Extension of EU Fishing Access to UK Waters

Back to Blog Economy Extension of EU Fishing Access to UK Waters admin May 17, 2025 Like the farmers, fishermen feel ignored by Westminster, used as a pawn to secure closer ties back to the EU. For many this is a way of life, a culture and tradition and feel any re-negotiation of the current deal will be a betrayal of this tradition, a failure by successive UK governments to understand and support coastal communities. Our resource rich waters containing Cod, Haddock, Mackerel, Scallops etc are a magnet to EU fishermen with France anxious to secure fishing rights for Brittany, Normandy etc who heavily rely on fishing for their livelihoods. Macron has highlighted there will be no closer relationship with the EU until future access to British waters has been agreed calling for a “hard link”. Currently the 5 year deal struck during Brexit expires next year resulting in annual negotiations which would create uncertainty for French fishermen. Macron is seeking a long-term solution to create stability within the industry. Fishing is hugely political in France with Macron facing pressure to secure a long term deal with a significantly higher fishing quota. However, our fishing industry see this as a matter of sovereignty, something hard fought for in the Brexit negotiations. Any backtrack on this could be perceived as a backtrack on Brexit gains among costal communities and leave voters. If the PM revisits the fishing deal, UK fishermen are likely to face a reduction in quotas and less exclusive access to valuable fishing grounds. This would have a significant impact on incomes and stock. This goes against the premise of taking back control and will be seen as a betrayal of Brexit. Like Macron fighting for the French, our PM must stand up for the UK fishing communities. In addition to being hugely popular, it is a matter of principle. Furthermore, re-visiting the deal will play straight into the hands of Reform who are seeking to end automatic EU access, ban foreign supertrawlers using electric pulse fishing, increase the UK exclusive zone from 6 miles to 12 and advocate the supporting the coastal communities.

The SNP’s Downfall: Dominance to Decline

Back to Blog Economy The SNP’s Downfall: Dominance to Decline admin March 19, 2025 For years the Scottish National Party (SNP) dominated Scottish politics, leading the charge for independence and staying miles ahead of rivals. But things have fallen apart – the party’s grip has weakened, plagued by scandals, leadership struggles, diminishing public trust, and policy failures have chipped away at a once-solid reputation. In addition to the NHS and Healthcare failures, Education Decline, Drug Deaths, Transport Issues, Independence focus neglecting key issues, and Social Care and Housing Issues the scandals have had a huge impact on the decline.Some of the biggest controversies that have contributed to the decline: 1. Financial Scandal & Missing Independence Funds ● What happened? The SNP raised £600,000 from supporters for an independence referendum campaign, but the money appeared to be missing from official accounts.● Police Investigation: Operation Branchform was launched to investigate potential fraud, leading to the high-profile arrests of: Peter Murrell (SNP’s former Chief Executive & Nicola Sturgeon’s husband) – His home was raided, and police seized a luxury motorhome suspected to be bought with party funds. Colin Beattie (former SNP treasurer) – Arrested and questioned about financial mismanagement. Nicola Sturgeon – Arrested and questioned before being released without charge. ● Why it matters: This scandal severely damaged public confidence in the SNP’s financial transparency and governance, with many supporters feeling misled. 2. Alex Salmond & Alleged Cover-Up ● What happened? Former First Minister Alex Salmond was charged with 13 counts of sexual misconduct but was acquitted on all charges in 2020.● SNP Mishandling: A parliamentary inquiry later found that the Scottish Government’s internal investigation was “unlawful” and “tainted by bias.”● Withholding of Information: Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP were accused of obstructing the inquiry by refusing to release key documents and allegedly misleading Parliament about when she first learned of the allegations.● Why it matters: The scandal exposed deep divisions within the SNP and fuelled claims that senior figures conspired against Salmond. Salmond later created the breakaway party, Alba. 3. The SNP’s Financial Struggles & Secret Loan ● What happened? In 2021, it was revealed that Peter Murrell secretly loaned the SNP £107,000 to help with “cashflow issues.”● Lack of Transparency: The loan wasn’t declared to the Electoral Commission for months, violating political finance rules.● Why it matters: This raised serious questions about the party’s financial health, especially in the wake of the missing independence funds controversy. The Bigger Picture These scandals have led to a dramatic decline in SNP support, with Labour gaining ground in Scotland for the first time in years. Once seen as an unstoppable force, the SNP now faces serious challenges in restoring trust and holding onto power. The recent statement from Nicola Surgeon confirming she would stand down in 2026, I wish her well however I believe it is the right thing to do. Under Surgeon’s leadership she has failed Scotland and the Scottish People.

Running the UK as a business

Back to Blog EconomyEducation Running the UK as a business admin March 9, 2025 In an era where efficiency, profitability, and innovation drive success, could the United Kingdom benefit from being managed like a business? What if the government operated with strategic focus, accountability, and financial discipline of a corporation? Could a business-minded approach transform economic policy and public services? 1. Vision and Leadership Successful businesses thrive under clear vision and strong leadership, set goals, and how goals will be achieved. Applying this to governance means: A Prime Minister would act as a CEO, set goals with measurable outcomes (e.g., economic growth targets, unemployment reduction, and infrastructure development). Ministers operating like department heads, accountable for performance, results and delivery of agreed goals (e.g., the Health Secretary measured on NHS efficiency etc). Policy decisions based on return on investment (ROI) and long-term sustainability (e.g., funding education programs that improve workforce skills and boost GDP in the long run). 2. Efficiency and Innovation in Public Services Running the UK like a business could lead to: Streamlined bureaucracy to cut waste and inefficiencies (e.g., digitising government services to reduce paperwork and processing times). Investment in technology to modernise public services (e.g., AI-driven healthcare diagnostics to reduce NHS wait times). A focus on customer satisfaction, similar to private sector customer service (e.g., introducing performance-based public sector bonuses for improved service delivery). 3. Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth A business-driven government would prioritise: Budgeting based on financial prudence, reducing deficits and unnecessary spending (e.g., restructuring government agencies to improve cost-efficiency). Encouraging entrepreneurship and investment to drive GDP growth (e.g., tax incentives for startups and SMEs to foster innovation and job creation). Attracting global talent and businesses with competitive tax policies. 4. Performance-Based Governance Government departments could have KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) to measure success (e.g., transport efficiency metrics to assess the impact of infrastructure investments). Policies could be evaluated based on data-driven performance metrics (e.g., analysing crime rates to assess the effectiveness of policing reforms). Greater transparency and accountability, ensuring taxpayer money is spent wisely (e.g., publishing real-time expenditure reports and audits for public scrutiny). 5. Challenges and Ethical Considerations While this approach has potential, it comes with challenges: Risk of prioritising profit over social welfare (e.g., potential privatisation of essential services leading to affordability concerns). Public services cannot always be run profit-driven (e.g., emergency services and social care require funding regardless of profitability). Ensuring fairness, rather than focusing solely on efficiency (e.g., ensuring economic policies benefit all citizens, not just businesses and investors). Conclusion Could the UK truly be run like a business? A balance must be struck between efficiency and public welfare. The key lies in adopting the best of both worlds: the agility and accountability of business, combined with the social responsibility of government.

UK Government Waste

Back to Blog Economy UK Government Waste admin March 9, 2025 UK Government: Examples of Wasteful Spending Government waste is a major concern for taxpayers in the UK. Every year, billions of pounds are spent inefficiently, lost to poor planning, or allocated to projects with questionable value. While public spending is necessary for essential services, excessive bureaucracy, mismanagement, and flawed decision-making often lead to huge waste. How can Governments get it so wrong? What Is Government Waste? Government waste occurs when public funds are mismanaged or used inefficiently. This includes: Unnecessary projects – Public money being allocated to schemes with little benefit. The high-speed rail project HS2 has become a symbol of government overspending. Initially estimated at £37.5 billion, costs spiralled, with key sections of the project scrapped after years of investment. Many argue the money could have been better spent on upgrading existing rail infrastructure.Beyond the rising construction costs, HS2 has also wasted millions on land purchases for now-cancelled sections of the route. The government has bought properties and land in preparation for a rail line that will never be built, with some landowners receiving generous compensation for developments that never materialised. A planned pedestrian bridge over the River Thames, backed by Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London, cost taxpayers £53 million before being scrapped. Despite receiving substantial funding, no construction ever took place, with the project ultimately abandoned due to planning and financial issues. Inefficiency – Excessive red tape, slow decision-making, and poor project management driving up costs. Despite calls for efficiency, government departments continue to pay millions for unused office space. Reports have found that government buildings across Whitehall remain under-occupied, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions each year in rent and maintenance. Costly government contracts – The UK government overpaying for goods and services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government spent billions on personal protective equipment (PPE). However, a significant portion of this PPE was found to be unusable or overpriced. Reports suggest that £8 billion was wasted on unsuitable or defective PPE, much of which remains in storage or has been destroyed. The NHS Test and Trace system, introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, was one of the most expensive public health initiatives in UK history. Despite costing £37 billion, it failed to significantly reduce the spread of the virus. A parliamentary report found that much of the spending went towards expensive private contracts, underused testing centres, and ineffective digital tracking systems. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has a track record of costly overruns on military projects. For example, the Ajax armoured vehicle programme was supposed to be operational by 2017 at a cost of £3.5 billion. As of 2024, the vehicles are still not fully operational, with costs exceeding £5.5 billion due to serious design flaws and delays. The UK has a long history of failed government IT projects. The NHS IT programme, originally budgeted at £6.2 billion, ended up costing over £10 billion before being scrapped in 2011. More recently, the Post Office Horizon scandal saw hundreds of innocent sub-postmasters wrongly prosecuted due to a faulty computer system, with the government now facing massive compensation payouts. Fraud and misallocation – Billions lost to fraudulent claims and misdirected funding. The UK government has been criticised for failing to tackle fraud in public spending. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) reported losing over £8 billion to benefit fraud and errors in 2022 alone. Meanwhile, the government’s COVID-19 business support schemes saw an estimated £4.9 billion lost to fraud and mistaken payments. Why??? Inefficiency – Excessive layers of management slow down processes and inflate costs. Lack of Accountability – Poor oversight allows wasteful spending to continue unchecked. Overpriced Contracts – Government procurement processes often favour large suppliers, leading to excessive costs. Political Short-Termism – Spending decisions are often driven by electoral cycles rather than long-term efficiency. How Can the UK Reduce Government Waste? 1.Stronger Oversight and Auditing – Independent bodies should have greater powers to hold departments accountable. 2.More Efficient Procurement – The government must ensure that public contracts deliver value for money. 3.Better Fraud Prevention – Investment in fraud detection could save billions in lost funds. 4.Stopping Unnecessary Projects – Projects with escalating costs and little public benefit should be reconsidered. 5.Improved Use of Technology – Streamlining digital services and modernising government IT can increase efficiency. Final Thoughts Government waste isn’t just about lost money—it affects public services, increases taxes, and reduces trust in government institutions. While some waste is inevitable, better management and accountability could save billions and improve public services. What are your thoughts on UK government spending?

Political Heavyweights

Back to Blog Economy, Education Political Heavyweights admin February 13, 2025 Churchill, Leadership, and the Need for Political Heavyweights Winston Churchill—a giant of a man, a statesman of unparalleled stature, and a leader whose vision secured our freedom. Few figures in British history have connected with the masses, articulated their party’s vision, and led their country with such determination and strategic brilliance. Charisma, strategy, and an unshakable leadership set Churchill apart, making him one of the greatest political figures of all time. As we mark the 60th anniversary of his funeral, I find myself reflecting on our current political landscape and wondering: where have all the heavyweights gone? We expect our politicians to be influential, shaping policies, driving public discourse, and leading their parties with conviction. The leaders who once commanded the political arena—figures of real presence and conviction—seem absent today. Instead, we have a class of politicians who, while competent and presentable, lack the force of personality and strategic clarity that once defined the greats. The Return of Political Heavyweights? Across the Atlantic, Donald Trump has stormed back into the White House following a landslide victory. Like him or loathe him, he gets things done. Within hours of reassuming office, he had already taken decisive action on immigration, deporting two plane loads of illegal migrants back to Colombia. His leadership style is direct, unapologetic, and action-oriented—qualities that many feel are sorely missing from British politics today. In the UK, we see no equivalent political powerhouse. Sir Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch, Stephen Flynn, Ed Davey—competent, perhaps, but do they inspire? Do they lead with the conviction and force of personality needed to guide the nation through uncertain times? I struggle to think of a single leader today who stands as a true political heavyweight. A UK-First Approach? Is it time for British politicians to adopt a more UK-first mindset? Surely, our priorities should include energy independence, national security, food production, and the protection of vital industries. Instead, we find ourselves reliant on foreign resources and policies that seem increasingly disconnected from national interests. Take energy, for example. The UK imports oil and natural gas despite having ample reserves in the North Sea. Phasing out fossil fuels is necessary, but only when we have a viable replacement that meets demand without making us dependent on imports. Should we, “drill, baby, drill”? Similarly, we import electricity because we have failed to invest sufficiently in nuclear power, phased out coal without adequate alternatives, and neglected our gas-powered infrastructure. Clean energy is an admirable goal—but it must be pursued with energy security in mind. National Security and Defence: Are We Prepared? Years of defence cuts have significantly impacted our ability to protect and defend ourselves. Can we honestly say we value our armed forces when our military readiness is so compromised? The Evening Standardreported on March 24, 2024, that the British Army would run out of munitions in just ten days in the event of war. Less than two weeks. If we are committed to supporting Ukraine and maintaining our own defence capabilities, then increasing weapons manufacturing and stockpiling munitions should be a priority. A “just-in-time” supply model may work for retail, but it is reckless when applied to national defence. Feeding the Nation: Support for British Farmers Food security is just as vital as energy and defence. Yet, British farmers face an overwhelming tax burden that threatens their livelihoods. Unlike any other profession, farmers work tirelessly in all conditions for wages that often fall below the minimum. They care for their animals, steward the land, and ensure our food supply. If we tax them to the point where farming is no longer viable, we risk not only their livelihoods but also our ability to feed the nation. We must reverse punitive tax policies and support the long-term sustainability of British agriculture. Protecting Key Industries Britain’s key industries should be safeguarded—not sacrificed. Part of Donald Trump’s appeal in America is his willingness to speak directly to the concerns of everyday citizens. He champions domestic industries, prioritizes national interests, and refuses to bow to globalist pressures. Perhaps it’s time for Britain to take a similar approach—an approach that puts the UK first. We need strong leaders with vision, conviction, and the courage to take bold action. The question is: do any of today’s politicians have what it takes to step up and fill that role?