are destroying democracy, prosperity and our human rights and freedoms.

It is time, I feel, to recognize that Brexit, in the eyes of those who supported it, must be regarded as failed, or at best incomplete. We the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (not to mention the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) need to get away from the malign influence of the scheming globalist élites. The élites, foreign and domestic, that have brought us “nett zero,” anti-car policies, and an environment in which we are treated like objects or data, not as human beings.

We may have got away from the ECJ, for a time at least. But in order to get us back on track and moving forward again, we need to go further. We need to get away from the ICJ, and from all the other UN agencies and hangers-on. What we now need is UNexit.

We must re-claim our independence and self-determination, our economy and our human rights and freedoms. Does Reform UK have what it takes to spearhead that movement?

Posted by No comments:

Wednesday, 24 September 2025

Community, Society and Justice

Definitions from Oxford Languages

A month ago, I wrote about my views on ethical philosophy. Today, I’ll look at the other side of the coin – my political philosophy.

At the outset, I feel a need to issue a Radical Ideas Warning. Some of the ideas I offer here, indeed, are far more than radical. I make no apologies for this. For the future, even the survival, of human civilization, and of our human species as a whole, is at stake.

Politics versus Organize

When I first started thinking about ethics and politics, I found it hard to discern a clear dividing line between the two. Eventually, I asked myself: what question is each of these branches of knowledge trying to answer? For ethics, it is: What is right and wrong for a human being to do? For politics, I identified the question as: How should we human beings organize ourselves for maximum benefit to all?

Over time, I have come to feel more and more negative about using the word “politics.” In its place, the name I use for the part of my philosophy, which governs relations between people in societies and communities, is Organize.

Community versus society

The first key idea in my political (organizational) philosophy is that I make a very important distinction between a community and a society.

Community

A community is a group of people, bound together by some shared characteristic; but not necessarily by anything more. A community has no “general will.” It is merely a group of individuals.

Examples of communities are: The people who live or work in a particular town. The community of left-handed Italian grandmothers. The people who reside in a particular geographical area. And what I called in my ethical essay the “convivial community.” That is, the community of people, who make every effort to obey the natural law of humanity. And so, to make themselves convivial, or fit to be lived with.

Society

A society, on the other hand, is a group of people who have agreed to join in a common cause. A society has a “general will,” a will shared by the members as a whole. Namely, the objectives for which the society aims. Provided, of course, that those, who cease to agree with the objectives or the conduct of the society, can freely leave the society.

Examples of societies are a football club, a musical ensemble, or a political party.

Society in the singular

I am aware that many use the word “society” in the singular, in a meaning such as “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” In this meaning, it is often dignified with a capital S. I regard this usage as collectivist and misleading. My view is, there is no such thing as Society, only societies.

Those that use the word in this way seem to think that people owe a loyalty to, and should be prepared to make sacrifices for, this “Society.” (Or for something they call “the community,” with a definite article – essentially the same thing.) Further, in the minds of the political class and their hangers-on, this loyalty is owed, not to their fellow human beings, but to the political state that rules over them.

The voluntary society principle

My second key organizational idea, I call the voluntary society principle. It is: All societies must be voluntary.

This principle is explicitly supported by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 20(2): “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” When this right was first mooted, it was probably intended to apply to organizations like the Hitler Youth. But in my view, it is equally valid in regard to any society, including political and religious ones.

Thus, no-one is a member of any society, unless they have voluntarily chosen to become a member, and have not in the meantime countermanded that choice.

This is the reason why I do not accept the word “society” in its meaning of all the people in a geographical area. The people who live in that area are only a community. And because they are not a voluntary society, there is no common cause in which they can be considered to have all agreed to join. So, they cannot be assumed to support or to accept any particular political ideology or set of policies. Therefore, they cannot reasonably be expected to keep to rules or policies imposed by any political or religious ideology or faction.

To look at it another way. If you are opposed to some political philosophy – such as socialism, fascism or deep green environmentalism – then no-one has the right to force you to join, or to obey the rules of, any society that operates, or favours, that philosophy. And you must be able freely to leave any society that adopts any such philosophy into its tenets. The same is true for religious movements, for example militant Islam or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Moreover, no-one has any right to treat you as if you were part of some collective that you have not voluntarily joined. You do not, by lawfully residing in an island called Britain, automatically become a member of a political society called “Britain.” You do not even become a member of such a society merely because you approve of the British culture of the past – the culture which seeded the Enlightenment, and nurtured the Industrial Revolution. To identify with, or not to identify with, such a political collective is your choice. And to cease to do so, if you desire, is also your choice.

Rejecting the political state

The voluntary society principle leads me to reject altogether the idea of Society in the singular. And thus, to reject also the idea that I should feel or show loyalty to any political state. In this, I go some way beyond most adherents of Reform UK.

I also reject all derived ideas like “social justice.” And I reject all political ideologies that depend on the idea. Such as socialism, where Society is supposed to own the means of economic production. Communism, where Society owns everything, and all resources are controlled and allocated by the political state. And fascism, which subordinates the interests of individuals to Society and to the nation.

Further, far from feeling loyalty towards the state, I see it for what it is – an outdated, failed political structure, that supports a tyrannical gang of inhuman, psychopathic criminals. And I reject it, and all those that use it for their own gain or to push other agendas. I simply want to be rid of all political states. And of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” in particular.

My support for Reform UK

Myself, I only feel loyalty to a society as long as I agree with its principles and its direction. This is so, indeed, even for Reform UK. I voluntarily chose to become a member of the Brexit party, and voluntarily chose to allow my membership to flow over when Brexit morphed into Reform.

Right now, I choose to remain and be active in the party, because it seems to me to be “the only game in town.” Reform is the only movement in the UK with the potential to blow away the current ruling classes and their failed political system, right the wrongs they have done to us, and make life worth living again. But if, at some point, I lose confidence in the party’s principles, leadership and direction, then I will feel compelled to resign from the party.

The social contract

Those that make out that each of us is part of some geographically or politically based “society,” even if we do not wish to be, seek to base it on an idea that we have entered into what they call a “social contract.” My third key idea of political philosophy is that this social contract idea is invalid.

Two forms of the social contract idea have been suggested. The Hobbesian version, dating from 1651 and enshrined in Thomas Hobbes’s “Leviathan.” And the Lockean version, published in 1690 in chapters 8 and 9 (§95 to §131) of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.

The Hobbesian social contract

According to the Hobbesian narrative, at some time in the past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority of them) made a contract with each other. They consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute sovereign, and by so doing authorized and approved whatever the sovereign chose to do. Moreover, once the system has been set up, there is no possibility of changing it, or of escape from it. And we, today, are still bound by their agreement.

But I find this narrative absurd. Even if my ancestors might have subscribed to such a thing (and, as far as I know, they didn’t), I as an individual have never agreed to any social contract! Where is my signature on any such damn thing? Moreover, where are the statements of the benefits I am supposed to get from it, and the procedures for me to get justice and redress if the government party fails to deliver? They do not exist.

This social contract narrative is not only absurd, but has been foisted on us human beings fraudulently, by those that do not have our interests at heart.

The Lockean social contract

There is an alternative form of the social contract idea, put forward by John Locke. He says that a group of people may choose to form a “political society.” This they do “by agreeing to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceable living.” But he is very clear about the purposes of the agreement: The objectives are the preservation of their property, and the preservation and enlargement of their freedoms.

Of course, even this Lockean form of the social contract suffers from many of the problems of the Hobbesian version. Where is this contract? What is in it? Where is my signature on it? What procedures should I follow when the government party fails to deliver on its end of the bargain? Fortunately, unlike Hobbes, Locke does offer some answers to this last question.

As I related back in June in the first essay of this set, Locke cautions that any government in such a political society must always act for the “public good.” That is, the good of every individual in that society, as far as that can be achieved by setting common rules for all. Indeed, anyone in government that acts against the interests of the people, or fails at least to strive to deliver services that the people value positively, is failing to act for this public good.

If a government departs from or goes beyond this, or seeks to “impoverish, harass or subdue” the people it is supposed to be serving, then it has become a tyranny, and is no longer legitimate. It is no more than a criminal gang. Its laws should not be obeyed, except for those entirely compatible with the natural law of humanity.

How to deal with a government that fails to deliver its side of the bargain? Locke gave us three options. One, put new people in charge. Two, dismantle and replace the system. Or three, abandon the whole idea of government. But we’ve tried the first of these on several occasions before, haven’t we – like 1642 and 1688? Without any recent successes at all.

Quite clearly, even if the Lockean version of the contract is to be believed, UK governments of the last several decades have persistently failed to act for the public good of all the people. In most cases, as with Labour today, the new gang in power has proven itself to be even worse than the old.

Indeed, since I have been old enough to think about these things, with just three exceptions (and two of those were very short-lived), every UK government has been worse than its predecessor. The three exceptions, in my view, were: Margaret Thatcher’s first term, 1979 to 1983. The first few months of the Coalition in 2010, when David Cameron and Nick Clegg, briefly, each served to restrain the other from their worst excesses. And Liz Truss’s 2022 government of 49 days, which, while showing good – if naïve – intentions, was suppressed by the usual establishment suspects.

Isn’t it high time we gave the dismantle-and-replace idea a go? Let’s get rid of the political state, and in its place build a system of governance that works for human beings.

Justice and freedom

Having explored at length the ramifications of the voluntary society principle, I will be content with far briefer introductions to my remaining two key ideas in organizational philosophy: common-sense justice, and the maximum freedom principle.

Common-sense justice

The fourth, and perhaps the most important, of my key ideas of organizational philosophy is the principle I call common-sense justice. I state it as follows: Every individual deserves to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others. Thus, common-sense justice is individual justice. Put another way, if properly implemented, common-sense justice is the part of the system which turns David Hume’s “ought” into “is.”

The principle implies that if you don’t do, or seek to do, harm to innocent people, you don’t deserve to suffer any harms being done to you. On the other side, if you do harm to others, or seek to do harm to others, or impose on others unreasonable risks that lead to actual harm, you should be required to compensate those whose lives you damaged, and if appropriate to be punished in proportion to the seriousness of what you did.

In essence, common-sense justice is Charles Kingsley’s “Be done by as you did.” It is a hard taskmaster; but it is a fair one.

This kind of justice also teams up with the judgement by behaviour idea I discussed in my essay on ethics, rights and obligations. Together, they provide an ideal of justice, in which what matters is not who an individual is, but only how they behave (and, on some occasions, their motives for doing what they do).

It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter what colour someone’s skin is. Or where they were born. Or what religion they were brought up in. Or what their gender or their sexual preferences may be. All that matters are their actions and their intent towards others. Thus, under common-sense justice, everyone is truly “equal before the law.”

Moreover, when an ideal of common-sense justice is in place, I expect it to lead to a far better tone of life than we have today. For, if you want to be treated better by others, all you have to do is find a way to treat others better!

Maximum freedom principle

My final key idea is the maximum freedom principle. I like to put this as “maximum freedom for everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.” And maximum freedom for an individual is, of course, conditional on that individual respecting the equal rights of others.

There will also be a general presumption of freedom. Anything not prohibited will be allowed, unless it violates others’ rights, or causes or is intended to cause unjust harm to others, or imposes unreasonable risks on others.

To sum up

To the eight key ideas I listed at the end of my ethical paper, I will add five more, which are the keys of my political or organizational philosophy.

9.     Community versus society. A community is a group of people, bound together by some shared characteristic; but not necessarily by anything more. A society, on the other hand, is a group of people who have agreed to join in a common cause. The two are not the same.

10.  Voluntary society principle. All societies must be voluntary.

11.  Falsity of the social contract idea. The Hobbesian version of the social contract is false, and has been foisted on us human beings fraudulently, by those that do not have our interests at heart. In the Lockean version, as soon as government fails to act for the good of the people, it loses its legitimacy. It must be reformed, or dismantled and replaced.

12.  Common-sense justice principle. Every individual deserves to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.

13.  Maximum freedom principle. Except where countermanded by common-sense justice or the natural law of humanity, every individual is free to choose and act as he or she wishes.

Posted by No comments:

Sunday, 21 September 2025

Politics, Power and Psychopathy

Image credit: starline on Freepik

Today, I’ll return to the foundations of political philosophy. The subject, on this occasion, is psychopathy. What is it? And why does it seem so prevalent among politicians, and those that have or seek political power? (This is a précis of work I did between 2016 and 2019).

The meme that politicians are psychopaths

There’s been a meme going around, for years now, that politicians are psychopaths. This meme was first sowed in 2003 by neurophysiologist Paul Broks, who suggested, based on conduct leading up to the Iraq war, that Tony Blair was a “plausible psychopath.”

The meme was spread widely in 2012 via an article by James Silver in the Atlantic Magazine. It is still around today in the blogosphere, and every so often I catch new echoes of it.

Psychopaths and sociopaths

The word “psychopath,” dating from 1885, means: “a mentally ill or unstable person; especially a person affected with anti-social personality disorder.”

Some use an alternative term, “sociopath.” The distinction between psychopath and sociopath doesn’t seem entirely clear. But broadly, sociopaths suffer from anti-social personality disorder (ASPD). For example, they tend to be reckless, impatient and untrustworthy. Whereas psychopaths show further, and more severe, symptoms. Including: lack of empathy with others, dishonesty, manipulativeness and lack of remorse.

Robert D. Hare

In the field of psychopathy studies, a central figure is Robert D. Hare. He is a Canadian psychologist, now in his 90s, specializing in the psychology of criminal offenders. Around 1980, he developed his Psychopathy Check List (PCL). At the time, there was no general agreement on what a psychopath was, or how to identify one. Hare set out to create a measuring tool for psychopathy, so psychologists could be sure they were talking about the same things.

Since then, his check list has evolved into several different forms. The one, with which I’m concerned today, is the Screening Version (PCL:SV). This was developed in the 1990s, for use in psychiatric evaluations and personnel selection.

The prevalence of psychopathy

It’s generally reckoned that about 20% of prison inmates are psychopaths. And that psychopaths are responsible for over 50% of violent crimes. So, it’s clear that psychopaths cause real problems for those around them.

They can cause a lot of trouble at work, too. Many of you will have known the types that behave with cruelty towards those they work with, while sucking up to the big bosses. And if you’re unlucky enough to get one of them as your manager, you’re in trouble.

Hare has estimated that about 1% of the population are psychopaths. Other researchers think his number is high; 0.5% might be more supportable. But there seems to be a substantially higher proportion of psychopaths among business executives and CEOs. A figure of 4% has been suggested for this. Hare himself has said: “Not all psychopaths are in prison – some are in the boardroom.”

Hare’s check list

Robert Hare’s check list, in both the full and screening versions, consists of three elements:

1.     A list of items to be assessed. In the screening version, there are 12 such items.

2.     A scoring system; the higher the score, the greater the level of psychopathy.

3.     A cut-off score, at or beyond which an individual is to be regarded as psychopathic.

For the screening version, there are two different cut-off scores. The lower represents a “potential psychopath,” while the higher is simply referred to with the word psychopath.

Two Factors

There’s some dispute about Hare’s division of the list of items to be assessed into Factors, representing different aspects of psychopathy. The original check list had two Factors, each of six items. There have been developments since, by Hare himself and others. For my purposes today, however, I find Hare’s original two-factor approach good enough. So, I’ll stick with it.

Factor 1

Here are the six items in Factor 1 of the screening version of the test. As a whole, they refer to “selfish, callous and remorseless use of others.” The personality disorder, which tends to lead to these behaviours, is NPD (narcissistic personality disorder).

1.     Superficial. Glib; having a surface charm.

2.     Grandiose. Arrogant; think they are superior human beings to others.

3.     Deceitful. Lying, insincere, selfish and manipulative, unscrupulous, dishonest.

4.     Lack of empathy. Lacking sensitivity towards, or regard for, other people.

5.     Doesn’t accept responsibility. Denies responsibility; seeks to evade accountability for actions.

6.     Lack of remorse. Cold and calculating attitude to others, seeming to feel no guilt, lacking concern for the losses, pain and suffering of victims.

Factor 2

Factor 2 refers to “chronically unstable and anti-social lifestyle.” The personality disorder, which produces these behaviours, is called ASPD (anti-social personality disorder).

1.     Impulsive. Foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, reckless.

2.     Poor behaviour controls. Showing irritability, annoyance or impatience.

3.     Lacks goals. Living a parasitic lifestyle, or having no realistic, long-term goals.

4.     Irresponsible. Untrustworthy; repeatedly failing to fulfil or honour obligations or commitments.

5.     Adolescent anti-social behaviour.

6.     Adult anti-social behaviour.

The scoring system and cut-off

To quote Hare: “Items … are rated on a 3-point scale (0 = item doesn’t apply, 1 = item applies somewhat, 2 = item definitely applies). The items are summed to yield total scores … that reflect the degree to which an individual resembles the prototypical psychopath. A cut-off score … or greater is used to diagnose psychopathy.”

In the screening version, the total scores lie in the range 0 to 24, and the cut-off score is 18. Anyone scoring 18 or more can be considered a psychopath. The threshold for potential psychopath, however, is much lower, only 13.

Of course, in a prison setting, or when screening someone for a job such as a police officer, the assessments must be done objectively and without bias. A mistaken positive diagnosis of psychopathy can bring undeserved ruin to the victim’s career and life. Because of this, Hare mandates that the test must only be carried out by suitably trained professionals.

Nonetheless, I think Hare’s test is of great value to ordinary people. Not so much to evaluate specific individuals like Tony Blair – though Paul Broks, I think, was along the right lines in his opinion. But more to gain an understanding of the levels of psychopathy among different sectors of the population. Among politicians, for example. Or among politically active groups, such as socialists, religious or social conservatives, and green activists.

Psychopathy in the general population

Next, I’ll look at the distribution of scores among the general population, as reported in a 2008 paper by Neumann and Hare in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

They took, from the MacArthur US violence risk assessment published in 2001, the PCL:SV scores from a group of 500 or so randomly selected people, whom the study had tested in order to provide a comparison group for the offenders tested in the main part of the study. These people came from the same demographic and racial mix as the offenders.

The most remarkable result, for me, was the distribution of test scores among the comparison group. I quote from the paper: “Over half of the total sample had a score of 0 or 1, and about two-thirds had a score of 2 or less. A score of at least 13, used in the MacArthur civil psychiatric study as an indication of ‘potential psychopathy,’ was obtained by 1.2% of the total sample.” This is an amazing result – and they add that this “is consistent with the findings of other large community studies.”

Moreover, 36% of the people in that random sample scored zero. They had no trace of any psychopathic tendencies at all. This is extremely reassuring news for those who, like me, posit that humans are naturally good, and psychopaths are aberrations.

Mr Politico

Now, I’ll create a cardboard cut-out of a typical politician. I’ll try to give him a good mix of the characteristics that politicians tend to have. I dub my candidate Mr Politico. Let’s see how well he does on the test, shall we?

Factor 1

Superficial? Glib? Having a surface charm? Check. Mr Politico goes out of his way to be smooth, slick and charming. And he is hardly ever at a loss for words; quite the opposite, in fact. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Grandiose? Arrogant? Thinks he is a superior human being to others? Check. Mr Politico wants power. And the more power he gets, the more it reinforces his conviction that he’s a superior being to those he rules over. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Deceitful? Lying? Insincere? Selfish and manipulative? Unscrupulous? Dishonest? Don’t make me laugh! Lying, exaggerating, hyping, denying or obfuscating the truth; these are Mr Politico’s stocks in trade. He doesn’t have any interest in the truth at all, if it conflicts with his policies or prejudices. Indeed, he may even deny that truth exists at all.

He seems to have little or no sense of right and wrong; and most of all, where his own selfish gain is involved. He often behaves as a hypocrite, and fails to practice what he preaches others ought to do. Mr Politico ticks every one of the boxes under the Deceitful heading. Score: 2.

Lack of empathy? Lacking sensitivity towards, or regard for, other people? Check. Empathy is “being sensitive to… the feelings, thoughts and experience of another.” And, vitally important, empathy is feeling for other individuals. Yet Mr Politico doesn’t care a damn about people as individuals, except his cronies and perhaps his family. If we look hard at his behaviour, we don’t see much evidence of empathy or fellow feeling towards us ordinary human beings; even towards those he is supposed to represent.

Mr Politico belongs to a mainstream political party. That is, a gang with an ideology and agendas it wants to impose on people. And he usually toes the party line. He supports the “Great Causes” and policies pushed by his masters – like “sustainable development,” “clean air,” or a maudlin over-concern for “safety” – ahead of the needs, desires, rights and freedoms of us human beings. The politics of the day, and his own privileged position in it, are all that matter to Mr Politico. Score: 2.

Doesn’t accept responsibility? Seeks to evade accountability for actions? Check. He may try to cover up his wrongdoings, or point the finger of blame at someone else, or lie in an attempt to rationalize his actions, or bluster to try to convince people that he was right all along. Lack of accountability is built into the system which affords him power, the political state. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Lack of remorse? Cold and calculating attitude to others? Seeming to feel no guilt? Lacking concern for the losses, pain and suffering of victims? Check. Just about every law that politicians make today is seeking to inconvenience us, to make us poorer, to violate our human rights and freedoms, or all three. And when was the last time a politician ever said “sorry?” Don’t make me laugh. Score: 2.

Factor 2

Impulsive? Foolhardy? Rash? Unpredictable? Erratic? Reckless? Maybe Mr Politico isn’t all these things all of the time; but they’re there, all right. He may support wars just because his masters say so. Or he may support highly risky “solutions” to green non-problems, like geo-engineering schemes, or replacing reliable energy sources by intermittent ones. Score: 1.

Poor behaviour controls? Irritable? Annoyed? Impatient? Again, Mr Politico isn’t all these things at once. But we far too often hear politicians demanding ACTION! NOW! on the trumped-up scare du jour. Score: 1.

Lives a parasitic lifestyle? Has no realistic, long-term goals? Well, I’ll admit, Mr Politico is innocent on that last one. He does have goals – to make himself popular, rich and famous, while screwing everyone except his cronies. But most professional politicians are parasites; because they live off taxation, yet do more harm than good to the people who pay through the nose for their “services.” Score: 1.

Irresponsible? Untrustworthy? Repeatedly failing to fulfil or honour obligations or commitments? Check. “Read my lips, no new taxes.” “The government will abide by the result of the [Brexit] referendum.” Politicians – and Mr Politico is no exception – can’t be trusted further than you can throw them. And that, unfortunately, isn’t far enough. Score: 2.

As to the last two, adolescent and adult anti-social behaviour, Mr Politico is probably not guilty. (But if he was, the story would have been suppressed, of course.)

Assessing Mr Politico

Mr Politico has scored 9 to 12 on Factor 1, and 5 on Factor 2. His score on Factor 1 shows him to be very likely a narcissistic personality. His score on Factor 2 shows that he may be an anti-social personality, too. His combined score is between 14 and 17. Mr Politico is a potential psychopath, maybe even verging on a full psychopath.

Mr Politico is, at best, in the worst 1.2% of the population. He is, quite clearly, not the kind of individual any decent human being would want to associate with. Let alone vote for! In a properly ordered community of human beings worth the name, he would be ostracized or imprisoned. He would never get even a sniff of power.

Assessing politicians in general

Now, Mr Politico is a cardboard cut-out of a politician. So, it would be rash to try to deduce, from the above, that every politician is a potential psychopath. In reality, most politicians show some of these psychopathic traits to some degree. Some possess more of them, others less. It is only when the traits are aggregated together that the diagnosis of psychopathy becomes sound.

However, in a supposedly democratic system, we should be able to expect – should we not? – that those to be allowed into positions of power should be qualified to represent the people. Thus, each must be at least as good a person – in this context, that means must score no higher on the PCL:SV test – than the people they are supposed to represent. And since half of the general population score 0 or 1 on the test, we can reasonably expect that those to be allowed power should score 0 or 1 on the test too.

But consider that, if an individual has even one of these psychopathic traits at the level of “item definitely applies,” that puts them over the median score, so ought to disqualify them from power. Yet many of today’s politicians seem to have two or more of these traits:  glibness, arrogance, deceit or dishonesty, lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility, lack of remorse, recklessness, impatience, untrustworthiness. It would seem that political power, and the desire for it, breed narcissism. And anti-social behaviour, too.

To follow up Robert Hare’s comment I gave you earlier. Not all psychopaths are in prisons or in the boardroom – some are in parliament or on local councils.

Assessing the wider political class

It isn’t just politicians that show these psychopathic traits. Most political activists, and many in government positions, have them too.

Activists or “spokespeople,” glibly trying to sell their policy wares. Behind the scenes policy drivers, such as self-appointed aristocrats in organizations like the UN, and pressure groups striving to push policies in a particular direction. “Celebrities” and many of the rich. Quangocrats. Businessmen that mistreat their people, or go to government to get rules made to hobble their competitors. Virtually all the main stream media, as well as politicized academics and “scientists.” Bureaucrats and jobsworths, that seem to enjoy making life difficult for people. Far too many of these have one or more of the traits in Hare’s test.

Psychopaths and power

It’s easy to see why psychopaths are drawn to political power. It enables them to live out their grandiose delusions of superiority over others. The 16th century, failed system of political states and “sovereignty” is explicitly set up to enable them to do bad things to us! And it allows them, more often than not, to get away with their crimes.

Furthermore, “democratic” elections select for glibness and persuasiveness, and thus in favour of psychopaths. And once a political party is seeded with enough psychopaths or potential psychopaths, if an honest person does get elected, they must kow-tow to their party’s policies, or risk their careers. That, I think, is why the few honest people, who do enter politics, almost always rapidly become either corrupted or side-lined. Or, perhaps, leave their party.

It gets worse. Once a critical level of psychopathic tendency is reached among those in charge of a political system, the entire system becomes corrupt. The political institutions, as a whole, go insane. And that’s where we are today.

To sum up

Psychopaths want power. Current political systems, including democracy, tend to favour psychopaths over honest people for positions of power. While this tendency acts quite slowly, over time it has relentlessly increased the incidence of psychopathic traits among politicians, and in government as a whole. So, today far too many of those with political power and influence are arrogant, deceitful, selfish, callous and remorseless in their treatment of others. Not to mention impatient, reckless and untrustworthy. And once a critical level is reached, political institutions go mad.

The same psychopathic tendencies also exist among the wider political class, that hang on to the coat-tails of power. Political activists, celebrities, big business, the rich, the media, academe, bureaucracy. All are corrupted by at least some degree of psychopathy. As a result, today we’re in the grips of a giant, collective, psychopathic insanity.

We are in need of a big dose of sanity. Can Reform UK provide that?

Posted by 1 comment:

Friday, 19 September 2025

Some thoughts on Godalming Town Council

Image credit: Godalming Town Council

As the local Reform UK campaign manager, when I heard of a by-election for Godalming Town Council, I took the opportunity to look at what the council is doing for (or to) us.

When I took on the campaign manager job, it was for the general election. I was well aware that apart from by-elections, Surrey County Council was the next arena in which we would need to fight, and (at the time) the borough councils were also important. I hadn’t thought much about the town or parish council level, until this week.

Imagine, then, my disgust when I found out just how far down in local government the cancer and corruption, that is politics today, has spread.

The council

Godalming Town Council has only the status of a parish council. But it is unusual in that the councillors all have party affiliations. In Ash and Cranleigh parish councils, for example, most candidates stand as Independents – even if they are Lib Dem SCC councillors!

It has 18 members, elected by five wards of Godalming: Binscombe (3), Central and Ockford (4), Charterhouse (3), Farncombe and Catteshall (4), and Holloway (4). Before the vacancy, the composition of the council was 9 Lib Dems, 4 Greens, 3 Labour and 2 Tories.

The last full election to the town council was held in May 2023. This is the first by-election since. The next full election is expected in May 2027.

Lib Dem Paul Follows has managed to execute a clean sweep, being on the town council, borough council and Surrey County Council simultaneously. Not to mention having been the Lib Dem candidate at the general election. And Paul and Penny Rivers both have two council posts at the same time.

Green councillor Nina Clayton is no longer able to continue, for reasons I haven’t been able to find. The question of whether or not we want to field a one-off candidate in the by-election is under discussion. But we should certainly be looking to compete in the elections in 2027.

The Corporate Plan 2023/7

While familiarizing myself with what the town council does, I discovered a document called “Corporate Plan 2023/7.” It is at [[1]], and dates from November 2023. Here are some of its low-lights. All the items below are introduced by the words “Godalming Town Council will.”

Part One – Democracy, Accountability, Governance and Communications

8. Support and promote Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.

Part Three – Investing in our Community

4. Provide support, grants and promotion for local businesses that are actively working towards becoming carbon neutral.

Part Four – Environmental Protection

A1. Promote at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain on private land and ensure it on land that we own.

A5. Support measures to improve air quality and water quality across the Godalming Town Council area.

B1. Ensure that Godalming Town Council is carbon neutral across Scope 1 and 2 by 2025 and across all other areas of its own operations by 2030.

B2. Ensure net zero scope 3 emissions by 2030.

B3. Lobby for and, wherever possible, deliver infrastructure for electric vehicles ahead of 2030.

B4. Promote an understanding of the climate and ecological crisis amongst our community and work together on strategies for reduction of individual carbon footprint.

B5. Support divestment in fossil fuels and oppose development of new sources for fossil fuels through ‘fracking,’ ‘acidisation,’ drilling and other unsustainable approaches.

B6. Strive to be a net exporter of renewable energy to the grid by 2030.

D1. Promote the concept of Godalming becoming a zero-waste town by encouraging repair, reuse, and re-fashioning in addition to re-cycling an increasingly wide range of items, diminishing the quantity of residual waste generated across the town.

Part Five – Sustainable Transport

1. Promote opportunities for a balanced, pedestrian and cycle-friendly, sustainable and affordable public transport system.

6. Continue to lobby for the implementation of a 20mph speed limit for the Godalming Town Council area and take action to promote active and sustainable travel.

A Reform UK perspective

There are severe conflicts between this agenda and Reform UK’s relevant policy positions as stated in the “Contract with You.”

Page 4: Reform UK will slash wasteful spending to increase spending for frontline public services and reduce taxes for working people.

Page 8: We must not impoverish ourselves in pursuit of unaffordable, unachievable global CO2 targets.

Page 8: Scrap Net Zero and Related Subsidies.

Page 9: Scrap all Diversity, Equality and Inclusion roles and regulations to stop two-tier policing.

Page 17: Legislate to ban ULEZ Clean Air Zones and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

Page 17: Scrapping Net Zero means no more bans on petrol and diesel cars and no legal requirements for manufacturers to sell electric cars.

Page 17: We will keep the speed limit low where safety is critical. Otherwise, 20mph zones will be scrapped.

My personal perspective

In every case, I support Reform UK’s agenda against Godalming Town Council’s. I suspect that Reform’s huge increase in popularity in the last year is in large part due to the negative effects on ordinary people, over many decades, of the agendas of the “uniparty.” This designation includes all four of the parties represented on Godalming Town Council.

Almost everyone now knows that Labour and Tories are both bad, albeit in different ways. And the Greens are even worse. Most people don’t yet realize that the Lib Dems are just as bad as the Greens. But they will, once they see the quotes above from the Corporate Plan.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

From my perspective, “DEI” is a collectivist project, that seeks to forcibly promote certain sectors of the population above others, with quotas and the like, based on characteristics such as race or gender. My own view is diametrically opposed, and can be paraphrased as “It isn’t who you are that matters, only what you do.”

I quote from paragraph 2.5 of Reform UK’s constitution. “The Party shall conduct itself and its affairs in such a way that it does not discriminate against or in favour of any person on the grounds of their race, religion, gender, ethnic origin, education, beliefs, sexual orientation, class, social status, sectarianism or any other basis prescribed by law.” Amen!

I think Reform should be seeking to eliminate DEI, not just in the police, but in government as a whole.

Nett Zero

As an evidence-based person, I have searched for evidence that emissions of CO2 from human civilization have been proven to cause bad effects to the planet or to our civilization. I have found many such claims, but I have never found any hard evidence for them.

I consider the “climate crisis” caboodle to be a total scam. I have gone so far as to pen a science-based de-bunk of the whole idea, and got it published at “the world’s most viewed website on global warming and climate change.” Here: [[2]].

I take very seriously indeed the right of every human being to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Therefore, I regard all policies that require me or anyone else to sacrifice ourselves to the god of nett zero as immoral, destructive and criminal.

Moreover, we know that the United Nations has, ever since 1970, been the primary driver of the green agenda, and thus of nett zero. Indeed, I have documented the history of the agenda in three essays on our Reform branch website: [[3]], [[4]], [[5]].

To paraphrase that history: At Rio in 1992, our “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. So, they set us the people of the UK, without any chance to object, on a course that would inevitably lead to us losing our prosperity, rights and freedoms. They did it gladly! And now, they are basking in success.

This process has been pushed along by the UN and its IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, being a UN organization, is seriously biased in favour of the green agenda. But the agenda has also been supported by the uniparty of mainstream UK political parties. Only Reform offers any hope of escape from green despotism.

Those that push and have pushed the green and nett zero agenda are dishonest, deceitful and reckless towards us the people. They have sought to sideline objective science. They have fabricated “evidence” to suit policy. They have failed to do any proper cost-benefit analysis on green policies. Indeed, they have sought to prevent any such thing being done! And they have suppressed the voices of us skeptics.

All this is enshrined in Agenda 2030, agreed at the UN in 2015. And without us, the people, ever having been allowed a chance to object.

Indeed, the UN’s concept of “sustainable development” has become an idol. We are to be expected to make huge sacrifices for the sake of future generations. Yet it is we, not they, who have paid the taxes. So, we are the ones who deserve to reap the benefits. This is a scam.

One part of the story, which I did not cover in the three essays because I intend to write it up separately, is the perversion of the precautionary principle. The original principle, “Look before you leap,” discourages action unless you are fairly sure the consequences will be nett positive. But this principle has been perverted and, indeed, all but inverted. It has become, in effect: “If in doubt about a risk, government must act to prevent it.” No matter how small or unlikely that risk.

Using this perverted precautionary principle, successive UK governments have collaborated with the UN and EU to impose on us all a tyrannical culture of safety at any cost, and arbitrary, often collective, ever tightening targets and limits. Which, so they plan, will continue to be tightened for ever.

And now, I find that the UN, the EU, and the “uniparty” that supports them in the UK, have extended the tentacles of this giant scam all the way down to Godalming Town Council.

Biodiversity

I have a few green-ish friends, and I have often asked them a question. “Name one species to whose extinction I have contributed, and say what I did, and roughly when, to contribute to that extinction.” I have never received a direct answer. So, I conclude that I cannot be guilty of endangering biodiversity. And so, “biodiversity net gain” is irrelevant to me. And I surely don’t want to pay for it.

I also ask: How could any human being put the interests of other species above the interests of their own? And most of all, someone in government? After all, government is supposed to be for the benefit of the people. People are human beings, no? And wildlife don’t pay taxes.

In short, absent hard evidence of a real biodiversity problem caused by my actions, I regard the touted “ecological crisis” as a scam.

Air quality

We all want clean air, don’t we? But there are questions on this subject which aren’t asked, and should be. First, isn’t the air in the UK clean enough already? And if not, why not?

Second, if the costs to the people of a reduction in air pollution are greater than the benefits, why should we do it? I think we should not. For government is supposed to be, in everything it does, a nett benefit to the governed. And so, any policy that imposes more costs on the people, or on groups or individuals among them, than the benefits those same people, groups or individuals receive as a result, should not be implemented.

I have documented the “clean air” scam in a series of essays about anti-car policies in the UK. Here they are, for those who have time to read up on the details: [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]].

I intend in the future to write a potted summary of these essays for our Reform branch website. So, I won’t go into any more detail here, except to point out the similarities between what has happened over clean air and anti-car policies, and what has happened over nett zero. Though it is the World Health Organization (WHO), rather than the IPCC, that has been active on the UN side in these matters.

Electric vehicles

I don’t want an EV. I can’t afford an EV. In this, I think I share the views of many older or poorer people in the area. At 72, I will never be able to afford to buy another car of any kind. So, all I want to do is carry on running my 14-year-old diesel car until either it dies, or I am no longer physically able to drive. And to be able to afford to do so.

Where I live, the parking is underneath the flats. If someone parked an EV down there, it would be seen as a fire hazard. I also resent public parking spaces being taken away, and converted to EV chargers that are almost never used.

Fossil fuels

In our current state of technology, fossil fuels are essential for the large-scale, reliable, dispatchable, cost-effective energy we need to power our civilization. Yes, we’ll have to move on eventually, but we’ll still need base load electricity (probably mainly nuclear) and fuels with high power density for transport (probably synthetic). For the medium term, we’ve got plenty of gas. So, let’s use it.

Because they are intermittent, neither wind nor solar power can generate the base load we need. And the idea that renewables are cheaper than gas is false; the price of electricity relative to gas has increased steadily, as more and more renewables have come on line. The renewable energy caboodle is, in my view, both a scam and a dead end.

Moreover, anyone that wants to stop other people using fossil fuels, while they are cheaper, more convenient or more reliable than other forms of energy, I see as a traitor to human civilization. They deserve to be made to live in an enclave, where they may not use any fossil fuels or products made using them. Let’s see how sustainable their economy would be!

Zero waste

I’d love to see a zero-waste council. Not one that forces us to re-cycle just about everything, but one where every penny people pay it is used for the benefit of the people who paid those pennies.

Indeed, my definition of a sustainable economy is one from which no wealth is lost. Where those, who fairly earn wealth, are able to spend it on goods and services from people like themselves. And to keep it away from dishonest politicians, bureaucrats, political activists and the like. That would mean that all local councils should be zero-waste, in my sense.

Reform will seek, through its DOGE program, to apply this kind of zero-waste approach to every part of government it controls.

Public transport

Public transport in the Godalming area is very poor, apart from the railway line. Only two bus services go anywhere except Guildford or Haslemere/Midhurst. The 46 is the only bus which stops within half a mile of my home. It only runs hourly, finishes at or before 7pm, and doesn’t run at all on Sundays. And it’s slow.

If you really want people to use public transport, you must make it frequent, convenient, and with good connections throughout the day. Everywhere. That simply isn’t economically feasible in a place like Godalming. So, a car is an essential for anyone who lives, or needs to go, anywhere off the beaten track of the Guildford/Haslemere corridor. (Example: I live near Charterhouse, and used to work in Tongham.)

20mph speed limits

No-one, except busybodies that get their kicks out of controlling people, likes 20mph speed limits. Ask the Welsh! Yet the council seem to want a 20mph limit even on the A3100 north of Meadrow, currently 40mph.

Personally, I have driven for 55 years, with only one accident above walking pace. And that didn’t injure anyone. So, why do I deserve to suffer restrictions, that aren’t going to improve anything for anybody?

This is another facet of the “safety at any cost” culture pushed by the UN and EU. This bad culture is one of the main reasons I supported Brexit in the first place, and later joined Reform. It is suffocating us, and we need to get rid of it.

Active travel

I used to be a very active traveller. In 1989 I bicycled coast-to-coast across North America, and in 1994 I walked all the way from Calais to le Havre. I still walk a lot, though no more than a few miles at a time these days. But active travel in the sense the politicians mean it isn’t something that is appropriate for a 72-year-old. And I live at the top of a hill, 170 feet above the town! Sorry, but I still need my car.

To sum up

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.

Reform UK will need to consider very seriously what our strategy should be for the May 2027 elections to Godalming Town Council and other councils of similar stripes.

Posted by No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)