Democratic Consent, Identity and Accountability

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026. Little public attention has so far focused on its long-term implications. The recent replacement of Keir Starmer by Andy Burnham has accelerated implementation of the regionalisation agenda the Act enables. The legislation sets out the framework for Strategic Authorities, the preferred model of larger unitary councils, and associated powers.

A fundamental problem remains.

This major structural change is proceeding without a direct popular vote or a clear, detailed manifesto mandate for the scale of unitary reorganisation now under way.No England-wide referendum was held. This stands in contrast to the devolution settlements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, each of which involved referendums. Local government reorganisation into larger single-tier authorities was not a prominent feature of Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto.

Consultations took place, but they were treated as advisory rather than decisive. The data is telling. In Leicestershire, 87 per cent of respondents to the statutory consultation opposed one expansion option, while a majority preferred a three-unitary model that was not adopted. In Lancashire, 63 per cent of those surveyed wanted to retain the existing two-tier system. National polling indicated that only around 26 per cent of English residents preferred a single-tier unitary model, with a larger share favouring the status quo. Councillor surveys revealed low confidence that reorganisation would improve outcomes for residents and a strong preference for greater public say in the shape of local government.

If the public and many local councillors indicated clear reservations, why is the programme continuing?

There is a human and cultural cost to reorganisation on this scale. The government’s guiding preference has been for unitary authorities of around 500,000 residents or more. Historic counties, districts, towns and parishes risk feeling diluted. Larger councils can appear more remote; independent and hyper-local voices may shrink. The perception that England is being broken into parts resonates with many people, even though the legal reality is that all new structures remain firmly under UK parliamentary sovereignty. Research has repeatedly shown that English identifiers often prefer England to be treated as a single entity rather than a collection of intermediate or meso-level units.

Accountability in Theory versus Practice

The Act introduces formal improvements: directly elected mayors elected by the supplementary vote system, stronger Local Scrutiny Committees with powers to require attendance, assess value for money and consider public petitions, the creation of a Local Audit Office, and duties around neighbourhood governance. These are positive on paper. The open question is whether they will prove sufficient to restrain the concentration of power that larger authorities tend to produce, or to bridge the greater distance between decision-makers and the communities they serve.Mayors become highly visible figures but can dominate the local political landscape. Scrutiny arrangements are strengthened in statute and are due to be phased in from 2027 for Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities and 2028 for others, yet they remain untested at this scale. There is a genuine risk that “double devolution” to neighbourhoods will prove under-powered relative to the upward transfer of strategic functions to the new authorities.

Cost, Disruption and Unproven Efficiency Claims

Practical consequences will affect everyday services. Transition costs, the creation of shadow authorities, postponement of elections in some areas, and short-term disruption to social care, planning, waste and other services are real risks. The government asserts that ending two-tier arrangements will deliver efficiencies and clearer accountability. Evidence from previous waves of local government reorganisation is mixed at best.Funding depends heavily on Integrated Settlements (multi-year flexible pots already rolling out to several mayoral areas) and on further fiscal devolution. Recent announcements under the new leadership include plans for mayors to retain a share of income tax receipts and greater business rates retention. Tax-raising powers for mayors have also been signalled as a possible future step. These arrangements remain incomplete and uneven across England.

Process and Power Dynamics

Top-down elements raise questions about any democratic mandate. Government invitation letters set the criteria that prioritised size and “sensible geography.” Final ministerial decisions sometimes diverged from the options that attracted the highest levels of local support in consultation.

Softening of the original Bill after scrutiny in the House of Lords—particularly the removal of stronger powers to impose Strategic Authorities—demonstrated that parliamentary pushback could still operate.

Unitarisation itself, however, proceeded.

Compared with earlier ad hoc devolution deals, the 2026 Act is more systematic and designed to be permanent.

This is the way that a Colony is treated. Is England the last British Colony?

Is parliamentary sovereignty enough when the changes reshape the everyday structures of local democracy?

Does claimed efficiency justify overriding clear local preferences expressed in consultation?

These are the questions the Act leaves unanswered for many English communities.

References:

• Royal Assent and full title: legislation.gov.uk, English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 (c. 23).

• Manifesto and process background: House of Commons Library, Local government reorganisation 2026 (CBP-10494).

• Leicestershire consultation figures: MHCLG summary of responses and local reporting (e.g. Leicestershire Live, July 2026).

• Lancashire survey: local authority survey reporting, 2025.

• National preference for unitaries: Ipsos/LGIU and related public opinion summaries, 2025.

• Councillor surveys: sector surveys conducted in 2025.

• Scrutiny phasing and accountability framework: Act schedules and National Audit Office reporting on English devolution funding and accountability (2026).

• Fiscal announcements: government statements and reporting, July 2026 (income tax share and business rates)

If you want to support England here are some organisations to follow:

English Democrats party

The Workers of England Union

The Campaign for An English Parliament

Every time you turn on the tap, flush the toilet, or stare at your latest water bill, you’re participating in one of England’s most consequential and contentious policy experiments: the privatisation of a natural monopoly once regarded as a crowning achievement of Victorian public health and postwar governance.Nearly four decades after Margaret Thatcher’s government sold off the regional water authorities in England and Wales in 1989, the results are decidedly mixed. Record sewage spills pollute rivers and coasts. Billions of litres leak from crumbling pipes every day. Household bills have surged to repair decades of underinvestment, while iconic names like Thames Water lurch from one financial crisis to the next. What began as a bold bid to unlock private capital has become a cautionary tale about financialisation, regulation, and the limits of privatising essential infrastructure. Who gained? Who lost? And can anything short of radical reform fix it?

The Road to Privatisation

Until the 1970s, water and sewerage services were delivered through a fragmented mix of private companies, municipal authorities, and local boards. The 1973 Water Act rationalised this into ten large Regional Water Authorities (RWAs) in England and Wales — public bodies responsible for supply, sewerage, and some environmental functions.

By the 1980s the RWAs were under severe strain. They needed massive investment to comply with tightening EU standards on drinking water quality and sewage treatment, while addressing years of underfunding. The Conservative government argued that public sector borrowing constraints made it impossible to deliver the required capital. Private ownership and access to city markets offered a cleaner, faster solution.

Following the 1987 election victory, the government moved swiftly. The Water Act 1989 transferred the RWAs into ten private Water and Sewerage Companies (WASCs). Whitehall wrote off approximately £5 billion in debt, injected a £1.5 billion “green dowry” for environmental upgrades, and floated the companies on the stock market in December 1989. The sale raised £7.6 billion amid strong investor demand.

The Regulatory Model

A tripartite regulatory framework was established to prevent monopoly abuse:

• Ofwat (economic regulator) – sets price limits and promotes efficiency.

• National Rivers Authority (later Environment Agency) – oversees environmental performance.

• Drinking Water Inspectorate – enforces quality standards.

The companies operated as regional monopolies under price-cap regulation (initially RPI + K, later more sophisticated incentive regimes). They could recover operating costs, capital investment, and a reasonable return on the Regulatory Capital Value (RCV), while being incentivised to outperform efficiency targets. Price reviews every five years (PRs) became the central battleground between companies, regulators, customers, and environmental groups.

Early Successes and Emerging Cracks

The 1990s delivered visible progress. Billions were invested. Drinking water quality rose sharply. Many rivers and beaches became cleaner, helping the UK meet EU directives. For a time, the model appeared to work.

But pressures mounted. The removal of golden shares in 1995 opened the floodgates to takeovers and consolidation. Financial engineering intensified: leveraged buyouts, complex debt structures, offshore ownership layers, and high dividend payouts became common. Critics argued that the sector was being milked for returns at the expense of long-term resilience. Regulators tightened rules over time, but many felt the adjustments came too late.

The Current Crisis (Mid-2026)

Today the sector stands at a crossroads. Companies have invested tens of billions since 1989, delivering real asset improvements and compliance gains. Yet the system is visibly strained:

• Chronic sewage overflows (storm overflows discharging untreated waste) have become a national scandal.

• Leakage rates remain stubbornly high despite targets.

• Infrastructure resilience is tested by population growth, hotter summers, and wetter winters.

• Household bills are rising sharply as Ofwat approves major investment programmes in its PR24 determinations.

Sector debt exceeds £60 billion. Some operators, notably Thames Water, face acute distress — complex debt stacks, near-insolvency risks, creditor negotiations, and the looming threat of special administration (a temporary nationalisation-style regime). While performance varies across the companies, the overall picture is one of high leverage, variable financial resilience, and intense public and political scrutiny.

Ownership Realities

The original vision of “popular capitalism” with millions of small shareholders has largely evaporated. Most water companies are now owned by consortia of infrastructure funds, pension funds, private equity, and international utilities. Investors from Australia (Macquarie’s earlier role is often cited), Canada, China, the Gulf States, and the US dominate. Ownership frequently sits behind layers of holding companies, sometimes with offshore elements. Only a handful remain listed on the stock market.

This internationalisation has brought fresh capital but also raised questions about alignment of incentives — particularly when large dividends flow out while debt piles up and infrastructure needs grow.

The Investment Challenge Ahead

Under the Water Industry Act 1991 (as amended), companies have clear statutory duties: to provide and maintain adequate water supply and sewerage systems (Sections 37 and 94), connect new developments, and invest in resilience, growth, and environmental compliance.

The numbers are daunting. Delivering the next wave of upgrades — addressing pollution, leaks, flooding, and climate adaptation — is estimated to require over £100 billion in the coming years. The funding debate is fierce: higher customer bills, more private capital on sustainable terms, greater public oversight, or some hybrid model?

If you like what I write why not explore all things English by following:

The English Democrats Party

The Workers of England Union

The Campaign for England

The College of Policing: Role, Governance, and Questions of Accountability

The College of Policing is the professional body for policing in England and Wales. Established in 2012, it took over many training and development functions from the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), which closed in 2013. It operates as an arm’s-length body (quango) sponsored by the Home Office — operationally independent but accountable to the government department.

What the College Does

Its stated mission is to improve leadership, professionalism, and consistency in policing. Key activities include:

• Setting standards for policing.

• Supporting skills development for officers and staff.

• Facilitating knowledge-sharing across forces.

• Helping build public understanding and trust in policing.

Setting Standards

The College emphasizes evidence-based approaches. Its standards include:

• Codes of Practice: Statutory documents laid before Parliament to promote consistency.

• Authorised Professional Practice (APP): Guidance shared via the secure POLKA network.

• Leadership and Professional Development Standards: Informed by the Code of Ethics and training/qualification frameworks.

• Competency and Values Framework (CVF): Updated in 2024, this defines behaviours and values (linked to the Code of Ethics) used in recruitment, promotion, and assessment.

Standards draw on evidence of “what works,” national priorities, principles such as integrity and accountability, and professional profiles. The College regularly reviews and updates these.

Governance and Board

The College is a company limited by guarantee. Its Board of Directors, led by an independent Chair, sets strategic direction. The board includes the CEO, independent non-executive directors, and representatives from policing (chief constables, PCCs, staff associations). Board members are company directors.

Current key members (as of latest available information):

• Nick Herbert (Lord Herbert of South Downs): Chair since 2021, reappointed in 2024. Former Policing Minister.

• Sir Andy Marsh: Chief Executive Officer. Former Chief Constable with extensive policing experience.

• Other non-executives and representatives include figures with backgrounds in HR/diversity (e.g., Peter Cheese, former CIPD CEO), finance, policing governance (e.g., PCCs like Marc Jones), digital transformation, and operational leadership.

Appointments for the Chair and some roles involve the Home Office. Operational decisions rest more with the College itself.

Criticisms and Accountability Concerns

While the College’s aims — raising professional standards and consistency — are broadly supported, it faces scrutiny:

• Focus Areas: Critics argue that initiatives around diversity, inclusion, and specific community engagement can sometimes appear to prioritize certain groups, potentially at the expense of impartiality or “majority” concerns. Debates around “two-tier policing” have referenced College guidance in public discourse.

• Oversight: As a Home Office-sponsored body, questions remain about effective parliamentary and public accountability. Codes of Practice require laying before Parliament, but much guidance does not. The Police Act provisions allow certain operational flexibility.

• Funding: Primarily from the Home Office grant-in-aid (supplemented by other sources). Recent annual reports detail budgets in the tens of millions; financial management has faced some scrutiny in audits.

• Broader Ecosystem: The College works alongside the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC). This raises questions about overlapping roles and clear lines of democratic oversight for voters and elected representatives.

The Home Office’s capacity to supervise multiple arm’s-length bodies, including the College, has been questioned in wider governance discussions.

Conclusion

The College of Policing plays a central role in shaping modern British policing through standards, training, and guidance. Its evidence-based intent is positive, but effectiveness depends on impartial application, value for public money, and maintaining public confidence. Greater transparency in how standards influence operational decisions — especially in high-profile or sensitive areas — would help address concerns about consistency and accountability.

Further independent review of its impact, alongside clearer Home Office/Parliamentary oversight, could strengthen its contribution to policing that serves the entire public equally.

Who Control's Britain’s Finances?

On 30 April 2026, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee voted 8-1 to keep rates at 3.75%. Inflation had already hit 3.3%, juiced by Middle East energy shocks. Governor Andrew Bailey delivered the grim forecast: more pain ahead, and possibly sharper medicine later. Just weeks earlier, Chancellor Rachel Reeves had given a deliberately dull Spring Statement — no new taxes, no big spending shifts, fiscal rules intact.

This is British economic power in its rawest form: voters elect governments, Chancellors make the grand declarations, but the day-to-day levers — borrowing costs, money creation, fiscal discipline — are pulled by a tight, unelected triangle: HM Treasury’s top mandarins led by Permanent Secretary James Bowler, the Bank of England, and the technocratic plumbing that binds them.

Bowler and his senior civil servants (including Second Permanent Secretaries Beth Russell, Sam Beckett and Jim O’Neil) are the institutional spine. They outlast ministers, enforce the fiscal rules with a quiet but iron “no” across Whitehall, and manage the delicate — often tense — daily dance with the Bank. They are the memory, the guardrails, and sometimes the adult in the room when elected politicians push too hard.

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s the visible architecture.

From War Finance to “Independent” Powerhouse

The Bank of England was born in crisis in 1694. England was fighting the Nine Years’ War against France. King William III needed cash fast to rebuild the navy. After previous monarchs had stiffed their creditors, no one trusted the Crown.

Scottish merchant William Paterson had the idea: raise £1.2 million from the public (roughly £200m+ today), secured against specific taxes. Subscribers got 8% interest, a joint-stock bank, and the right to issue notes. Charles Montagu (later the first Lord Halifax) steered the Tonnage Act through Parliament. The Glorious Revolution’s stronger Parliament made the debt credible — taxes voted by lawmakers, not royal whim.

The result? Britain invented the modern funded national debt and a public-private partnership that let it out-borrow and out-fight rivals like France for centuries. The Bank enjoyed a near-monopoly on joint-stock banking until 1826. It remained privately owned until Labour nationalised it in 1946. Operational independence came in 1997 under Gordon Brown — giving it control over monetary policy while the Treasury remains the shareholder and ultimate overseer.

The Treasury: The Quiet “No” Machine

HM Treasury’s permanent civil servants — especially the Permanent Secretary — provide the institutional spine across governments. Their job is continuity, expertise, and saying “no” across Whitehall. The tension with the Bank and Chancellor isn’t a bug; it’s a feature. Formalised meetings, remit letters, and open letters when inflation misses target keep the machinery oiled.

But when the system strains, sparks fly.

Flashpoints That Reveal the Power Balance

- 2022 Mini-Budget chaos: Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s unfunded tax cuts triggered a gilt meltdown, pension crisis, and sterling crash. The Bank stepped in with emergency bond buys. Truss’s team felt ambushed. Critics said the government ignored warnings. The episode became Exhibit A for why you don’t casually mess with market credibility — or the institutions guarding it.

- Post-pandemic inflation: The Bank was widely slammed for hiking rates too late as inflation roared through 2021-23. Questions linger about forecasting, QE losses landing on the Treasury, and overall accountability. Calls for reviews of independence have grown louder, though outright abolition remains fringe.

The Enduring Tension

Governments often want looser policy for growth. The Bank’s mandate is price stability. Quantitative easing profits and losses, reserve remuneration, and balance-sheet decisions create direct fiscal friction between the two. Think tanks debate tweaks to coordination or appointments. Politicians occasionally rail against “Treasury orthodoxy” or central bank overreach. Internationally, worries about political pressure on central banks keep the UK conversation alive.

Bottom line: Britain’s economy is run by elected ministers in name, but by a permanent triangle of technocrats in practice. That arrangement delivered stability and credibility for decades. Whether it can adapt to new shocks — without eroding democratic accountability or market trust — is the real question hanging over Threadneedle Street and Great George Street in 2026.

***********************************************************************************************************

If you are interested in English issues here are some organisations that you may want to take a look at:

Campaign for an English Parliament thecep.org.uk.

The English Democrats The only political party representing the people of England

The Workers of England Union - the only Trade Union representing workers in England unaffiliated with any political party

The Permanent Bureaucracy in Whitehall-Problem or Solution?

Elections come and go but the Whitehall Machine-protected by law and drawn from a narrow stable- quietly shapes (and sometimes blocks) the policies voters demand.

We all might be begging for an Election in the hopes that something will change the path the country is taking. However, changing the Government will not be enough. There is a real problem in England that isn’t talked about enough. Everyone knows that the “Deep State” is a big thing in the US, but England has its own version operating inside government.

The real people that need to change — alongside whichever party is in power — are working in Whitehall. They are the roughly 40 most senior Permanent Secretary-level officials (departmental heads, second permanent secretaries, and key equivalents across central government and devolved administrations) who provide continuity. They serve under many different governments and are meant to ensure the smooth running of the state. They also have the ability to quietly obstruct policies they do not support. If you have ever seen Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister, you will understand their power. It’s all done politely and procedurally, but they know that politicians come and go while they remain.

Matt Goodwin has written powerfully about this in his “Inside Britain’s Broken State” series. He shows how the opinions and worldview of those inside the Whitehall machine often sit in opposition to those of the broader English public. Many come from the same narrow educational and professional “stable” — with careers cycling inside the Civil Service, think tanks, and related policy worlds.

There is a huge disconnect between the Government Blob and the people they are supposed to serve — us.

So Who Are These People — And What Holds Them Accountable?

The legal architecture that is supposed to ensure accountability is the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG Act). The CRaG Act was passed under Gordon Brown in the dying days of the last Labour government (Royal Assent: 8 April 2010) — a statute designed by one administration to protect the permanent bureaucracy that would soon serve its opponents.

For the first time, this placed the Civil Service on a statutory footing. Section 3 requires appointments “on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.” Section 5 mandates a published Civil Service Code that every civil servant, including Permanent Secretaries, must uphold: integrity, honesty, objectivity, and — crucially — impartiality.

The Code states clearly: “Civil servants are accountable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to Parliament.” Permanent Secretaries are also Accounting Officers, personally answerable to the Public Accounts Committee and Parliament for value for money and propriety.

On paper, this looks robust. In practice, it creates a system where ministers set policy direction, but senior officials are hard to remove if they drag their feet, interpret advice in obstructive ways, or slow-walk delivery. Fixed five-year tenures (standard since around 2014) provide continuity — but also security. The independent Civil Service Commission oversees senior appointments and Code breaches, yet its powers are mostly advisory; it cannot easily sack people. Ministers can request moves, but open competition and Commission oversight make it slow and politically risky.

This structure was designed to protect against politicisation and patronage. In today’s era of rapid voter revolt on immigration, cultural change, and net zero, it can instead shield cultural and policy inertia.

Starting with the Home Office: Where Policy Meets Reality

This seems the right place to begin a series examining these officials, because the Home Office is where abstract policy collides with raw public concerns — small boats, grooming gangs, deportations, and public safety.

Current leadership (as of late April 2026):

• Permanent Secretary: Gareth Davies CB (appointed March 2026, started 6 April 2026). A career insider who previously served as Permanent Secretary at the Department for Business and Trade, with earlier senior roles in transport, international trade, and No.10. Most of his career has been inside Whitehall after an early spell at PwC.

• Second Permanent Secretary: Simon Ridley CB — another experienced internal figure with repeated spells at the Home Office and other departments.

Recent history at the top of the Home Office shows exactly this pattern: high turnover among the political masters, but continuity (and occasional friction) among the permanent officials. Past holders include Sir Philip Rutnam (resigned 2020 amid tensions with Priti Patel), Sir Matthew Rycroft (2020–2025), and Dame Antonia Romeo (brief stint in 2025–2026 before moving to Cabinet Secretary). Politicians change; the senior machine recycles insiders.

This matters because the Home Office is ground zero for some of the most contentious delivery failures:

• Persistent challenges on small boat returns and border enforcement, where ministerial intent has repeatedly clashed with legal, advisory, and operational hurdles.

• Delays and institutional reluctance around grooming gang inquiries, with repeated independent reviews highlighting cultural blind spots and resourcing issues.

• High-profile cases like the Rwanda scheme, where internal advice, leaks, and value-for-money processes created visible tension.

These are not usually dramatic confrontations. They are the quiet power of “Yes Minister” — framing advice, shaping options, controlling implementation pace.

Why This Matters — And What Could Strengthen Accountability

Elected governments are meant to reflect the will of the people. When senior officials, drawn from a narrow elite pool (heavily Oxbridge, policy-adviser pipeline, with over-representation from certain educational backgrounds per Sutton Trust and Elitist Britain studies), consistently sit culturally apart from public priorities, democratic responsiveness suffers.

The CRaG framework and Civil Service Code were sensible safeguards in their time. But they leave ministers with limited tools when delivery stalls. Future pieces in this series will profile other key departments — Treasury, Cabinet Office, FCDO — to map the full picture.

To close the accountability gap, serious reformers have suggested:

• Greater ministerial input into senior appointments (e.g., choosing from a shortlist while preserving merit and impartiality).

• Tighter performance reviews tied to delivery outcomes, with non-renewal of fixed terms more routine.

• Expanded ministerial private offices with more political appointees for direct support.

• Clearer ministerial direction powers over implementation.

None of this means politicising the entire Civil Service. It means making the top layer more responsive to the elected government of the day — whoever that is.

Changing the faces in No.10 or the Cabinet Table is only part of the solution. Until the permanent bureaucracy is properly aligned — or properly accountable — with the English public’s priorities, the country’s direction will feel stubbornly resistant to democratic pressure.

This is the first in a series. Next: Who runs the money — the Treasury’s permanent leadership. Subscribe and share if you want the full picture of who really holds power in England today.

If you are interested in England and English matters then I recommend the following sites:

The Campaign for an English Parliament thecep.org.uk

The English Democrats (only Party representing the people of England)

The Worker’s of England - An English Union for English Workers

And on Substack The Responsible Rebel.

This hard-hitting document records a systemic legal and evidential vacuum across Local Government Reorganisation, mass development, and emergency declarations. Section 151 and Monitoring Officers are now personally accountable if they proceed without answers.

What Happened

Five days before Parliament returns for the next stage of the English Devolution Bill, a formal notice has been issued that quietly but forcefully accuses councils and ministers of acting without proper legal power, without local evidence, and without verifiable finances. The question at its heart is disarmingly simple: On what exact legal authority is all this being done?

Imagine your local council spending millions preparing for a massive restructure of local government — merging districts and counties into new unitary authorities — while simultaneously pushing huge housing targets and Net Zero programmes. Now imagine asking them, in writing, for the specific law that authorises treating all this as compulsory and spending your money on it.

After two years of Freedom of Information requests, ministerial letters, and direct questions, the repeated answer from many councils has essentially been: “Because it’s happening.” Or “The government wants it.” Or “We can’t stop now.”

That’s not good enough, say the residents behind this notice. (This has been spearheaded by the National Residents Association)

The Notice That Cuts Through the Spin

Dated 8 April 2026 and addressed directly to councils, Section 151 Officers (who have personal responsibility for lawful spending), and Monitoring Officers, the document does not ask for a meeting. It does not invite negotiation. It simply puts everything on the public record, on a witnessed date, so that no one can later claim they didn’t know.

It highlights four foundational failures that appear to run right across multiple areas of England:

1. No clear legal power for councils to treat Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) as mandatory or to spend public money on it before any Structural Changes Order is actually made. Ministers (including Jim McMahon) have confirmed in writing that reorganisation is voluntary under the 2007 Act. Yet council officers and leaders have repeatedly told residents and parish councillors that “it’s not optional,” “we have to proceed,” or “the government will take the money away.” No one has pointed to the specific section of an Act of Parliament that turns an invitation into a duty.

2. Housing targets built on thin air. The drive for 1.5 million new homes and aggressive local targets relies on claims of a severe “housing crisis” and “local need.” But official ONS data and a Parliamentary from May 2025 show England and Wales hit a record-low fertility rate of 1.44 children per woman in 2023, with projections of hundreds of thousands fewer school-age children by 2032. Schools are closing due to falling pupil numbers. Multiple FOI responses confirm that neither the government department nor many councils hold verified local residency or employment data to justify the numbers being imposed. The Standard Method for housing need produces a figure — but it doesn’t prove actual local need. Residents argue this makes the “benefit” side of planning decisions legally shaky when weighed against real, documented local harms like loss of green space or heritage.

3. “Emergency” declarations without local evidence. Climate emergency declarations, “housing crisis” rhetoric, and even animal disease measures have been used to justify spending, planning overrides, and governance changes. Yet FOI replies from councils repeatedly confirm: no local CO₂ baseline, no quantified local impact assessment, no public consultation in many cases, and no specific statutory power for a council to declare a local climate emergency. The UK contributes less than 1% of global CO₂ emissions. Without local data, these declarations risk looking more like policy tools than evidence-based triggers for action.

4. An audit system in serious trouble. The National Audit Office has described English local government accounts as a “cautionary tale,” with widespread backlogs being cleared via “disclaimed” opinions — meaning auditors often cannot give independent assurance over how public money (including pandemic funds) was spent. A £113 million government error in the local finance settlement was effectively passed on to council tax payers. Birmingham’s 2023 Section 114 notice (the largest local authority financial failure in modern history) shows that becoming a large unitary authority does not magically deliver financial stability. Yet big structural changes are still being advanced on unverifiable financial assumptions.

Why This Feels Like a Democratic Red Flag

The notice paints a picture of decisions being driven through Cabinet or officer-led routes, often bypassing full council votes or proper public consultation. Many ordinary councillors have reportedly been sidelined on the biggest structural change in a generation. Meanwhile, ministers talk publicly about giving mayors a “sledgehammer” to override “blockers” in planning, even as official correspondence insists local authorities are accountable only to their electorates.

The authors argue these strands — reorganisation, devolution, housing delivery, and emergency-driven policies — are not separate. They form a mechanism that centralises power to push through development and restructuring while sidelining local resistance.

Crucially, the notice stresses that merging councils does not wipe away personal accountability for officers or councillors who authorised spending or decisions without proper legal cover. Those liabilities travel with the individuals.

What Happens Next?

The notice requires that its contents be formally logged in each council’s governance and risk records. It puts officers on notice that continuing with related expenditure or decisions after 8 April 2026 is done with full knowledge of the documented gaps.

It will also go to external auditors, parliamentary committees, and any future legal proceedings.

This isn’t about stopping all change. It’s about insisting that sweeping reforms — which will reshape local democracy, lock in housing pipelines, and commit public money for decades — must rest on solid legal authority and locally verifiable evidence, not policy momentum or circular finger-pointing.

Read the Full Notice Here

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/knty8req5lpknr3kjziid/formal-notice-of-statutory-failure.docx?cloud_editor=word&dl=0&rlkey=7n92rthmd17komryu7c8ipvub

It runs to several pages of carefully referenced detail, including specific FOI responses, ministerial correspondence, and quotes from council officers. Whether you agree with every point or not, the core question it poses deserves attention: when residents ask the most basic governance question — “On what legal power and evidence is this being done?” — they should not be met with evasion.

This episode shines a light on deeper tensions in how England is being governed at the local level, especially as the Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill moves through Parliament. If foundational evidence and statutory authority can be treated as optional here, what does that mean for trust in the system more broadly?

What do you think? Have you seen similar issues in your own council area — rushed reorganisation talk, housing targets that don’t seem to match local demographics, or “emergency” policies short on local data? Drop your thoughts in the comments. Sharing this widely could help more residents ask the same sharp questions before irreversible decisions are locked in.

Editor’s note: This is happening everywhere and local people are being phased out of the conversation; but not the costs! The English Devolution Bill has not yet become law and yet unauthorised expenditure has been made to push through something that is not mandatory.

If you want to follow other organisations that care about England here are a few:

thecep.org.uk (Campaign for an English Parliament)

englishdemocrats.party The website for the English Democrats- the only party that represents the people of England.

responsible rebel (substack)

workers of england - The Trade Union for England- independent and standing up for workers rights.

They never meant it to last. But nearly 50 years later, the Barnett formula quietly transfers hundreds of pounds from every English family to fund better public services elsewhere in the UK. I will set out here the human cost — and what changes if Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland walk away.

Meet the Smith family in Middlesbrough. Sarah works part-time in a call centre. Her husband Mark drives a delivery van. Their teenage son is staring down university debt, their local A&E has eight-hour waits, and council tax keeps rising. Like millions of English households, they’re just getting by.

What they don’t know is that every year their taxes quietly pay an ‘extra £650–£700’ to subsidise higher public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

That’s the hidden price tag of the Barnett formula — a mechanical Treasury rule most people have never heard of, yet one that has shaped the UK’s finances since 1978.

A Temporary Fix That Refused to Die

Joel Barnett, the Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury who invented it, never intended it to become permanent. It was a quick bureaucratic fix ahead of the 1979 devolution referendums — a way to stop endless Cabinet rows over who got what.

Barnett himself later called it a mistake that had gone on too long. In evidence to the House of Lords he said:

“I thought it might last a year or two… I do not think it is fair. It cannot be fair with this kind of gap.”

He was right. The formula doesn’t assess need. It doesn’t look at deprivation in Sunderland or Blackpool. It simply takes any increase (or cut) in comparable spending in England and multiplies it by population share.

The result? A locked-in premium that English taxpayers have been funding for decades.

The Numbers That Hit Home

Latest Treasury and Institute for Government figures (Spending Review 2025 and HM Treasury data as of March 2026) confirm:

- Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland still receive **over 20% more per head** than equivalent spending in England (Northern Ireland over 24%).

- The total extra flowing through the formula and historical baselines: roughly ‘£16 billion a year’ above a pure population share.

- Spread across England’s ~57 million people, that works out at ‘~£280 per person’ — or ‘£650–£700 per average household’.

That £700 is real money. It’s several months of energy bills. It’s the cost of a modest family holiday. It’s the difference between a child starting university debt-free or not.

Meanwhile, English regions with comparable or worse poverty metrics (North East, Midlands, coastal towns) get less per head than Scotland or Wales.

‘Public spending per head has consistently run higher in the devolved nations (Statista / HM Treasury data). The gap has narrowed slightly via the “Barnett squeeze,” but the premium remains substantial.’

What Happens If One Nation Leaves the Union?

If Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland) votes for independence, the Barnett formula dies the day the union ends.

- For English families: The £700 annual subsidy vanishes overnight. That money stays in the English pot — available for NHS England, schools in deprived areas, tax cuts, or infrastructure. English taxpayers would finally see the full benefit of the taxes they pay.

- For the departing nations: The 20–24% per-head premium disappears. Scotland, for example, would face an immediate fiscal squeeze. Its generous policies (free university tuition, free prescriptions, higher public-sector pay) would either require big tax rises, deep spending cuts, or both. Independent Scotland would keep all its own tax revenue — but lose the UK-wide safety net that currently tops up its spending.

In other words, independence ends the subsidy — but it also ends the cushion. That’s why the formula has quietly acted as a ‘major economic block’ to separation: voters in the devolved nations enjoy concrete benefits today that independence would force them to replace out of their own pockets.

Fairness in a Union of Equals?

The Barnett formula was never designed for a post-devolution world. It was a short-term patch for a pre-1999 UK. Yet here we are in 2026, with English taxpayers still footing a disproportionate bill while having no English Parliament or needs-based formula of their own.

The Smith family in Middlesbrough aren’t nationalists. They just want basic fairness: that the taxes they pay should benefit their own struggling communities at least as much as they benefit Glasgow or Cardiff.

The formula doesn’t deliver that. It delivers a 1970s compromise that has calcified into constitutional reality.

Is it time to replace it with something transparent, needs-based, and equitable for every part of the UK — including England?

Or are we happy to keep quietly taxing English families to preserve the status quo?

What do you think? Drop your thoughts below — and share if this £700 hidden tax surprised you.

Sources: HM Treasury Spending Review 2025, Institute for Government (Nov 2025), IFS analysis, House of Lords evidence from Lord Barnett. All figures current as of March 2026.

---

Want to join our Campaign for an English Parliament? Or find out more about our campaign. Visit us at thecep.org.uk

Do you live in England and want a political Party that represents your needs and concerns? Visit the English Democrats Party website here

Or perhaps you work in England and want a Union that will stand up for your rights in the workplace. Visit the Workers of England website here

The jury has been woven into the fabric of English life for over 800 years. Popular myth credits Magna Carta (1215) with inventing it. Not quite.

Magna Carta codified an older idea: Chapter 39 declared no free man could be punished “except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” Judgment by peers predated the charter—roots in ancient assemblies, Norman inquests, Henry II’s 1166 assizes. But Magna Carta elevated it into a bulwark against royal tyranny.

That principle endures: ordinary citizens, not the powerful, decide guilt.

So why are jury trials worth defending fiercely?

They are not mere procedure. They are democracy’s conscience, liberty’s shield.

1. The ultimate check on state power A lone judge or prosecutor—swayed by politics, career, or bias—can abuse authority. Twelve diverse citizens must agree. Historically, juries nullified oppressive laws: Zenger’s 1735 libel acquittal birthed press freedom; Northern juries defied the Fugitive Slave Act (USA). In England, Bushell’s Case (1670) protected jurors from punishment for “perverse” verdicts. Today, even covert nullification deters overreach.

2. Participatory democracy in action Jury service lets everyday people exercise real sovereignty—interpreting facts, applying law, reflecting community values. Unlike indirect voting, it’s direct power. Alexis de Tocqueville saw American juries place “the real direction of society in the hands of the governed.” It builds legitimacy, educates citizens, restores trust.

3. Justice infused with humanity and diversity Juries draw from all walks—race, class, gender, geography—countering the narrow social band many judges hail from. They bring common sense, mercy, moral judgment. In civil cases, they level the field against corporations or the state.

4. Public trust’s last guardian Citizen involvement makes verdicts feel fair. Strip juries, and justice becomes opaque, elite-imposed—fueling cynicism amid politicized prosecutions.

In short: juries distribute power. They remind us justice belongs to the governed, not the governors.

Nullification: The latent power English juries still hold
Juries can acquit against evidence if conscience demands—no appeal, no punishment (Bushell’s legacy). It’s not a formal right—oaths bind jurors to evidence—but the power persists. Recent 2026 Court of Appeal cases affirm: no sanction for acquitting contrary to directions. Reforms shrinking jury access for lower-level cases erode this “conscience check” on unjust laws.

The government’s pitch—and the evidence that dismantles it

The Crown Court backlog is dire: ~80,000 cases, double 2019 levels; rape trials average 423 days. Victims suffer, evidence degrades.

David Lammy and the MoJ say restricting juries for cases likely ≤3 years custody (new “Crown Court Bench Division,” judge-alone) is essential. Leveson’s review: judge-only trials ≥20% faster. Impact Assessment: full package saves ~27,000 sitting days/year, cuts demand ~20% by 2028/29, reduces caseload by thousands.

Urgent. Necessary.

Except the maths doesn’t hold.

The 2% Lie

Independent scrutiny exposes the sleight-of-hand.

The Institute for Government (IfG, Jan/March 2026 reports): Jury restrictions affect only shorter cases (minority of workload). Accepting the 20% assumption, jury changes save <2% of total Crown Court time—some breakdowns 1–2%. Full package (magistrates shift + judge-only): 7–10% at best, with “considerable uncertainty” (backlogs shift, appeals rise, productivity falls).

One week. Maybe two. That’s the backlog relief—for abolishing peers’ judgment in thousands of cases.

This isn’t nitpicking. It’s reality.

• Government headline: ~20% demand cut.

• Independent truth: Jury element <2% (IfG, echoed by Bar Council, 3,200+ lawyers’ open letter).

• Real culprits: COVID spike, £1–1.3bn crumbling estate, capped sitting days (now uncapped), lawyer shortages, late pleas. Productivity down despite more days.

Professionals agree: “No evidence jury trials cause the backlog” (Bar Council). Fix capacity—not liberty.

The Bill passed Second Reading 304–203 (March 10, 2026)—10 Labour rebels, dozens abstained. Now in Public Bill Committee (evidence sessions soon; concludes late April). Implementation delayed to 2028+.

And if this isn’t enough this bill will not affect Scotland. Yet Scottish MPs were allowed to vote and contribute to this legislation to remove Jury trials from England and Wales.

What you can do—right now

The fight isn’t over. Amendments are possible. Pressure works.

1. Email your MP today — Use parliament.uk to find them. Say: “IfG shows jury savings <2%. Don’t trade 800 years of liberty for marginal gain. Oppose/reject jury clauses.”

2. Sign/share petitions — Change.org (”Protect Jury Trials UK”) or parliament.uk searches.

3. Amplify — Share this post, #JusticeNeedsJuries, tag Bar Council/IfG. Talk to friends.

4. Follow — Justice Committee call for evidence (deadline soon).

Silence consents. The jury isn’t the bottleneck—complacency is.

Don’t let them sell our birthright for 2%.

Refuse the lie. Demand real justice.

What do you think—is this worth fighting for? Share below. Subscribe for updates.

“The jury system puts a smuggler, a thief, or a murderer on the same footing as the lord or gentleman.” — John Adams

Chaotic Start

The birth of the Soviet Union was chaotic. It nearly didn’t happen. Lenin was no inevitable hero; he was a fringe operator who seized the moment. After the Tsar’s abdication in February 1917, a genuine power vacuum opened. Provisional Government, workers’ committees, trades unions, factory soviets, land reforms talks- all pointed towards a messy but organic evolution toward broader democracy. Moderate socialists, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs) expected coalition and compromise. The people, exhausted by war and autocracy, wanted bread, peace and land.

Lenin had other ideas. Returning from Swiss exile in April via the famous sealed train, he issued the April Theses: no support for the Provisional Government, immediate peace (with Germany), land to peasants, all power to the Soviets(locally elected peoples’ committees). He out manoeuvered rivals with superior organisation, disciplined cadres, and masterful timing. The July Days uprising failed, forcing him into hiding, but the Kornilov Affair in September let Bolsheviks pose as saviours, arm themselves and surge in Soviet elections. By October, they struck- a near bloodless coup in Petrograd. Power was theirs.

The mask fell away

Then came the mask-drop. The one truly democratic nationwide vote Russia had ever seen- the November 1917 Constituent Assembly elections under proportional representation- delivered a crushing verdict: SRs took 38% and 324 seats; Bolsheviks just ~24% and 183. Peasants formed the vast majority of voters and they backed the SRs for their long-promised land reform.

Lenin’s response? Dissolve the Assembly after one day in January 1918, declaring the Soviets ‘a higher form of democracy’. Flooding urban polls with loyal soldiers, sidelining moderates, hijacking their slogans-all to consolidate personal dictatorship.

What followed was predictable catastrophe; worker-run factories collapsed, unskilled labour equalised pay with skilled workers destroyed industry, farms seized by the incompetent led to famine, Red Terror, re-education camps and the slaughter of ideological opponents.

Lenin cared nothing for the Russian people. He cared only for power and sweeping away the old world to keep it.

Sound familiar?

Kier Starmer rose through the same combination of deception, organisation control and ruthless pragmatism. He assumed the Labour leadership in 2020 under false pretences, presenting himself as a loyal heir to Jeremy Corbyn. He signed the ten pledges- (among them) nationalisation of trains, energy, utilities; wealth taxes on the ‘rich’ , pushing harder the green new deal- to win the membership.

Once in, he pivoted hard to the right, purged the left, suspended Corbyn himself, and ditched the pledges one by one. (Where he could)

The Vehicle?

Labour Together, the shadowy outfit run by his now-disgraced former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, which orchestrated the takeover with slick funding (under investigation by Electoral Commission) and ruthless internal discipline.

In power since July 2024, the pattern continues. Facing likely defeats, Starmer’s government tried to delay or cancel local elections for 30 councils affecting 4.5 million voters-a move widely condemned as an assault on democracy until a Reform UK legal challenge and public outcry forced a humiliating U-turn just days ago. He exploits division, sidelines moderates within his own party, and uses institutions against their original purpose.

Change?

And the ideology? Unashamedly pushed regardless of what the British people actually want. He ensures that the war in Ukraine grinds on with British weapons, training, and ‘coalition of the willing’ commitments- even as peace talks are ongoing. He pursues an EU ‘reset’ that means ‘de facto’ alignment with Brussels rules in key sectors, chipping away at Brexit sovereignty without admitting it. Giving away the Chagos Islands against the wishes of the Chagossian people (and paying someone to take them who never owned them) is part of this ideological plan to restructure reality.

On migration, small boat arrivals have hit record highs under his watch while rhetoric about ‘smashing the gangs’ masks a system that continues to absorb both legal and illegal inflows at scale, straining housing, services, and social cohesion for ordinary communities. The broken promises pile up- the very definition of operating under deception.

Like Lenin, Starmer appears interested less in what is good for the country and more in entrenching a particular vision of power. Factories and farms under Bolshevik mismanagement collapsed; today’s equivalents are visible in broken public services, economic stagnation, and cultural erosion under policies that prioritise ideology over competence and consent. Enemies of the new order- whether traditional Labour voices or democratic critics are marginalised or smeared.

The lesson

Brovkin’s book shows how Russian political culture repeatedly rewarded the man who could flood the polling stations with loyalists, dissolve inconvenient assemblies, and wrap raw ambition in revolutionary language.

Britain is not 1917 Russia. We still have elections, courts, and an illusion of a free press- for now. But the threads are there: ideological clarity, superior machine. Starmer may not behave in precisely the same way as Lenin but the parallels are there.

We were told Starmer was a decent, moderate man who would put country first. History-and recent events- suggest we were mistaken. The British people deserve better than to become the unwitting extras in someone else’s power play. The lesson of 1917 is clear: when moderates expect coalition and the ruthless expect total control, the ruthless usually win- until the bill comes due for everyone else.

Be a rebel.
England is worth it.

**RR**

Information on the Campaign for an English Parliament is here

I’ve always been interested how seemingly mundane grievances—taxes, laws, and governance—can ignite profound shifts in society. The rallying cry “no taxation without representation” is one such spark, born in the fires of colonial discontent and fanning the flames of the American Revolution.

Today, in early 2026, this phrase resonates anew amid reports of local elections in England being postponed or cancelled, often justified by their prohibitive costs and the disruptions of ongoing local government reorganisations. While these decisions are framed as pragmatic efficiencies, they raise timeless questions about the balance between fiscal responsibility and democratic rights.

In this article, I’ll trace the origins of the slogan and explore its applicability to our current circumstances, where millions of voters face delayed ballots even as they continue to pay taxes to the very councils affected.

If you make it to the end of this article I summarise some of the ways that you can protest this democratic theft.

The Roots of Rebellion: Origins of “No Taxation Without Representation”

The phrase “no taxation without representation” didn’t emerge fully formed in the American colonies; its intellectual foundations stretch back to medieval England and the tumultuous 17th century. The concept that taxation requires the consent of the taxed is enshrined in the Magna Carta of 1215, which limited the king’s arbitrary levies and emphasised parliamentary approval. This idea gained sharper edges during the English Civil War (1642–1651), when figures like John Hampden refused to pay “ship money”—a tax imposed without Parliament’s consent—arguing it violated fundamental liberties.

By the 18th century, this principle crossed the Atlantic with English colonists who viewed themselves as inheritors of English rights. The slogan itself crystallised in the 1760s amid growing tensions over British fiscal policies. In 1761, Boston lawyer James Otis Jr. thundered against the Writs of Assistance—broad search warrants that aided tax collection—declaring in a Massachusetts court that “taxation without representation is tyranny.” Otis’s pamphlet *The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved* (1764) further argued that no dominion could tax its subjects without their legislative voice, as it would strip them of essential freedoms.

The phrase gained widespread currency with the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed direct taxes on colonial documents and goods without input from local assemblies. Patrick Henry echoed Otis in the Virginia Resolves, asserting that only colonial legislatures had the right to tax Virginians. By 1768, it appeared in print in a London Magazine headline, capturing Lord Camden’s parliamentary speech on Britain’s sovereignty over the colonies.This grievance wasn’t just about money; it symbolised a deeper denial of self-governance, fuelling protests, boycotts, and ultimately the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

In essence, the slogan encapsulated a core democratic ideal: Governments derive legitimacy from the people’s consent, particularly when extracting resources. Without representation, taxation becomes an act of domination, eroding trust and inviting resistance.

From Colonial Grievances to Revolutionary Fire

The American colonists’ outrage wasn’t abstract philosophy—it was a response to real economic burdens. Acts like the Sugar Act (1764), Stamp Act (1765), and Townshend Acts (1767) aimed to recoup Britain’s war debts but ignored colonial input. Colonists argued they were “virtually represented” in Parliament through shared interests, but Otis and others dismissed this as fiction, insisting on actual, elected voices.

This led to organised resistance: The Stamp Act Congress of 1765, representing nine Colonies, declared taxes without consent unconstitutional. Protests escalated to the Boston Tea Party (1773) and armed conflict at Lexington and Concord (1775). The phrase became a unifying mantra, appearing on banners, in pamphlets, and in speeches, underscoring that unrepresentative governance breeds instability.

Representation was no longer a privilege but a right. The U.S. Constitution’s structure—bicameral legislature, no taxation without congressional approval—directly addressed these concerns.

Echoes in 2026: Elections Postponed and the Cost of Democracy

Fast-forward to today, February 2026, and the principle of “no taxation without representation” feels eerily pertinent in the UK, where the Labour government has approved the postponement of numerous local council elections originally slated for May. Nearly half of eligible councils—28 out of 63 (at the latest count)—have requested delays, affecting millions of voters in areas undergoing reorganisation into unitary authorities or devolution deals.

The rationale?

Holding elections for “short-lived zombie councils” would be “costly, time-consuming,” and divert resources from services like road repairs and social care, as stated by Local Government Secretary Steve Reed. Interestingly in 2019, before we had completely left the EU, elections were held for MEPs even though they would likely serve for only 6 months. (No mention of the cost then!)

This follows a pattern:

In 2025, elections in nine areas were delayed to 2026 for similar reasons, with Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner calling them an “expensive and irresponsible waste.” Now, with further shake-ups—creating new mayors in regions like Cheshire and Cumbria—elections are pushed to 2027 or even 2028 in some cases. Councils like Blackburn with Darwen, Stevenage, and Welwyn Hatfield have actually cited the £200,000-plus cost per election as untenable amid preparations for reform. (No not the Reform Party!)

Yet, this efficiency comes at a democratic price. The Electoral Commission warns that repeated cancellations “risk damaging public confidence,” as voters are denied their say while still funding these councils through taxes. Critics, including groups like Unlock Democracy, argue it’s the second year of mass disenfranchisement, affecting over 7.5 million in mayoral races alone. Social media buzzes with accusations of authoritarianism, linking delays to broader Labour policies like net zero initiatives and border controls.(Or lack of them!)

Here lies the parallel to 1765: Local councils will levy council taxes, business rates, and fees without fresh mandates from delayed elections. If representation is postponed for cost savings, is this not a modern form of taxation without timely consent? Historians might draw analogies to Charles I’s ship money, where fiscal expediency trumped parliamentary rights, leading to civil unrest. While UK’s reorganisations aim for better governance—unlocking devolution and efficiency (that is actually what they are selling us)—the optics evoke colonial fears of distant decisions overriding local voices.

There are proponents who argue delays prevent wasteful polls for soon-abolished bodies, with elections rescheduled post-reform. But caution is required: Democracy’s “cost” is its essence. The American Revolution teaches that sidelining representation, even temporarily, erodes trust. In petitions calling for a general election and online outcry, we see echoes of Otis’s warnings.

Lessons for Today: Safeguarding Consent in Governance

The slogan “no taxation without representation” endures because it speaks to universal tensions in democracy: efficiency versus accountability, central planning versus local input. In 2026 Britain, as reorganisations proceed, policymakers must ensure delays don’t become defaults. Transparent consultations, interim oversight, and firm rescheduling commitments could mitigate risks.(Will this happen?)

Ultimately, history shows that when people feel taxed without a voice, resentment builds. Whether in 1776 Boston or 2026 Blackburn, the remedy is the same: Renew the social contract through regular, accessible elections.

What Can the Ordinary Citizen Do?

As an ordinary citizen in England facing postponed local council elections in 2026—potentially affecting up to 4.5 million voters amid government reorganizations—you’re not powerless.

Below, I’ll outline practical, legal steps to push back, drawing from ongoing campaigns, expert commentary, and historical precedents of citizen activism. Focus on peaceful, collective action to amplify your voice—individual efforts gain traction when scaled.

1.Sign and Promote Petitions

Petitions are a low-effort, high-impact way to signal public opposition and force parliamentary debate. The UK government’s e-petitions site requires 10,000 signatures for a response and 100,000 for debate consideration.

Key active petition: “Remove power to cancel local government elections,” which seeks to strip the Secretary of State’s authority under the Local Government Act 2000 to postpone polls (e.g., those in May 2026). It highlights how delays extend councillor mandates without voter input. As of early February 2026, similar petitions have garnered over 130,000 signatures, tying into broader backlash against “subverting democracy.”

How to act: Search for “election postponement” on petition.parliament.uk, sign, and share via social media or community groups. Start your own if none fits—local ones opposing specific council delays (e.g., in Redditch or Chorley) have sparked media coverage. Aim for viral spread; past petitions on voting rights have influenced policy.

2. Contact Your MP, Councillors, and Local Officials

Direct outreach holds representatives accountable and builds a record of public dissent.

Why it works: MPs like those from the Conservatives, Lib Dems, and Reform UK have publicly criticized the delays as “running scared of voters” or “almost certainly illegal.”

How to act: Use tools like TheyWorkForYou.com or WriteToThem.com to email your MP/councillors. Reference the Electoral Commission’s stance that capacity isn’t a valid reason for postponements and tie it to “no taxation without representation” (e.g., paying council tax without a vote). Join local forums or attend council meetings—protests at places like Redditch Borough Council have drawn police and media attention, forcing apologies and scrutiny.

3. Support or Join Legal Challenges

While not everyone can lead a lawsuit, supporting existing ones amplifies pressure.

Current action: Reform UK has filed a High Court judicial review against the postponements, claiming they deter candidates and undermine campaigns. The case is set for 19-20 February 2026, with the government required to justify delays by 29 January. Affected councils can intervene, and public support (e.g., via crowdfunding or statements) could sway outcomes.

How to act: Donate to Reform UK’s legal fund if aligned (via their site), or contact groups like Unlock Democracy or the Constitution Society for advice on citizen-led reviews. If you’re in a delayed area, gather evidence (e.g., via FOI requests to councils) showing undue influence or lack of consultation. Avoid self-representing without legal advice—pro bono options exist through LawWorks.

4. Engage in Peaceful Protests and Community Campaigns

Grassroots mobilization raises awareness and pressures decision-makers.

Examples: Backlash has included protests at council votes (e.g., 50+ demonstrators in Redditch shouting “shame on you”), online outrage, and commentary noting the “lack of pushback” as a risk to democracy. Echoing historical fights like the American Revolution’s tax protests, frame it as defending “policing by consent” in local governance.

How to act: Organise or join local rallies through groups like 38 Degrees or community Facebook pages. Use social media hashtags like #NoVoteNoTax or #RestoreElections2026 to connect with others—posts from affected areas are gaining traction. Write op-eds or letters to papers like The Guardian or local outlets, highlighting personal impacts (e.g., unaccountable tax hikes).

5. Participate in Remaining Elections and Broader Advocacy

Use your voice where elections proceed to elect change-makers.

Strategy: In unaffected areas (over 30 of the original 63 councils will hold polls), vote for candidates/parties vowing to oppose future delays (e.g., Lib Dems have “put ministers on notice”). Advocate for reforms like mandatory parliamentary approval for postponements, as suggested in Hansard debates.

How to act: Register to vote (if not already) via gov.uk, volunteer for campaigns, or join voter turnout groups like MySociety. Long-term, support electoral reform charities to prevent recurrence.

Important caveats: Stay within the law—do not withhold council tax, as it could lead to fines or enforcement (despite some online chatter). If tensions rise (e.g., at meetings), prioritise safety. These steps draw from successful past pushbacks, like the 2025 delays that faced parliamentary scrutiny and petitions. Start small: One signature or email can snowball. For more tailored advice, consult the Electoral Commission or Citizens Advice. Democracy thrives on participation—your actions matter.

Thank you for getting this far.

On a personal note I am very aware as a dual National (American/English) of the symmetry with the rallying cry of the American Revolution : ‘No Taxation Without Representation’. I started this search (and wrote this Substack) to understand what is happening and further how we legally stand up against this.

***********************************************************************************************************

I will briefly summarise the UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s January 2026 proposal for a National Police Service (NPS) in England and Wales (potentially UK-wide). Dubbed the “British FBI,” this centralises high-level investigations into threats like counter-terrorism, fraud, organised crime, child exploitation, and cyber issues by merging bodies such as the National Crime Agency (NCA), regional organised crime units (ROCUs), and counter-terror policing into one entity under a national commissioner.

A Brief Summary

Local forces (potentially reduced from 43 to 12 regional ones) would focus on everyday crimes, with implementation involving consultations and taking years. This builds on prior recommendations, like the Tony Blair Institute’s 2024 call to treat serious organized crime (SOC) as a national security threat, emphasising tech, funding, and powers. I will break this down below and look at the Pros and Cons to this proposed legislation.

Pros:

Enhancing Efficiency and Focus

1. Centralisation addresses fragmentation in a digital age. It promises improved coordination for complex crimes, deploying specialists with AI, facial recognition (yielding 1,700 arrests recently), and predictive modelling, mirroring FBI successes. This could tackle £47 billion annual fraud losses and international networks more effectively, with closed intelligence systems for security.

2. Local forces would be freed for volume crimes like shoplifting and anti-social behavior, potentially saving costs via centralised procurement.

3. National standards for training, licensing (renewable like doctors’), and tech could boost capabilities against emerging threats, with high public support (84% for treating SOC like terrorism).

4. Better resource allocation might disrupt enablers like money laundering through new laws and asset recovery funds, fostering international cooperation.

Cons:

Risks to Accountability and Morale

However, the concerns echo historical pitfalls.

1. Reducing forces risks “mega forces” detached from communities, eroding local accountability—replacing police and crime commissioners with Home Secretary oversight feels like a power grab.

2. Bureaucracy could rise, duplicating existing structures like the NCA (a 2013 “British FBI” attempt), leading to turf wars or costly rebrands, as seen with the failed 2006 Serious Organised Crime Agency.

3. Privacy risks from expanded surveillance (e.g., biased facial recognition) raise “Stasi-like” fears.

4. Implementation challenges include high costs, political risks, and morale strains, with Scotland’s 2013 merger offering mixed lessons—no proven crime reductions from fewer forces.

Further Concerns

Implications for Seconded Experts and Establishment Posts

1. The NPS would integrate seconded specialists, offering enhanced roles with better tech and career progression but risking disruptions like relocations or redundancies.

2. Establishment posts for specialist roles might shift nationally, potentially reducing local headcounts unless offset by funding (e.g., for neighbourhood policing).

3. This could create a net loss for home forces, mirroring NCA setups, and amplify elitism—specialist units often foster “us vs. them” attitudes, poor integration, and accountability issues, making the NPS potentially “unruly” without robust oversight.

Impact on Crime and Retention Crisis

Pros

1. On serious crime, the NPS could reduce harms via specialised disruption, better asset seizures (£1.9 billion recovered 2020-2023), and tech-driven intelligence, targeting fraud (37-40% of crime) and exploitation.

2. For everyday crime, freed local forces might improve clear-up rates, but skeptics note there are no guarantees—large forces like the Met have low detection rates despite scale. Success will depend on £3 billion funding vs. current £860 million.

Cons

1. Critically, it risks worsening the retention crisis (8,795 officers left by March 2025, potentially 10,000 annually), siphoning experienced mentors to national roles, leaving junior-heavy local forces with poorer supervision, higher errors, and broken apprenticeship models.

2. This hollows out community policing foundations.

Emphasis on Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) and Reforms

1. I am a retired senior officer with successes in London Underground crime reduction and anti-social behaviour advising, champions POP—identifying root causes via SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) for sustainable reductions, backed by College of Policing evidence. Implementing this simple approach to law enforcement would greatly improve crime reduction. Not glamorous but certainly effective.

2. Centralisation threatens this by draining expertise from local engagement.

My Recommendations:

1. Embed POP across all management (revitalising the National Intelligence Model);

2. Elevate uniform officers and control rooms as core (with specialists supporting them);

3. review training overload (strip non-essentials, return to practical basics);

4. and reform promotions. ( I will be producing a more detailed look at this later).

5. Shift from bureaucratic NPPF/SIPP to rigorous legal exams plus supervised acting duties with multi-assessor feedback; countering CID bias and ensuring deep knowledge.

6. Avoid anonymous reviews to prevent sabotage; use structured, named input.

7. Remember larger forces aren’t more efficient (look at Scotland);

8. Finally prioritize frontline credibility ( Police do their job with the public’s consent).

Overall, as a Senior Policeman with extensive experience

I’m cautiously optimistic if paired with oversight, investment in mentors, and POP integration; this could succeed.

If not, it risks bureaucratic failure and weakened local policing. This proposal merits debate to adapt to modern threats without sacrificing community ties.

Despite the apparent U turn, climb down or whatever you want to call it on the proposed Digital ID the threat to our personal Digital Sovereignty still looms over us. I have been concerned that everything still seems to be in motion to make us into digital slaves. You can be in the system and under control or you can be set adrift completely. Is this our binary choice or is there a middle way?

Bear with me as this is a really difficult thing to talk about as we really haven’t developed the language to discuss the concept of personal data sovereignty yet.

The ideas that I am discussing in this post are something that I am working to understand fully. Society’s use of technology has propelled us rather quickly into a new world. This world has blurred boundaries and has given huge power to multi national corporations.

Data is the new oil.

The UK is unique in having a National Health Service that holds data on all UK residents (even if you use private health care). There are currently two methods for withdrawing and protecting your data being shared.

The National Data Opt-Out (NDOO) in England provides a meaningful but limited degree of protection for personal sovereignty over your health data. It enhances individual choice and privacy in specific contexts, but it does not deliver full or absolute personal sovereignty/control.

What it does not do

The opt-out is not comprehensive- several important exceptions and scopes mean you do not have total control:

• Direct/individual care remains unaffected- Data can (and must) still be shared as needed for your treatment, referrals, prescriptions, safeguarding, diagnostics etc. This is mandatory and overrides any opt-out.

• Anonymised or de-identified date- fully anonymised datasets (where re-identification risk is negligible) can still be used and shared widely for research/planning without your opt-out applying.

• Mandatory legal/public interest exceptions- even if opted out, your data can still be shared without your consent in cases such as:

  • monitoring and control of communicable diseases/public health emergencies

  • required by law (court orders, fraud/crime investigations)

  • certain safeguarding duties

  • Specific approved programmes that have Section 251 support (from the Confidentiality Advisory Group under the NHS Act 2006), which temporarily sets aside the common law duty of confidentiality for important public benefit activities. A list of such exempted programmes exist and is maintained by NHS England.

• Explicit consent overides - if you later give specific consent to a project/researcher, that takes precedence.

• GP-level data sharing- For maximum restriction, many pair it with a Type 1 opt-out (at GP practice level) to block GP data uploads to NHS central systems for secondary uses. The national opt-out alone doesn’t fully block that upstream flow in all cases.

• Broader data ecosystem - it only covers NHS/health and adult social care data in England. It doesn’t apply to private healthcare records, non-health data (eg tax, benefits), or data in devolved nations (Scotland/Wales/NI have different systems).

So What is the Problem?

Sovereignty implies near-complete control/autonomy over your personal data. Here, the state/health systems retains significant override rights for public good, legal obligations, and anonymised uses. Critics and patient groups argue this makes opt-out more of a ‘limited preference’ than true sovereignty- you can say ‘no’ to some things but not everything, and the system can still access/use your data in ways you might not like or be fully informed about.

Is there a solution?

This is where it gets interesting. There is currently a Parliamentary Petition that is seeking to establish that a human being has the right to exist administratively without having a ‘Digital Twin’ owned by a corporation. So if the argument to establish a National Opt-Out means we establish the fact that the government cannot force Digital ID on us for other things. You cannot be ‘harvested’ for the price of participation.

The UK could be the first country to give citizens data sovereignty. It could be the first to give citizens the right to own their data and to participate in society without handing over the rights to their data. We have a structural loophole that will allow us to not comply but still participate.

This petition is powerful because it will introduce a right that the modern world has not recognised yet. Privacy becomes an inalienable right, because without privacy your freedoms are undermined.

Please share and sign this petition and listen the explanation by the author of the petition here.

Thank you for your support.

Introduce an NHS data opt-out & require a consultation for system expansions

Introduce a clear national opt-out for NHS data processed in the Federated Data Platform (FDP) and National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) and require a full public consultation before any further expansion of these systems.

More details

The NHS is planning to move from multiple, separate systems to a new national data architecture. Technical documents show national processing of identifiable data, while public explanations may describe only anonymous or aggregate use. As these systems are still being rolled out, we believe the public should have transparency, a clear opt-out and the chance to respond before further expansion.

Or did they?

Many celebrated the apparent change of heart and dared to hope that they had been listened to by those proposing this dystopian threat to our freedoms. This did not last long; it didn’t take long to work out that nothing had really changed. They just rearranged the deck chairs and pretended it was a climb down.

The only thing that appears to have changed is there will be no ‘Britcard’ (the interface) and the words mandatory will be removed from the promotion of Digital ID and replaced with voluntary..

It’s important to remember that the Covid 19 jab was also not mandatory. Nevertheless the Government outsourced compliance to outside agencies and bodies. Advertising and psychological techniques were used to push compliance. Restrictions on all aspects of ordinary life (travel, family life etc.) were a burden ordinary prople had to bear. While not mandatory, life became increasingly difficult without compliance.

Newspapers and commentators talked about the need to completely deny access to all public services to those who refused to comply. It became quite heated and appeared to those of us who decided not to sign up for a new and untested medical product coercive and wrong. Anyone who managed to challenge the binary status quo (vaccines good; anti-vaxers bad) was publicly shamed or censored. We now know that this was much more about money (a simplistic view) or other darker motives if some conspiracy theories are true.

So what will voluntary actually mean?

What has changed?

Not a lot as it happens. The contracts and the platforms are still in place. One Login is still going to be used to gather the data that will be held inside GOV.UK. The Government says it will provide more options for those who do not wish to use the digital method of accessing services. You can read more about it here from The Scouse Oracle.

It is also unclear how much of this will be rolled out to other services eg DVLA, etc. We will just have to remain vigilant.

Why Has this Happened Now?

I must admit I was surprised at how quickly the climb down occurred. I thought they would have to eventually but did not expect it to be so soon.

My understanding is that there was a Judicial Review brought by Charlie Proctor a former soldier. He argued that forcing the public into Digital ID was unlawful and Orwellian. He cited Privacy Law, European Law, ECHR, Digital Exclusion and the legal concept of ‘soft compulsion’. (it’s not legally mandated that you must but they will make it so difficult for you that you will comply to get an easier life).

No sooner had the Court papers landed (literally the same day) than Ministers decided that they did not want to defend this. It seems that a Court case would expose the fact that this Digital ID had nothing to do with protecting the British public from illegal migrants working unlawfully. (But we knew that)

The Plan is Still the Same

The Government have not changed their mind. The truth is the authorities have a reluctance to share everything they have done (and the £Billions already spent) and how much has been done so far. Let alone all the compensation that would need to be paid to the Companies creating the digital structure required to store the data. A pretence at a climb down/U-turn is more palatable to this Government.

It’s important to remember that Britain is the test bed for all this for the Globalist cabal. Digital ID is the plan for the US and many other countries. We need to remain vigilant and we need to continue to campaign to stop surveillance of the masses and keep our freedoms. Freedom and Safety are polar opposites. A totally Safe society is not a Free society but a balance needs to be achieved or we cease to be a free people.

If you want to know more follow us on:

The English Democrats Party

The Campaign for an English Parliament

I have been investigating the various ways that the Government are introducing (by the back door) Digital ID. I have discussed this with many people who are not bothered. They usually say that: they have nothing to hide so are not bothered if their data is stolen or they don’t believe that the Government would do anything harmful or they tell me that I am safe using ‘One Login’ because Digital ID hasn’t been introduced yet. Plenty of time to take action they say.

One Login is a gateway to destruction of our remaining freedoms

What people do not realise is that One Login is the device that will be used to pull everyone in to Digital ID.

First they came for the Directors; then they came for the Veterans; soon I understand it will be required for use of the NHS.

Driving license and Passport renewal/changes are not yet requiring you to use One Login but if you look at the page on the Gov.UK website the prominent headlines encourage you to use the online option (the one requiring One Login). In very small print it offers the option of doing renewals or changes by mail.

No Security Certificate

The most concerning thing about Digital ID is the fact that this platform has no Security Certificate. This is an important document. In countries where a Digital ID is already in use there are many concerns. In India over 800,000 people have lost their identity. This means that they cannot access any services (bank accounts, health services, etc.) Once this is lost you cannot get your ‘identity’ back.

India also has a thriving market in stolen/forged/hacked digital identity passes. I don’t need to tell you what they might mean for you. A single point of access to a Digital ID makes it so easy. for hackers etc. to acquire your identity.

Similar problems have occurred in other countries where the Digital ID has been mandatory. The Government knows this but is pushing ahead nevertheless. (despite numerous data breaches already having occurred)

Who owns the infrastructure?

More concerningly the platform parameters are not created in the UK they are created and managed in the US. In fact One Login was programmed and created in Romania. This means the way that the data is managed and controlled is not under direct control of the UK government. The other concern is that although your ID will hold all your information in one place (hacker’s heaven); the data is farmed out to over 30 different data companies. How these companies were selected and how they will keep your data safe is not known. But it does allow the Government to distance themselves from any potential problems. A full list of the companies is provided here.

Is this Legal?

The arguments that the Government have given for introducing Digital ID do not stack up. If you wish to work in the UK you already must have a National Insurance Number. If you are working illegally then you will always find an unscrupulous employer and no documents will be needed. So short of implanting every person in the UK with a barcode with their Digital ID this measure will not stop the trade in black market workers. It will not keep us safe!

This is part of Agenda 2030 and the UK have pledged to follow this process. So it doesn’t matter what we say. It isn’t about us.

English Voice

I have used a Limited Company when writing English Voice as a form of protection. I have now resigned from this Company as I refuse to take part in this identity theft. Imagine living in a world where everything you do is subject to AI scrutiny; where group think is the norm. Any truth that does not fit the narrative is illegal. We can see with Starmer’s knees-jerk reaction over X an indication of their intended direction. It is definitely not about the ‘safety of women and girls’ or we would have stopped the boats and kept cultures that view women and girls as chattels out of our country.

Finally I urge you to support those groups making a stand and speaking up for the people of England and consider how you will respond when they come for you.

If you are a supporter of England here are some websites you may find helpful:

englishdemocrats.party

thecep.org.uk

workers of England.co.uk

In fact this idea has been around since the days of Blair. The technology required to link everything together was just not robust enough so it never really took off. It was voluntary at the time and never had much public backing. But they did not give up; even if the people said they did not want it.

We can see now that Covid provided a perfect ‘test bed’ for digital ID. The use of the ‘vaccination digital pass’ allowed the government an opportunity to see how it might work. How compliant were the population?

In the end the ‘vaccination passport’ (as it came to be known) did not become embedded in the culture but it left a hint (for those observant few) of things to come and still many people to this day did not see its totalitarian shadow.

In a stroke, during the Covid time, cash was virtually eliminated as a health precaution. Travel of all sorts was controlled. The nature of work and school changed forever. People seemed happy to leave their contact details when eating out or attending Church.

The rules became deliberately complicated and changed from day to day and week to week. Reason did not have a place in this dialogue. No one was allowed to question the narrative in any way. It is interesting now to reflect that most of the members of the Government Advisory Committee (SAGE) were not Scientists concerned with virology or epidemiology but Behaviour Scientists.

Starmer did not pull the idea of Digital IDs out of nowhere. It’s been lurking in the wings as his PuppetMaster waited for the right opportune moment to implement it.

But as usual the ‘Ruling Class’ are so out of touch with what the people are thinking that they didn’t understand why the mere mention of the introduction of the Digital ID caused such an outcry from all sides of the political debate. Even if the most unpopular Prime Minister in British history had not been the one introducing it this would still have caused uproar. It doesn’t strengthen their case at all to tell us that this Digital ID will somehow deal with the illegal migrant crisis, or that it will make our lives easier. It just doesn’t wash.

The serious concern we now have is that this Digital ID will be implemented, but by stealth. First they are using it for Company Directors. You must register and us the Governments unsafe OneLogin to complete your annual report. Next they announce that UK Veterans some 300,000 of them will be offered a Digital ID to replace the card they currently use. In order to attract them to take this up (they are calling it a trial) the Government are offering discounted travel and free bus passes as an incentive. Something I understand that Veterans have asked to have for many years. (At the time of writing the Veterans are pushing back. They recognise that this is not about their welfare but simply a tool for control.)

One Login is a problem and has no Security Certificate. Here is a link to some of the legal issues as described by Black Belt Barrister in his Youtube video

Hacking and cyber attacks become far more serious when ALL YOUR DATA IS HELD IN ONE PLACE.

My friend and colleague Northern Voice has written a very concise analysis below of the issues to consider. If we don’t stop it now it will be harder if not impossible to stop the gobbling up of our remaining freedoms and right to a private life in the future.

Broader Concerns About Digital ID Systems

Beyond hacking and data breaches, the main areas of concern are civil liberties, privacy, surveillance, and control. Here’s a summary:

1. Surveillance and Tracking

Digital IDs can allow governments (or private entities) to track people’s movements, transactions, and activities across multiple systems (e.g. health, education, transport, finance).
Critics fear this could lead to:

· Mass surveillance or profiling

· Social control (like China’s social credit system)

· Restrictions based on data-driven decisions (e.g. denial of services)

2. Mission Creep

Once introduced, the scope of digital ID systems can expand quietly over time.
For example, an ID initially for NHS or education access might later become required for:

· Banking

· Benefits

· Voting

· Travel or employment checks
This gradual expansion can happen without proper public consent or oversight.

3. Loss of Anonymity

Many everyday activities that are currently anonymous — such as buying certain goods, attending protests, or using public services — could become traceable to individuals through linked ID systems.

4. Exclusion and Inequality

Digital IDs could disadvantage those without easy access to technology (elderly people, low-income groups, migrants).
If services move entirely online or require a verified ID, people without smartphones or internet access could be excluded.

5. Corporate Control and Commercial Exploitation

If private tech firms or data brokers are involved, there’s concern about:

· Monetisation of personal data

· Cross-linking with marketing, credit scoring, or insurance systems

· Lack of accountability or recourse for individuals

6. Function Creep into Policing or State Control

Linked databases could enable authorities to cross-reference data for purposes far beyond their original intent, e.g.:

· Welfare investigations

· Immigration enforcement

· Policing or intelligence gathering

The Schools Bill and Children’s NHS Record Concerns

Concerns were raised in 2022–23 about the Schools Bill, which aimed to tighten regulation of academies and improve attendance tracking.
Some campaigners and privacy groups worried that parts of the proposed system could enable greater data sharing between schools, the NHS, and government departments.

Specifically:

· Linking education records with NHS and social services data could allow deeper state monitoring of children and families.

· Critics argued that such a system risked undermining parental authority, or even being used to justify home inspections or interventions based on data profiles.

It’s worth noting that:

· Those proposals did not become law; the Schools Bill was paused and effectively dropped in late 2022.

· The concerns, however, remain part of broader debates about digital identity frameworks and data integration in public services.

Balanced Perspective

Supporters of digital ID argue it could:

· Simplify access to services

· Reduce fraud

· Improve record-keeping and efficiency

However, privacy advocates urge strong safeguards:

· Independent oversight

· Transparency about data use

· Clear legal limits on how IDs can be required or shared

· Options for opting out or controlling your own data

Remember it is up to you to decide who you believe and what freedoms you value. How confident are you that Government will not attempt over reach? We have already seen the Government give itself the power to access your bank account (in order to stop fraud of course).

The English have a long history of established freedoms. These freedoms have been hard fought for by our ancestors. Are you prepared to let them go without standing up for them?

*************************************************************************************************************

Want to join forces with others in this pushback against government over reach? Below are listed some of the organisations you might like to follow:

Workers of England Union at: workersgofengland.co.uk

Campaign for an English Parliament at: theca.org.uk

English Democrats at: englishdemocrats.party

The powerful image above captures the scene many British people now recognise in their towns and cities: overcrowded streets, overflowing bins, strained services and a palpable sense of disorder. Public anger is boiling over into protests up and down the country. YouGov polls consistently show that most people link declining community safety and rapid change to immigration-especially the highly visible small boat arrivals.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: illegal migration, while deeply problematic, accounts for only a fraction of the overall inflow. The far larger driver of. demographic transformation since 2021 has been legal migration-enabled by deliberate policy choices.

The Numbers: Legal vs Illegal

Here is the latest data (gross long-term immigration figures, with small boat crossings as the main irregular component)

Year Legal Migration(approx). Small Boats/Irregulars. Total Gross Inflow

2022. 1,257,000 46,000 ~1,303,000

2023 1,218,000 ~29,000-37,000 ~1,255,000

2024. 948,000. 36,600 ~991,000

2025 ~850,000+. 41,472 ~898,000

Net migration (arrivals minus departures) tells the fuller story. It exploded post 2021, peaking around 906,000-944,000 in the year to mid-2023, before falling sharply to 204,000 in the year ending June 2025 - a two thirds drop thanks to restrictions on student dependants and higher salary thresholds ons.gov.uk

Small boats dominate headlines because they are chaotic, expensive (hotels, asylum processing), and often involve young men from culturally distant countries who discard documents and hold different views about women and children. Yet they represent a small share of the total inflows. Legal routes- work visas, health and care, study, and dependants- have driven the bulk of the numbers.

What Was the ‘Boris Wave’?

The sharp surge beginning in 2021 is often called the Boris Wave. After Brexit, the new points-based immigration system needed free movement from the EU and pivoted heavily to non-EU sources. Key changes included:

-Lowering salary thresholds for skilled worker visas.

-Removing caps on numbers in key sectors.

-A major push to fill post-Covid labour shortages in the NHS, social care, and construction.

The intention was pragmatic: address vacancies quickly. The result was record non-EU inflows, adding roughly 2.5-3 million people net in a short period. Many arrived on routes that lead to settlement.

The Visible Strain Today

Rapid population growth has contributed to real pressures: housing shortages, overcrowded schools, longer NHS waits, and visible degradation in some urban areas- litter, anti-social behaviour, and parallel communities. While not every migrant causes problems, the scale and speed of change has outstripped integration capacity in many places.

Foreign national households are claiming significant benefits. Recent analyses show over £10 billion in Universal Credit paid to households with at least one unemployed foreign national in an 18 months period alone, with total foreign-born claims running into the billions annually. Many recent legal arrivals start with ‘no recourse to public funds’ restrictions, but in-work-benefits, housing support, and dependants still create costs. Low-wage sectors (care, gig economy) often require taxpayer top -ups.

The Ticking Time Bomb: 2026 and Beyond

Here is the part that receives too little attention. Many of those who arrived on qualifying visas from 2021 onwards will become eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) after 5 years- starting in earnest from 2026.

ILR grants fuller access to public funds and local voting rights. Think thanks have modelled potential long-term fiscal costs for this cohort in the tens to hundreds of billions (un-discounted lifetime estimates vary widely depending on assumptions about employment, earnings and integration). Even if many work initially, low-to-medium skilled inflows plus dependants can shift to net fiscal drain over time, especially as families grow and health/care needs increase.

We are effectively importing workers to prop up the NHS and construction while subsidising low wages-instead of training and upskilling our own young people or raising domestic participation (over 5 million Britons remain on out-of-work benefits).

Worse, this approach plunders talent from developing countries while ignoring Britain’s own demographic challenges. The same voices warning about ‘overpopulation’ globally often support ever-higher numbers here.

Why This Matters

Illegal arrivals are harder to deter because of international asylum rules and limited French cooperation. But they can be stopped: end the hotel magnet, accelerate returns, use naval assets if needed, and prioritise British Citizens safety and welfare.

Legal migration is more complex but entirely policy driven. Successive governments have used it as a sticking plaster for labour shortages and an ageing population rather than confronting deeper failures in education, welfare incentives, housing planning and birth rates.

Looking Ahead

Net migration has fallen significantly in 2025 (the exodus of English ‘wealth creators’ has had a modest impact), but it shows that levers exist when governments choose to pull them. But the long term effects of the earlier surge are only beginning to materialise.

In my next piece I will outline practical solutions: stricter salary thresholds and caps, genuine prioritisation of domestic training, reform of settlement rules (potentially extending qualifying periods), better cohort tracking of fiscal impact and an honest stray that puts English citizens first while maintaining controlled high-value migration.

England/Britain has absorbed migrants throughout its history, but never at this scale and pace without strong integration expectations. Continuing on the current path risks deeper division. An honest debate on this and policies that restore control is long overdue.

Note: Immigration is a reserved matter under the control of the UK Parliament at Westminster for the entire United Kingdom.

Reserved matters like immigration, defence, foreign policy, citizenship, and macro-economic policy are handled centrally to maintain a single UK immigration system, border control, and citizenship rules.

___________________________________________________________________________

If you are interested in following other English organisations that promote the English nation and its people here are a few connected organisations:

cep.org.uk Campaign for an English Parliament

Workers of England Union workersofengland.co.uk

Just to recap: (skip this if you know how they work)

The College of Policing is a professional body for the police in England and Wales. It was established in 2012 to take over a number of training and development roles that were the responsibility of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA (closed in 2013 following the Police Act 2013).

The College of Policing is a professional body that answers to the Home Office. It's an arm's length body (quango), which means it's operationally independent but still answers to the Home Office.

What the College of Policing does

• Sets standards for policing

• Helps police officers and staff develop skills and expertise

• Connects people in policing to share knowledge and understand challenges

• Helps the public understand policing and build trust

How does the College of Policing Set Standards

According to their own website the College of Policing ‘sets standards’

by using evidence-based approaches. The CoP's standards include:

• Codes of practice: These are laid in Parliament and ensure consistency across the police forces

• Guidance: This is shared through the secure online network POLKA

• Leadership standards: These are informed by the Code of Ethics, the competency and values framework (CVF), and research

• Professional development standards: These include training, skills, qualifications, and codes of practice

• Competency and values framework (CVF): This is used in recruitment, selection, and assessment

The CoP's mission is to improve leadership, professionalism, and consistency. They do this by: Setting standards, Sharing knowledge and best practice, Supporting professional development, and reviewing and updating standards regularly.

The CoP's standards are based on:

• Evidence of what works

• The Code of Ethics (No indication of where these come from)

• The CVF (competency values framework)

• Policing professional profiles (making sure that minorities are represented)

• National policing priorities (some interaction with Government here)

• Principles of policing, such as integrity, objectivity, accountability, and openness

How Independent Are Local Police Forces?

Each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales is led by a Chief Constable, who has **operational independence** and is responsible for setting **day-to-day policing strategies** within their force area. Chief Constables interpret national standards (from the College, Home Office, and NPCC) and tailor them to local needs, determining how officers carry out daily tasks like patrols, investigations, and community engagement. The question is exactly how independent are Chief Constables nd how are their actions determined by political priorities determined with the Government bodies (Home Office etc.) Chief Constables have considerable independence in theory but they do have to consider the views of the PCC (Police and Crime Commissioner) who answers to the electorate. (Unbelievably the Essex Chief Constable denied he had any responsibility for the actions of the police under his direction recently in Epping).

PCCs are elected officials responsible for setting local policing priorities through the **Police and Crime Plan**, a statutory document outlining strategic goals for their force area (e.g., reducing anti-social behaviour, improving victim support). All sounds great in principle but in fact that the contract with local people will not be honoured if the political agenda does not align.

Local strategies informed?

Local policing strategies are meant to be informed by engagement with communities, councils, and other stakeholders. For example, PCCs and forces are supposed to consult with residents through public meetings or surveys to identify issues like anti-social behaviour or road safety concerns, which shape daily policing activities. Community safety partnerships (CSPs), involving police, local authorities, and other agencies, help identify and address local issues, influencing neighbourhood policing strategies. I can’t see how this didn’t happen in the recent protest areas and if they did were they not discussed for fear of being labelled with the ‘R’ word.

All of this information is publicly available and sounds great in practice but it does not happen as we have seen recently in Epping and other locations in England recently. Concerns of worried locals have been dismissed as they do not fit the required narrative. The Police now support the Government narrative and they do not Police with consent.

The reality is that we have a regime that is intent on pushing through the replacement agenda at whatever the cost. I think it is clear that that the police and public relationship of old are the latest casualty in this agenda of the economic and cultural destruction of England.

So what can we do?

1. Stand up for your community. Change should not be done to you but with your consent. Be persistent and polite.

2. Understand your rights under the law. The Police and other groups rely on you not knowing them.

3. If you are arrested do not plead guilty. Ask to consult your own solicitor or the Free Speech Union.

4. Report any and all crimes to the Police. Yes we know that they will not get investigated but that is not the point. They become part of the record and inform the crime statistics. Politicians are saying that crime is going down even when the evidence of our eyes says that it is not. Under reporting is an issue.

5. Turn off the MSM. Take care when reading articles in national or even local papers. Both have an agenda to push and are largely captured by their sponsors. Ask yourself what they are not telling you and why? This is one of the oldest tools of propaganda and it works nearly every time.

6. Make sure you talk to other people. Some will share your feelings some will not want to go there. That’s ok. But always ask for evidence from others as to their particular stance on an issue. The truth is always hard to hear.

7. Attend local Council meetings and ask questions of the Councillors (for really good templates and advice go to https://council-watch.uk). They also have a Youtube channel. Many decisions are pushed down to local level to implement and most elected Councillors have little understanding or expertise on areas like Net Zero, Climate issues, DEI implications etc. they just do as they are told.

8. Find your local Parish Council. England has over 10,000 Parish councils and many have vacancies. You need to meet certain criteria (i.e. living or working within a certain distance of the Council boundaries), but they can co-opt you on the Council. And you can belong to more than one. Here is the link for the National Association of Local Councils https://www.nalc.gov.uk/about/parish-and-town-councils.html.

There is no denying that we live in a Police State. It’s the only way that this Government can implement their plans. Lockdowns and the subsequent collapse of reason gave them a perfect example of how far they can push the population and get away with it. Keeping us reliant on a sanitised media and preventing protest by creating confusion about what constitutes legitimate protest is one tactic. Stopping discussion or debate for fear of ‘offense’ with NCHI legislation is yet another.

If like me you are determined to not go quietly then now is the time to get involved and do your bit. The elites rely on the. ‘sheep’ to just follow instructions and take each assault on our freedoms without any pushback. We need to be the pushback.

A Personal Note

Please consider subscribing to my substack. It’s free although you can always pledge something if you like it. I have been out of action as I fractured and dislocated my wrist at the end of May and have been working on typing with one hand. For those interested I was detrained when an automatic door closed on me as I was boarding the train; leaving me on the platform (concrete) in some pain. The German trains running on our privatised railways are designed to be efficient but not passenger friendly.

It reached an inflection point under Tony Blair. This was not an accident. England’s demise has been carefully planned. Governments come and go but the aim is still the same. The Blair-Brown plan has been pursued by the Bureaucratic State diligently since Blair.

So what was the plan?

Powers were either devolved or reserved.

Devolved powers allow decisions to be made by the governments of Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

Some powers are partially devolved or partially reserved.

So that’s clear.

Reserved Areas allow decisions to be made by the UK Parliament and Government.

All decisions regarding England are made by the UK Parliament and voted on by the MPs representing the other nations!(No sovereignty for England)

So what are Reserved Powers?

Reserved Powers relate to the UK’s external affairs such as foreign relations and defence as well as the constitution, immigration and many aspects of economic policy.

Policing and Justice are reserved powers under the Welsh devolution system but devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Social Security benefits are entirely reserved in Wales, but partially devolved in Scotland and entirely devolved in Northern Ireland.

So a pretty mixed bag. Designed to confuse? You decide.

England Ignored?

Devolution currently for England does not exist. Regionalisation is just one of the tools used to strip England of her sovereignty.

Allowing MPs from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to vote on issues that only affect England is wrong and many people have seen it for a long time. (The ‘Lothian question’ was debated hotly for years).

It seems obvious that Reserved Issues are just the obvious shared ones: Defence; immigration; foreign relations; constitutional matters. But as we see some of these are shared by UK Government (British State) with the devolved Nation. In principle the UK Government could overrule such legislation decisions but they tend not to do so.

Devolution Has Not Been Fully Implemented. Did ‘they’ ever mean to implement it?

So what is devolved?

(This is what the British State decide for England)

Devolved areas include:

• health

• education

• environment

• agriculture

• culture

• local government

• public transport

This means that the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd, and the Northern Ireland Assemby can make laws on these matters. But because the UK Parliament is sovereign it can also make laws in these areas if it wishes. (But as I said earlier it tends not to do this)

What Next?

The Minister for English Devolution is Jim McMahon (ex Oldham Council Leader- so good at doing the regime’s bidding) so don’t expect any change to the current trajectory.

England will be regionalised. The cancelling of elections is just another step in that process. Decisions will be made behind closed doors regarding the distribution of power. This will not be ready in 2026. Optimistic estimates indicate that this could be done as early as 2028. The Government will be steering this to ensure they get the outcome they want. It has nothing to do with cost savings as there is no evidence of any plan that indicates how cost savings will be made and when. And like many of Labour’s decisions they don’t want to wait for the ‘cost-benefit analysis’ they are ideologues.(We have just seen this with the Benefits cuts).

So what can we do?

It’s hard not feel depressed by all this democratic destruction. But maybe it was always existing on a life support system. How many of us take an interest in local politics except when we are directly affected by an issue. How many of us know the names of our local councillors? How many of us have attended Council meetings to make our views clear on any issue. Do you know who your MP is and have you ever contacted him/her? Yes, I know, most time you just get a ‘template’ response.

If you are prepared to investigate issues further; unafraid to challenge perceived wisdom with alternative facts and views and are always asking questions (sometimes awkward ones) then you are doing your bit to challenge the status quo created by our techno fascist masters. In his book ‘The Psychology of Tyranny” Matias Desmet asserts that the act of speaking against the narrative is enough to delay or upset the propaganda. It can’t stop it but it can buy time for the truth to be seen.

‘Telling the truth in a time of deceit is a revolutionary act’. A quote often attributed to Orwell, but nevertheless something that resonates where we are now.

************************************************************************************************************

If you find the topics that are discussed here useful and are interested in standing up for England. Here are some useful links:

English Democrats Party

Campaign for an English Parliament

Workers of England Union

By: John G Cowan, Jr.

I find myself today stunned as I watch the unfolding of what appears to be the launch of a new pandemic; this new one might be Bird Flu and / or Measels; take your pick. Much like the last time around with SARS-COV2, we were warned in early December 2024 by Dr. Peter Hotez that, “sometime shortly after January 20^th 2025 we would face a new virus threat,” or words to that effect.

Have we learned nothing from the recent past?

Do you remember that in October 2019 The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201? This was a pandemic simulation using a “novel” coronavirus as the pathogen? Yes, they always warn us before they do the deed.

When I look back as any critical thinker should, the hard truth is that none of what happened – lockdowns, social distancing, masks, testing, injections – none of it was justified as we took a quick slide from righteousness to absolute cruelty. The easy way out is to lay the blame on our leaders and health experts, and yes, they have a lot to account for but frankly each individual within our society must also be held to account for stepping into the well-laid-out trap and their role in the pandemic atrocities.

All these things were carried out despite knowing full well that informed opposition is priceless especially when it comes to matters of our own health, that is, what goes inside our bodies and what we allow others to do to and with our bodies.

However many of us let ourselves be tricked. Remember when we were told that if it became necessary to mandate another [ineffective] lockdown we could blame the unvaccinated and not the toxic policies of ineffective vaccines and health and safety mandates?

At the heights of the madness it was not only okay but celebrated to take pleasure in scapegoating, marginalizing and socially assassinating the unvaccinated because after months of engineered lockdowns by political leaders blinded by power, having someone to blame and to burn at the stake felt good. We all witnessed talk-show hosts, celebrities and our own President and political leaders encouraging acts of violence toward the “unvaccinated” that were nothing short of horrific.

As a result many people felt that this ‘permission from an authority’ was sufficient justification to block unvaccinated persons from restaurants, schools, public events, churches, parks, etc., as well as to cancel them until they begged for forgiveness, took the shots, and embraced their oppressors.

The more empowered the vaccinated felt the more they wrapped themselves in the twisted virtues of this new dark empire. Why, because they believed they had logic, love, and truth on their side so it was easy to wish death upon the unvaccinated. After all the Pope himself said that receiving the vaccine was an “Act of Love.” It was even pronounced by many Christians that this is what Jesus would do. Contrary to the evidence at hand, I recall being told that getting the vaccine was my demonstration that I cared about the vulnerable in my community, that, as the Pope said, receiving the shot was a sign that I loved my neighbor. Pardon me while I vomit in my sleeve. Such statements were made in spite of the growing body of hard clinical evidence which showed that the vaccine did not provide sterilizing immunity, stop transmission or even reduce the disease symptoms. (I would add that we now know that some of the vaccine manufacturers (Pfizer, Moderna, BioNTech) knew this to be true even as they launched the vaccines.)

Yet they and the health authorities (NIH, CDC, FDA) withheld this information – one has to ask WHY?.

In looking back it is possible that those who mocked and ridiculed the unvaccinated did it because they were embaarassed by their courage and principles and deep down they hoped that they wouldn’t make it through, which would then justify their contempt. Of course that is an overly generous perspective as it is more likely that they were so conditioned to live in fear that they knew of no other way to respond. Regardless of their motivation it was easy for them to cancel family members, discard friends and those who openly questioned the science onto the trash heap – after all they were dead people walking. I believe that hundreds of people in prominent roles need to be held to account for vilifying the unvaccinated in public and fueling angry social media mobs. I also believe that all those individuals, including health-care professionals who cancelled people, mocked them on social media, refused them care – these too need to be held to account for their behavior . I also believe that those in healthcare – physicians, nurses, medical assistants and administrators must also be held to account for policies (forced vaccination prior to admittance, refusal to offer alternative treatments (some states even outlawed such treatments) administration of known lethal drugs (e.g., Remdesivir) regardless of the evidence that these interventions were deadly and ineffective. No, you can’t run away, you need to stand and hear how we experienced the ruthlessness of your behavior. Only then can we move on and begin to heal.

The mobs, the mask Nazis, and the vaccine disciples have been embarrassed by “betting against” the unvaccinated because mandates only had the power we gave them. To this day however, I am not sure that everyone comprehends their role in the madness or the damage they have done. Most people I know who were part of the hoard refuse to talk about this, when confronted they either walk away, or dismiss this entirely as me being far too sensitive.

Standing firm saved us

It was not compliance that ended domination by Big Pharma Companies, Bill Gates and his many organizations, and the World Economic Forum… Nor was it compliance that stopped the mandates, it was THANKS to the people the Covid fanatics tried to embarrass, ridicule, mock and tear down – the UNVACCINATED, those who questioned “the science”, those people who stood their ground and would not bow down to the new gods.

We should all try and find some inner gratitude for these so called rebels because their perseverance and courage bought us the time to see we were wrong.

So if mandates ever return for Covid or any other disease or virus, hopefully, more of us will be awake and see that this sort of rising marxist totalitarian authoritarianism has no concern for our well-being because it is more concerned about increasing its power and control. The War on the Unvaccinated and those who questioned “The Science” was lost and we should all be very thankful for that. However, now more than ever we must remain vigilant because these powers and the corporations and institutions they control are still in power and have not given up. As they say, we have left them to live so they can fight another day

.