Some thoughts on Reform UK’s “Our Contract with You” – Working Draft

(Neil Lock, 07 March 2024)

I have looked at the Reform UK party’s PDF “Our Contract with You” (Working Draft): [[1]]. Here are some of my questions, suggestions, congratulations and brickbats, for the policy people to chew over.

The basis of my position is a hard-core libertarian and individualist one, which leads me to agree with many of Reform UK’s policies, but to disagree fundamentally in certain areas, like human rights and policing. Thus, I regard myself as being on the radical wing of the party. My comments, as you will see, are also quite wide-ranging.

By the way, to issue such a draft at this stage is, I think, an excellent way to gauge reactions from interested parties.

0.     Our Contract with You

• Is the word “You” singular or plural?
• The downloaded file name doesn’t match the title of the document. This is confusing, as there have been versions with the same file name but different titles.
• “Britain needs Reform and Reform needs you.” This may seem like a dumb question, but what does Reform UK actually mean by “Britain?” Is it, perhaps, a synonym for the political state called “the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?” Or does it mean something more like “the British people?” Or “the nation?” (In that case, which nation?) Is it a geographical entity, or a cultural one, or a political one, or a combination of these, or something else? It would be good to know exactly what Reform UK means by this word, which is so central to its rhetoric, and which it so much wants to “save.”
• “It [the economy] is being wrecked by record taxes, wasteful government spending and nanny state regulations.” I’d add “bad green policies” at the head of that list.
• “Record mass immigration has damaged our country.” That’s true, but in my view, it is the planned nature of this immigration that is the major problem. It has been planned by successive governments since at least 2004 – and not for the benefit of the people of these islands.
• “Net Zero is making us poorer and colder, damaging British industry and forcing motorists off the road.” A pedantic point, but it is not just the “Net Zero” agenda which is forcing us out of our cars through ULEZ and similar; it is more the “clean air” agenda. Historically, the two have been separate. “Net Zero” is about CO₂ emissions, and has been driven since the 1970s mainly by the UN. “Clean air” is about pollutants such as PM2.5 and sulphur and nitrogen oxides, and has been driven mainly by the EU (at the behest, initially, of the Germans) since the early 1980s.
• “A vote for either [Tories or Labour] is a vote for more incompetence, dishonesty and defeat.” “Defeat” of what, by whom?

But beyond that, it is an understatement. I’d say something more like “A vote for either Tories or Labour is a vote for more of the same, or worse.” Then add to the list of their characteristics a few more, such as: arrogance, corruption, hypocrisy, bad faith, disdain for the people they are supposed to serve, lack of transparency, evasion of accountability. And recklessness, too. In my view, all the mainstream political parties today are just gangs of psychopathic criminals. That is why I haven’t voted in a UK general or local election since 1987. (My Brexit party candidate in 2019 was withdrawn). I do not wish to see Reform UK go that way, or anything like it!

• “The two-party system has failed.” True, but again an understatement. In my view, the entire political system of nation-states and sham “democracy” has failed. Radical thinking is necessary in order to move forward from here. Does Reform UK have that?
• “Maximise Britain’s vast energy treasure of oil and gas.” I’d prefer “make use of” to “maximise.”

1.     Contents

1. “Costings can be found at the end of each policy section.” This is not so. The costings are all together in the final section of the document (page 29).

2.     Slash Government Waste

• “Save £5 in every £100.” That’s a start for the first 100 days. But it’s got to go a lot further than that. Inside a few years, I’d like to see the performance of every government employee and sub-contractor audited, to assess what value for money taxpayers are receiving for what they do. Those that have failed to deliver value for money, deserve to be sacked. That should reverse the 600,000 rise in public sector workers, and well more. And those that have acted against the interests of those who pay their wages, or have acted dishonestly towards the people in any way, deserve not only to be sacked, but to have their cushy pensions cancelled too. This should be done at all governmental levels: national, devolved and local.
• “We make these saving” should be “We make these savings.”
• “Cut Foreign Aid by 50%.” The whole “foreign aid” circus is a hangover from Willy Brandt’s commission in the early 1980s. It should be stopped altogether, except for those very few cases in which there is a clear moral imperative.

3.     Economy – Personal

• “Smart tax cuts create growth and pay for themselves.” Oh, how I hate the word “smart!” I’d prefer something like “Properly thought through.”
• “Trust the British people to build a thriving economy.” Yes. Who else would you trust?
• All the reforms listed here look like winners to me! As long as the numbers add up.

4.     Economy – Business

• “Reform is urgently needed to enjoy a high growth, low tax economy that is critical for Britain’s future.” This doesn’t read right to me. I’d prefer something like: “A high growth, low tax economy is critical for Britain’s future. Reform is urgently needed to bring this about.”
• The critical reforms look good. Particularly abolishing IR35, of which I personally have been a victim for almost 25 years now. IR35 has excluded me from the market, ruined my career, and dashed my pension plans, unjustly leaving me poor in my old age. But for 70-year-old me, of course, this is far too little, far too late.

Missing full-stop after “receive no sick pay,” by the way.

• “Support Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.” Yes, of course. But it is important also to reverse the culture in government, that over many decades has persistently favoured big businesses over small, and the biggest companies and multinationals most of all. Not just in things like IR35, but in areas such as COVID workplace closures too.
• “On-line Delivery Tax at 4% for large, multinational enterprises.” It’s nice to see a tax idea that hits the fat cats for once, instead of the “little people.” But I still don’t have any feel for how such a thing might work. The devil will be in the detail.
• “Cut entrepreneurs’ tax relief to 5%.” If this is the scheme that is now called “Business Asset Disposal Relief,” isn’t this an increase in the relief, not a cut?

5.     Immigration

• “Uncontrolled mass immigration has pushed Britain to breaking point.” As above, the real kicker is the fact that the whole thing has been planned.
• “Labour and Tories will never control our borders.” Indeed so: for they were the ones that planned all this in the first place! And the Lib Dems were complicit in it, too. That said, I’m no fan of national borders – just as I am no fan of the nation-state. Personally, I’d like to see migration controlled at a much lower, more local level.
• “Smart immigration” – that word again!
• “Leave the European Convention on Human Rights.” No, I think this is a very bad way to go. I expect human rights, such as freedom of speech and privacy, to become big issues over the next few years, as people come to realize just how badly their rights have been violated (for example through the “on-line safety bill,” or tracking by cameras), and fight to get them back and then extended.

One can, of course, argue about whether the European Court of Human Rights should be allowed to intervene in the affairs of a democracy – my take is that their decisions should be regarded as advisory only. But to abrogate the Convention is another matter entirely. I actually think the Convention doesn’t go nearly far enough! For Reform UK to have rejected the only framework currently available for securing these rights, without providing any alternative, I would see as a serious strategic error. Not to mention the difficulties it might cause in relation to Northern Ireland.

Bear in mind also that the European Council, to which the Court belongs, is a different and less vicious animal than the European Commission, which is the (anti-democratic) governing body of the EU. Besides all that, doesn’t ECHR article 5.1(f) already cover “illegal” immigration, which seems to be the main sticking point, satisfactorily?

• “Pick up Migrants out of Boats and take back to France.” This is how the boats problem should have been dealt with in the first place. It is essentially a French problem, and should be shoved back down their throats.
• “Asylum claims [claimants?] that arrive through safe countries will be processed rapidly offshore in British Overseas Territories.” In my view, asylum seekers should be processed wherever they apply, including in France or in a British overseas territory. The Rwanda programme is, and always has been, complete silliness – particularly since Rwanda hasn’t been a British territory for more than 60 years.
• “Stop the Illegal Working Scandal.” Be careful what you wish for. Schemes supposedly to prevent “illegal” working could too easily be used as part of a more general tyranny. Indeed, there’s a case to be made that IR35 has been just such a scheme!

6.     NHS

• “Sadly, the NHS is being let down by incompetent management, bureaucracy, waste, cover-ups and scandals.” Yes, indeed. But I reckon you could find lots of other areas of the public sector where the same applies. In fact, very probably, the majority of it.
• “The NHS has a crisis in leadership.” Yes, but it’s not the only part of government that has that problem. Police have it too. As does the public sector as a whole. I think these problems are all related. They will need a solution which is cultural, not political.
• Critical reforms needed. Generally, these are good.
• “All frontline NHS and social care staff to pay zero basic rate tax for 3 years.” This goes against equality before the law, by making exceptions for certain (types of) people. Better, I think, to pay them more, and do something like ring-fencing the tax taken from them so it goes back into the same NHS budget.

7.     NHS – continued

• “Focus on results, not targets.” This is, to my mind, the best positive idea Reform UK has put forward yet. The culture of “targets” may well have been a major cause of demoralization for many NHS staff. But I think that the focus on results ought to be applied to all areas of government, thus constraining it to work just as a private company doing a similar function would have to. I think this idea is so important, that it even deserves to be promoted to the “Our Contract with You” page, following “Slash government waste and red tape.”
• “Excess Deaths and Vaccine Harms Public Inquiry.” Great idea, but how to prevent it being de-fanged and side-tracked, as seems to have happened to the current COVID inquiry? Such an inquiry must uncover the true facts and the full story, get them out to the general public, then hold the guilty accountable and compensate the victims properly. There are lots of skeletons (no pun intended) in that closet!

I would also like to see an inquiry into the violations of the human rights of workers who refused to take the vaccines, and in particular the 40,000 sacked care home workers. And a just resolution to their cases.

There also needs to be an inquiry into how model “predictions” that turned out to be grossly wrong were allowed to drive policy, in particular lockdowns and mask wearing. The interface between science and policy has become in recent decades full of dishonesty and skulduggery. Both in this area and in environmentalism.

8.     Energy and Environment

• “Our air has never been cleaner.” Indeed so. But there is an ongoing push, which appears to originate from the WHO and is supported by all the mainstream parties, to keep on forcing more and more reductions in pollutant levels, regardless of costs to the people; and to continue doing so for ever and ever. There ought to be public debate on what are acceptable levels of pollutants, and on costs versus benefits of seeking reductions. (In my view, no measures should ever be taken unless the benefits are, clearly and provably, greater than the costs. “First, do no harm.”).
• “Net Zero is the wrong bit, at the wrong time, in the wrong timeframe.” I think this grossly understates the true case. In reality, Net Zero is not necessary, nor is it desirable. Nor, indeed, can it ever be achieved in practice. To try to oppose Net Zero with arguments such as “now is not the right time” is, I think, to concede on the most important issue of all. That issue is that, objectively, there is no “climate crisis,” and no hard evidence that, even if there was, reducing CO2 emissions would have any effect of “mitigating” it. The proven environmental benefits of “net zero” are, no pun intended, absolutely zero. The entire accusation against us is, and has been all along, a fraudulent pack of lies. I have written extensively on this subject, for example here: [[2]].

Further, there needs to be a public inquiry into how Net Zero and the rest of the “green industrial revolution” became policy over the course of three decades and more. Questions to be answered should include: Where is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that there is a problem with the climate? Where is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that emissions of carbon dioxide, or other greenhouse gases, from human civilization are a significant cause of any such problem? Even if there was such a problem, where is the hard evidence that Net Zero policies actually would “mitigate” it? How well or badly has government behaved over this matter towards the people they are supposed to serve? Is “climate science” a sound scientific discipline, and does it use the scientific method properly? Why were the three “Climategate” inquiries all whitewashes? Why has no honest cost-benefit analysis been done on Net Zero or associated policies? Why was the Green Book updated in 2020 to exempt “strategic” projects from rigorous cost-benefit analysis? Why have people opposed to the green agenda been rubbished or ignored throughout? In my opinion, there are as many skeletons in that closet as in the COVID one; if not more.

• “We are better to adapt to warming, rather than pretend we can stop it.” Bull’s-eye! Particularly given we don’t really know how much warming is likely to happen, or how much of it is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, how much to other human influences (like land use changes and the urban heat island effect), and how much is independent of human activities.
• “The UK cost of Net Zero… is so big that no one really knows.” This is absolutely inexcusable, and the main reason for it is that successive governments, Labour, Coalition and Tory, have gone out of their way to ensure that no proper cost versus benefit analysis on CO₂ emissions can be done. I have written on this, too: [[3]].
• “Scrap Annual £10 Billion of Renewable Energy Subsidies.” Absolutely right: but why bring in new taxes, rather than just scrapping the subsidies? Those that have taken those subsidies should also be made to clean up the sites when they have become no longer economically viable.
• “Renewables are not cheaper.” True, and demonstrable. So, have those, that have claimed that renewables are cheaper than other forms of energy, not been committing fraud against us?
• Doesn’t mention reversing the ban on fracking. I think it should.
• Could mention that to scrap Net Zero will require withdrawal from the Paris agreement, and from the CoP and IPCC processes. These, I think, are desirable objectives in their own right.

9.     Policing

• “Police leadership is badly failing.” This is a big problem. Every time police numbers go up, policing gets worse; and this has been going on for decades. Until the leadership problem has been fixed, any other measures taken cannot work, and will probably be counter-productive.

In my view, we don’t need more police, but better police. The problems in police culture must be solved first. If you throw money at a corrupt system, it will be at best wasted, and at worst badly mis-used. The NHS is another example.

• Could mention that police spend far too much time on “revenue generation.” Like waiting to catch “speeding” motorists who are not committing any real crime.
• “Commence Zero Tolerance Policing.” No. This is a recipe for a police state. Far from protecting the public, it is likely to make many people afraid to go out, for fear of being mistreated by the police. Remember Ian Tomlinson. Do you really think that the police today are on the side of the people?
• “Increase Stop and Search substantially.” This goes back to the subject of human rights, one on which I find myself in very substantial disagreement with Reform UK’s line. No-one should ever be stopped or searched without there being reasonable, evidence-based suspicion that they have committed, are committing or are planning to commit a real crime. I am surprised and very disappointed that Reform UK favours increasing stop and search, when less than a year ago, Baroness Casey’s summary report [[4]] recommended “a reset of Stop and Search” by the Met Police. And this is an issue that has been “live” for more than a decade: [[5]].

It seems Reform UK is trying to pander to the Old Tory far-right with these policies. But I think these ideas are likely to alienate far more people than they enthuse; including me.

• “Common Sense Policing not ‘Woke’ Policing.” Despite my disagreements with Reform UK on other policing matters, I agree with this one.
• “Without fear of favour.” Should this be “without fear or favour?”

10. Policing – continued

1. “Scrap or Reform Police and Crime Commissioners.” The job of the PCC – to hold the police to account, and so to prevent police misconduct – is an important one. If the system is not working, then it needs to be reformed or replaced. Either way, the police must be held to account, by parties working on behalf of the people.

11. Justice

1. I am a bit surprised that there is no mention of the Post Office scandal, and the way in which so many wrongful convictions were rammed through. How would Reform UK propose to punish the perpetrators of this large scale, malevolent perversion of the justice system? And what would be the proposed solution to stop such problems happening again?
2. “Urgent Sentencing Review with Automatic Life Imprisonment for Violent Repeat Offenders.” I do not agree with the removal of judges’ discretion to modify sentences in those cases where it is appropriate. Centrally planned one-size-fits-all “solutions” are always likely to lead to miscarriages of justice.

This will have a knock-on effect on “Commence Building of 10,000 New Detention Places.” This, I think, is again a case of Reform UK pandering to the old Tory right.

If there is a problem with the quality or impartiality of magistrates or judges, then that is a separate issue, and will have to be addressed urgently.

1. “Change the definition of Hate Crime.” Yes, all of us are at risk of being accused of trumped-up “hate crimes.” The same is true of “misinformation,” “harmful communication” and other similar invented “crimes,” where the standards by which guilt is to be judged are not objective. Those of us, who do not believe or fall in line with the establishment narratives, are in constant danger of having our voices suppressed.

Indeed, this is also a criticism of the “on-line safety bill” as a whole, which not only greatly multiplies such cases, but incentivizes Big Tech to remove doubtful material “just in case.” See my thoughts on these, and many other related matters, at [[6]].

1. “Increase budget for both the National Crime Agency and the National Drugs Intelligence Unit.” I suspect that these organizations may well have leadership problems similar to the police. Some of the NCA’s predecessors certainly had. As one who agrees with Blackstone that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” I cannot support this idea. Again, we need not more, but better.

12. Justice – continued

1. “Reform the Child Maintenance Service.” Not my area of expertise, but if it isn’t doing its job, it needs reform. Also applies to “Child Protection Services.”
2. Youth crime and “High Intensity Training Camps.” Not sure about these: shouldn’t the youths have been educated properly in the first place? Which leads into…

13. Education

1. “We want an education system that ensures young people learn the skills, character and values to succeed in life.” Absolutely. It must also teach them how to think, not what to think. And to look hard at all the facts before making any major decision; particularly if the decision affects others.
2. “Ban transgender ideology [in schools].” I think you may mean “stop making taxpayers pay for transgender ideology to be spread.” If so, agreed.
3. “Ban critical race theory.” As above.
4. “It is unacceptable to divide children on grounds of race…” Absolutely: individuals should be judged, not on who they are, where they come from, or what their skin colour is, but on how they behave.
5. “Tax relief of 20% on all Independent Education.” A really good and positive idea, and also a fine riposte to Labour’s plans to tax private schools, or even to ban private education altogether.
6. “Scrap interest on student loans.” I think this is only part of a multi-faceted set of reforms, which are necessary to tertiary education. I would say, fix the obvious problems like loans, then encourage competition, and private schools and universities. Let the market sort out the underlying problem.

14. Education – continued

1. “Cut funding to universities that undermine free speech.” Yes, and impose fines on them. “Cancel culture” deserves itself to be cancelled.
2. In that context, it is unfortunate that Richard Tice chose recently to “cancel” a party candidate whose utterances, however crass they may have been, were not objectively harmful to anyone.
3. I basically agree with the other policies too, except for the two-year courses, which should be an option only.

15. Benefits

1. “We need an efficient welfare system that helps the genuinely disabled, sick, vulnerable and unemployed to find work.” Absolutely. People must be encouraged to be as independent as their abilities and disabilities allow them to be.
2. I can agree with all the specific policies here.
3. “Work is a cure not a cause” is key. It can give people good reasons to feel proud of themselves.

16. Brexit

1. “The Brexit that 17.4 million voted for has been betrayed.” Absolutely, and those that have done this are quislings.
2. “Scrap EU regulations with immediate effect.” Yes. This (along with getting away from the ECJ) is a key part of the Brexit I was looking for. And not just EU regulations, either. Reform UK must look to scrap all regulations that have been made by or on behalf of undemocratic external parties, and withdraw from all “agreements” with those parties. This includes the UN and its “sustainable development goals,” Paris agreement, Gothenburg protocol and the like. After Brexit, the next stage should be UNexit.

Along with this, the entire culture of collective “targets” and “limits” that was imported from the EU, particularly in environmental matters, must be gotten rid of. Such collective restrictions are likely to lead to ordinary people being screwed (as over ULEZ) while the elites simply act as if they are exempt from the whole thing. As “focus on results, not on targets,” so also “focus on results, not on limits.”

1. Leaving the ECHR. See what I wrote above in (5.4).
   1. “British laws and judges must never be overruled by a foreign court.” I suggest that decisions of the ECHR (Court, not Convention) should be regarded as advisory only.
   1. “UK courts must be able to protect British citizens from EU arrest warrants.” Totally agree. (But do these warrants have anything to do with the European Convention?).
   1. “Abandon the Windsor Framework.” Ultimately, the Northern Ireland problem can only be solved by an agreement with the Irish. The EU ought not to be involved. If feasible, we should seek to return to the situation before the EU existed, and talk to the Irish to bring things up to date from there.
   1. “Independence for Britain’s armed forces.” Yes. The idea of an EU military is anathema. That said, we the people of these islands should be able to ally with and share information at need with neighbour countries such as Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Benelux, France.

17. Defence

1. There is clearly a culture problem within the UK military. Procurement has been a laughing-stock for decades. More recently, there have been problems with housing, and insensitive rule changes, which appear to be causing valuable officers to leave. And there are serious problems with recruitment.

This must also be considered in the light of changing UK culture as a whole. Today’s young people have seen through the skulduggery over Iraq, and the failures in Afghanistan and elsewhere. There is also rising sentiment against war in general, as shown by reported reactions to a general’s recent remarks about conscription. One pundit described the reaction as: “sod off, we’re not going to do anything for you!”

The war in Yemen, in which the UK has little or no strategic interest, is attracting condemnation. And Boris Johnson’s seemingly deliberate destruction of the Ukrainian peace process has left a very sour taste in the mouths of many people. Why the hell are we being expected to pay for bloodshed and over-pay for energy, when the Ukrainian situation could have been defused almost two years ago?

1. “Increase defence spending…” I have to say, again, what I said about the police. And the NHS. The cultural problems must be solved before it makes any sense at all to throw money at the military.
2. “…ensuring our lead role in NATO.” NATO may have been a useful tool during the Cold War, but I question whether it may now have passed its last-use-by date. Most UK military policy now seems just to be as lackey to the USA’s school-bully aggressions. In my view, UK military forces should be defensive and retaliatory only, and should not take any part in conflicts in which the UK is not itself directly threatened. There is a need for public debate over matters like these.
3. “Protect our servicemen and women on active duty inside or outside the UK from civil law and human rights lawyers.” This is a reversal of the Tory efforts of a decade ago to withdraw human rights protection from service people! But I think it goes too far the other way. The state has already far too much power over ordinary people. To allow soldiers immunity for what would be crimes if done by ordinary people (immunity that was recently struck down in Northern Ireland), would be to go in the wrong direction.
4. It might be useful to have something about reviving and resuscitating strategic industries, such as steel-making, which would be required urgently in any situation of conflict.

18. Department for Veterans

1. I confess I am a bit surprised at the huge level of importance Reform UK seems to attach to this whole topic. But I do think that the proposal “Preferential Qualification for Key Public Sector Leadership Roles” is a good one. The career transition from army to police is not an uncommon one, and if there is now a flow of competent, honest captains and majors leaving the army, re-purposing some of them to try to fix the culture problems in the police would be worth a try.

19. Housing

1. “Population to grow by nearly 7 million between 2021 and 2036.” This contradicts the figure of 14 million given on page 5.
2. I can’t disagree with anything else here, except for the bit about “smart infrastructure.” As one who objects even to “smart meters” (on the grounds that they enable individual customers to be arbitrarily cut off without warning or legal recourse), I cannot accept that digital systems should ever be allowed to control people’s lives against their wills.

20. Children and Families

• Not my area of expertise as a lifelong single person, so I will pick on only a few small points.
• “Mandate single sex spaces.” While I can see the rationale for this, it would not work for very small places, e.g. in a small church with only one loo, it must be unisex.
• “Review the On-line Safety Bill.” Yes, and not just for the reasons you give here. See what I said earlier (11.3) about “misinformation,” “harmful communication” and so on.

21. Transport and Utilities Infrastructure

• “Scrap HS2.” Absolutely.
• “Stop the War on Motorists.” Yes, but needs to go much further than just these!

There needs to be an inquiry into “clean air” policies, and the science behind them. From my recent readings, I have come to suspect that for many years there have been failings in COMEAP, the “advisors” tasked with providing a scientific basis for these policies. There may well have been dishonesties comparable with those in SAGE or even the IPCC process, resulting in restrictive and unfair policies (including ULEZ) that have no objective justification. I plan to work on this over the next few months.

There also needs to be an inquiry into the over-safety or “safety at any cost” culture, that now permeates government at all levels, and which I discussed in reference [⁶]. For example, see Surrey County Council’s plans here: [[7]]. Over 20 years, creeping speed limits have been introduced in my area to such an extent, that except for two dual carriageway A roads, virtually every road already has a speed limit of 40mph or lower. (When I moved here in 1986, the national 60mph limit started at the end of my road). And they want to force us to go slower yet?

This is typical of the attitude of those that want to micro-control our lives in every detail. (I believe all this comes, ultimately, from one of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, to which we were committed in 2015 without being allowed any say at all). Every restriction on motorists ought to have to be objectively justified. And where restrictions imposed for “safety” are found not to have had measurable positive effect, they should be removed. As with the NHS, “focus on results, not targets.”

• “Integrated Transport Infrastructure.” Judging by the specific proposal below it, I would have called this “Integrated Road Maintenance Infrastructure.”

22. Agriculture

• I agree with all this. For me, farming is much more important than the military! You can survive without missiles, but you can’t survive without food.

23. Agriculture – continued

• Can’t disagree with anything here, either.

24. Fishing and Coastal Communities

• Broad agreement here, too.

25. Fishing and Coastal Communities – continued

• No disagreements here, either. This is getting boring.

26. Pensions and Social Care

• It looks as if there is much more work Reform UK needs to do on this subject.

27. Constitutional Reform

• “We are ruled by an arrogant and out of touch elite.” Yes: see above, (0.7). “The two-party system is broken.” Yes again, (0.8).
• “The social contract is broken.” Yes, and it is broken in at least two ways. First, government ought to serve the people, not rule over us; and it ought to be allowed power only with the consent of the governed. Yet today’s political classes simply do to us what they will, without regard for our needs or desires, without any consideration of our interests, and without allowing us any real say over what is done to us. We are in effect ruled over by criminal psychopaths.

Second, some people – including myself – are coming to reject the whole idea of a “social contract.” Under no circumstances would I willingly subject myself to being ruled over by anyone with a political agenda! Like John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, or Rishi Sunak. Or by a prat of a “king,” that is a WEF crony, and such a hypocrite that he has arrived by helicopter to give lectures on reducing CO₂ emissions, and by private jet to attend CoP conferences.

By the way, I wouldn’t sign this “contract with You,” either. Because it contains elements – such as increased stop-and-search and the denigration of human rights – which I cannot accept.

• “Leave the European Convention on Human Rights.” As above, I disagree.
• “Commence reform of the House of Lords.” Yes. As long as parliament exists in its present form, there is a need to restrain it. A second chamber is one way to try to do this, though historically it has not been very successful. My own idea is that restraint might be better applied through a new and properly designed quality assurance system. There should be debates over these topics.
• “Immediate end to political appointees” [in the Lords]. Yes, agreed. No-one in the new chamber should be a current member or a current or past official of any political party.
• “Commence reform of the Civil Service.” Yes, very much so. But I don’t like the idea of the private-sector people being political appointees – particularly in light of the previous paragraph, and of what is said about the civil service in the next paragraph. And you have missed out what ought to be one of the key features of these reforms – cutting the size of the civil service by orders of magnitude.
• “Enforce the Civil Service code of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.” Yes, I totally agree. But doing this, I suspect, will prove a Herculean task. Particularly since, if it is to be enforced in the civil service, it should also be enforced in all other areas of government.

Pondering further on the above, I am coming to think that all government employees and sub-contractors – i.e. anyone whose work is paid for by taxpayers’ money – should be required to sign up to something similar to this. That would include MPs.

• “Proportional Representation.” I am not convinced that PR, as it exists today, actually works effectively: it merely pushes the politicking up a level. Look, for example, at what is going on in the Netherlands. That said, I agree that first-past-the-post has failed. Personally, I think that far more radical changes are needed.
• “A British Bill of Rights.” This would be a good idea, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Tories have already tried to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes with a cleverly named “Bill of Rights Bill.” Which, in the words of the Justice Select Committee, “weakens rights protections” and “undermines the universality of rights.”

Make no mistake, though, a proper Bill of Rights would be an enormous advance on the ECHR. But this is a very large subject – on which I plan to do some writing in the next few months.

• I would like to see also some plans for reform of local government. Its ever-escalating costs are not sustainable. It has used its powers, as was deviously planned by the UN, to move us all towards a green agenda, to which we have never had any chance to object. Those in local government are not held accountable at all, not even to the minimum of scrutiny which MPs receive. And relations with national government are obtuse, as shown by Mark Harper’s failure to overrule the ULEZ expansion. I think that local government, like the civil service, needs to be down-sized in a big way. In general, the public sector needs to be cut back and radically slimmed down.

28. Reclaiming Britain

• “Christian values are under threat.” As an agnostic, I think it would be good to make here a list of the particular values which are in danger.
• “Affirm British Sovereignty.” In my political-philosopher hat, I regard “sovereignty” as a big part of the problem. Sovereignty à la Jean Bodin is the origin of the two-tier system of “sovereign” and “subjects,” which in my view violates the rule of law, and the ethical equality which must support it. I think what is actually needed is self-determination, not sovereignty. That said, I strongly support all the individual policies listed in that paragraph.
• “Replace the 2010 Equalities Act.” As one who rejects “affirmative action” and the like with the same vehemence with which I reject the racism that originally spawned the idea, I agree with the need for major reforms in this area. I would certainly support the scrapping of all “Diversity Equality and Inclusion” posts and bureaucracies.
• “Comprehensive Free Speech Bill.” I agree with the vital importance of free speech in all its forms. “No more political bias in public institutions” is a good thing to aim for, too. Sharia law I think is a different issue: it doesn’t make sense to have two separate legal systems being applied to different people in the same place and time.
• “Commence reform of the BBC.” I’d sell off the bits (like sports) which can actually make decent programmes, and simply shut down the rest.
• “Launch a Westminster Anti-Corruption Unit.” There are a whole lot of issues in this area, including how to prevent this unit itself becoming corrupt. But yes, there is a need to “go after” those in government, advisors, quangos or commissions that have shown dishonesty or political bias towards the people they were supposed to serve.

29. Funding of Reform UK Plans

• There are others far better qualified to comment on these numbers than I am, but it looks like a reasonable place to start.

To sum up…

There are many policies and ideas here, with which I can heartily agree. These include: Ditch Net Zero, and ditch anti-car policies and other planks of the green agenda. Scrap HS2. Sane and sensible policies on energy, including forcing renewables to be cost-competitive. Slash the size of government and the public sector, and the scope of what it does. Cut taxes radically, and encourage economic growth. Encourage people to get back to work. End centrally planned mass immigration. Stop favouring multinationals and big companies over the “little people.” Reform to end corruption and to cure leadership crises in the NHS, police and other parts of government. Public inquiries into excess deaths and vaccine harms. Draw the fangs of “hate crimes” and other unjust impediments to free speech. Stop “woke” ideologies being taught in schools, and cancel “cancel culture.” Encourage independent education at all levels. Scrap EU regulations, and other regulations made at the behest of non-democratic, external parties. Treat farmers and fishermen fairly. Reform the Lords, civil service and other parts of government, improving ethical standards and stressing integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. Ditch “diversity, equality and inclusion” bureaucracy.

There are a number of areas, in which I think the proposed reforms do not go far enough. For example, I would like to see public inquiries into: The interfaces between science and policy. The injustices committed against those who refused vaccinations. And how Net Zero, “clean air” and related green-agenda items became policy, in the absence of proven cases for them.

There are also some policy areas in which I, more or less strongly, disagree. Including: Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. Zero tolerance policing, increased Stop and Search, and other increases in police resources, particularly given that today’s police have not demonstrated that they are worthy of the public’s confidence. Sentencing policy which goes beyond the bounds of justice and reason. Throwing resources at the military, without first fixing the cultural problems from which it is suffering.

I believe that, if Reform UK is to make progress towards a better Britain (whether or not it is eventually able to form a government), it also needs to succour some major changes which are cultural rather than political. For example: Trust the people. Focus on results, not arbitrary “targets” or “limits.” Recognize the psychopathic traits in many of those that have been mis-ruling over us: such as their arrogance, dishonesty and hypocrisy. Recognize that the political system has failed, at a level well beyond what can be fixed merely by proportional representation, or by changing the faction currently in power. Ensure that all government projects are properly analyzed for benefits versus costs to the people, before they even start. Self-determination: ditch the influence of undemocratic external parties. Ditch the culture of collective “targets” and “limits.” Ditch the culture of “safety at any cost.”

If this set of proposals were an answer to an exam paper, I would score it at about 80%, and give it a B.

---

[[1]] https://assets.nationbuilder.com/reformuk/pages/253/attachments/original/1708775864/Contract_With_The_People.pdf?1708775864

[[2]]  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/

[[3]] https://staging-3e6a-thelibertarianalliance.wpcomstaging.com/2023/04/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-five-the-case-of-the-missing-cost-benefit-analysis/

[[4]]  https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/met/about-us/baroness-casey-review/update-march-2023/baroness-casey-review-press-notice.pdf

[[5]] https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/our-work/article/stop-and-search/

[[6]] https://staging-3e6a-thelibertarianalliance.wpcomstaging.com/2022/07/01/freedom-of-speech-and-the-culture-of-safety-at-any-cost/

[[7]] https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-safety/strategy-2024-to-2035