Milestones
Nine Steps to Restore Britain
Britain is in a pitiful condition: Our economy falters, burdened by high taxes and excess regulation. Public services no longer serve the actual public. Culturally, our country is coming apart, strained by mass immigration, a crumbling sense of identity, and a demographic transformation that risks making our country unrecognizable.
None of this is inevitable; the dire condition of the country is a consequence of abysmal policy, inept leadership, and an administrative class that has lost all accountability to the people it claims to represent.
But putting Britain back on the right path will take much more than merely a Parliamentary majority.
The policies needed to renew our country will face fierce resistance from an administrative state determined to prevent their implementation. Unless we have a plan to overcome opposition from unelected officials and activist judges, national recovery will not be possible.
We don’t just need a change of government in Britain. National recovery means that we must fundamentally change the way Britain is governed.
Here is how we must do so.
Milestones:
The Leftist Revolution
For the past three decades, our nation has endured an ideological onslaught, a revolution cloaked as progress.
Men, we have been told, can become women. The ancient legal principle of equality under the law has been cast aside; those with “protected characteristics” are now treated preferentially. Today, state bodies are legally required to tilt the scales against white Britons under the guise of "equality." People have been sent to prison for their privately expressed opinions.
Our history, once a source of pride, has been rewritten to demoralize us. The country that produced Shakespeare, Newton, Brunel, and Austen is not allowed any claim to exceptionalism, other than exceptional wickedness. Young people in Britain, a nation that led the fight to abolish the slave trade, are taught we were its chief practitioners.
Films and books are no longer produced to entertain but to lecture and scold.
Over the past generation, our elites have not merely politicized culture and our past. They have upended our system of government, turning democracy into technocracy as power has been devolved to ‘experts’.
The Bank of England, granted independence, presided over a banking crisis and lost control of inflation. A Climate Change Committee shapes energy policy, driving up costs and destroying what remained of our manufacturing. An Environment Agency halts development, Ofcom polices speech, and the Information Commissioner dictates how businesses handle customer data. Judges decide whether we tap oil and gas reserves, while courts, not the free market, set wages.
The leftist revolution began with Tony Blair’s 1997 landslide victory. Though Blair himself served as Prime Minister for only 10 of the past 28 years, every administration since him—Labour and Conservative—has held essentially the same core assumptions. They have governed in the belief that experts are infallible; that our rights are not the distinct product of our island inheritance, but are universal. The core Blairite belief is that human nature is itself universal, people from any background interchangeable.
This is why they opened our borders, allowing millions of immigrants in, believing that anyone can become British—or even English, Scottish, or Welsh.
None of this was chosen by us. None of it is based on what is good and true. Nothing about it has served us well.
Lamentable Decline
The unelected officials and judges that run Britain have run the country into the ground. We might imagine dispassionate bureaucrats crafting public policy for the common good, but the truth is grimly different: Britain has suffered a catastrophic decline.
Living standards have stagnated for two decades. Between 2008 and 2022, median income rose 7.2 percent. Over the previous 14 years, median incomes rose 38 percent. The UK per person output was once comparable to that of the United States. Today, UK per capita output has fallen behind that of Mississippi, the poorest state in America.
High taxes and regulation have produced economic sclerosis, despite masses of monetary stimulus used to try to generate growth.
The UK now has £2.97 trillion of public debt, equal to about 100 percent of the value of all goods and services that the country produces each year. Thirty years ago, our public debt was a modest 25-30 percent of GDP.
Since creating an Office of Budget Responsibility, we have squandered public money irresponsibly on Covid lockdowns, green energy boondoggles, and before that, bank bailouts. Public spending is now 45 percent of GDP, compared to a mere 37.6 percent when Tony Blair began as Prime Minister.
The NHS, run by its own unaccountable bureaucracy, is failing. Waiting lists reached 6.24 million by February 2025—one in eleven Britons—while A&E delays spiral, with 61,529 languishing over 12 hours in January, 21 times pre-Covid levels.
One in 27 people in Britain today is an immigrant that has arrived in the past two years—a staggering 2.5 million newcomers in 2023 and 2024 alone, 190,000 of them illegal. Far from the “brightest and best,” too many are low-skilled, poorly educated, and with a high propensity to commit crime. Many non-Western immigrants offer little economic benefit to our country, as Dutch data grimly confirms, yet bring with them issues of cultural incompatibility.
Twenty years ago, Muslims made up about 3 percent of the UK population. Since then, their share of the population has risen to 6 percent, and it is expected to double again over the next twenty years. While most Muslims live peaceful, law-abiding lives, the extremism of a significant number needs to be confronted.
Britain’s armed forces are a shadow of their former selves. The Royal Navy’s fleet has shrunk from 79 vessels in 1995 to a mere 28 today; the Army’s tanks from over 400 to 100; the RAF’s aircraft from 800 to 564. Personnel have halved from 300,000 to 138,000 since the mid-1990s. Quality may have risen, but quantity has collapsed.
In recent years, almost every public body in the country, no matter how ineffective at delivering on its core mission, has found the time to promote a "woke" ideology, prioritizing social justice and historical revisionism. Police forces have found the time to promote inclusivity but not to catch criminals. The NHS spends millions on diversity, equity, and inclusion directors while millions languish on waiting lists. Museums funded by British taxpayers present exhibits that take every opportunity to show Britain in a bad light. It is no surprise that patriotism among young people has been in precipitous decline.
What Is to Be Done?
Public discontent is not enough. We need a strategy to channel this discontent into support for a coherent alternative.
Nor is it enough to list a menu of policies that we wish to see implemented. If any of the required policy prescriptions are to be implemented, we first need to be prepared to radically change the way that our country is run.
The resistance to reform from the administrative state will be fierce. The activism of an obstructive judiciary will be intense. To save Britain from further decline, we need a plan to deal with both.
MILESTONE 1: Securing Public Administration
To establish control over the machinery of the state, an incoming administration first needs to recognize that without pre-emptive action, it will not have control over Whitehall. Ministers won’t run their departments, but be run by their departments.
An incoming government must use the Royal Prerogative and statutory powers via Orders in Council to convert the legitimacy of winning a democratic mandate into authority and power over officials to get things done. This means insisting on the King’s formal approval of specific Orders in Council at Privy Council, alongside emergence legislation, as a condition for forming a government.
Control Over the Civil Service
An incoming administration needs to assume office armed with an Order in Council that amends the Civil Service Management Code, and emergency legislation to amend the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, such that:
· Ministers have authority to dismiss Permanent Secretaries or Directors General deemed obstructive, subject to a clear justification process.
Enabling ministers to issue binding directives to officials, overriding discretionary resistance.
Allowing ministers to appoint external experts into senior roles without civil service processes being used to obstruct, akin to practices in the U.S.
The Department of the Prime Minister – Day One
The Cabinet is no longer an effective instrument of government, but a Potemkin charade. Cabinet meetings are scripted, with officials making many of the key decisions beforehand. Real power increasingly lies at the weekly meeting of permanent secretaries. Chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, it coordinates and decides public policy to all practical purposes, without ministerial oversight.
Worse, the system of administration centered around the Cabinet Office is dysfunctional. The triumvirate of departments at the center of government—the Cabinet Office, No. 10, and the Treasury—lack strategic coherence. We need a more coherent center, not unlike Australia’s Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
In place of the charade of Cabinet government, centered around the Cabinet Office, we need to create a Department of the Prime Minister (DPM) via Order in Council, consolidating most Cabinet Office functions (e.g., policy coordination, national security) and select Treasury responsibilities (e.g., strategic budget oversight). The DPM would serve as a unified command center, aligning public administration with the government’s electoral mandate.
Under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, an Order can transfer and reassign functions without primary legislation. Announce the DPM’s creation on Day 1, with a transition plan completed within 30 days, modeled on Canada’s Privy Council Office restructuring (Government of Canada, 2021).
Close One Third of Government Departments – Month One
The UK government currently operates 24 ministerial departments. We need to close many of them down. Argentina’s President Javier Milei reduced his government from 18 to 9 ministries in 2023, cutting costs by 30% and boosting efficiency (Argentine Government, 2024).
We must dissolve at least 8 departments (approximately one-third), including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and others identified as redundant. Reassign essential functions (e.g., energy regulation to the Treasury) via Orders in Council under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, which permits departmental dissolution and function transfers without parliamentary approval.
This, too, would be done by presenting the King with a pre-drafted Order on Day 1, listing departments to be abolished and specifying function reallocations. Parliament would need to be informed post facto, with staff redeployment or redundancy processes undertaken within 30 days.
Pack the Lords – Month One
Conventionally, the House of Lords does not block manifesto commitments outright. We can no longer count on convention. Without getting sidetracked into a debate about the reform of the House of Lords, an incoming administration should prepare to pack the House of Lords with hundreds of new peers to secure a majority for its agenda by using the Prime Minister’s power to nominate new life peers, appointed by the monarch. Whatever the future of the Lords might be, we must not allow it to remain the constant source of leftist opposition to conservative policy it has become.
MILESTONE 2: Securing Our Borders – Executive & Legislative Action – Week One
The Trump administration deported approximately 50,000 illegal immigrants within the first month. We need to take similar steps to begin to remove the estimated 500,000 to 1 million illegal immigrants residing in the UK.
Here are three Orders in Council, which need to be prepared pre-emptively for the King’s signature upon government formation, to help secure our borders and expel illegal immigrants:
Order to Control Entry to the United Kingdom – Day One
The Immigration Act 1971 grants the Home Secretary broad powers to regulate entry, reinforced by the UK’s exit from the EU, which ended free movement and underscored the need for sovereign border policies. High net migration—728,000 in 2024, with 85% from non-EU sources (ONS, 2024)—reflects a loss of control over work and study visa routes, necessitating stricter measures.
We need to issue an Order in Council under Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to amend Immigration Rules, introducing:
Stringent Visa Requirements: Target countries driving high net migration (e.g., India, Nigeria, Pakistan, per Home Office, 2024), imposing mandatory pre-entry vetting for work and study visas, including financial self-sufficiency thresholds.
Annual Entry Caps: Set a cap of 50,000 total entrants annually—approximately half the 2024 level—enforceable at ports of entry, with quotas allocated by visa category dramatically restricting non-Western immigrants.
Implement these changes within 72 hours of the Order’s issuance, bypassing lengthy parliamentary debate while adhering to the Act’s provisions for Home Office discretion.
Order to Expel Illegal Immigrants – Day One
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and Immigration Act 1971 provide the framework for deporting illegal immigrants, yet bureaucratic delays—e.g., appeal windows averaging 12 months—hinder enforcement. Streamlining these processes is critical to address the estimated 500,000+ illegal residents.
Utilize Orders in Council to amend Immigration Rules under the 1971 Act and operationalize the 2022 Act, enacting:
Shortened Notice and Appeal Periods: Reduce the deportation notice period from 28 days to 7 days and limit appeal windows to 14 days, with hearings conducted extraterritorially where feasible.
Expedited Processing: Authorize fast-track removal within 30 days of identification, supported by expanded detention capacity and streamlined Home Office casework.
Expanded ‘Safe Country’ List: Redesignate additional countries (e.g., Albania, Ghana) as “safe” for returns, per the 2022 Act’s provisions, based on UNHCR stability metrics, reducing legal objections to deportation.
In addition, bilateral return agreements will be required with key countries, mirroring the UK-Rwanda Partnership, to facilitate third-country deportations.
Reform of Indefinite Leave to Remain – Week One
Since 2021, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have been granted ILR, entitling them to public benefits. Estimates suggest that continuing this policy could cost taxpayers over £230 billion over decades, based on lifetime welfare projections.
We must suspend ILR grants for immigrants from non-Western countries arriving post-2021, and revoke ILR status for those granted it in the past decade who fail to demonstrate economic self-sufficiency or cultural integration, assessed via standardized metrics (e.g., employment records, language proficiency).
This would require amending the Immigration Rules to tie ILR eligibility to a minimum five-year record of net fiscal contribution and evidence of assimilation (e.g., civic participation).
Legislative Action – Month One: Pre-empting Judicial Activism
Far from enforcing immigration law, it is clear that our immigration tribunals frequently rule on the basis of what they wish the law to mean. This cannot stand, and primary legislation is needed to overhaul the immigration tribunal process.
“Deport First, Appeal Later” Act – Month One
We must introduce primary legislation to amend the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The ability of immigrants to appeal pre-removal—often on human rights grounds under Article 8 of the ECHR—results in prolonged stays, with 60% of deportation appeals failing yet still delaying enforcement.
A "deport first, appeal later" model, piloted under Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 for non-asylum cases, reduced in-country appeals by 87% between 2015 and 2017 before being curtailed by judicial rulings.
This legislation must require that all appeals against deportation orders for illegal entrants be heard only after the individual has been removed from the UK, conducted via remote hearings (e.g., video link) from the country of origin or a designated third country. It would restrict grounds for appeal to clear procedural errors or violations of non-derogable rights, and exclude discretionary claims like family life (Article 8) unless exceptional evidence is pre-submitted. It would also override judicial constraints by explicitly legislating that out-of-country appeals satisfy access to justice, supported by enhanced Home Office case preparation.
Judicial review in the UK has repeatedly been used to thwart government policy by allowing courts to scrutinize and overturn executive actions deemed unlawful, irrational, or procedurally unfair. For example, in 2022, the High Court ruling in R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department halted the government’s initial Rwanda deportation flights, finding inadequate evidence of the policy’s fairness and safety. Judicial review empowers courts to block or delay government initiatives, often frustrating ministerial objectives by prioritizing legal principles over political expediency.
To curtail the scope of judicial review and to restrain judicial activism, reform is needed to ensure that government is able to address critical issues such as immigration and welfare reform, while preserving the judiciary’s role as a check on unlawful executive action.
Judicial Review Reform Act – Month One
Order 53, enacted in 1977 and now incorporated into Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), governs judicial review applications. Its permissive standing rules (“sufficient interest”) and expansive remedies have fueled challenges to policies like the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and Universal Credit rollout, with 5,000 judicial review applications annually by 2023. Reform is needed to refocus judicial review on statutory breaches rather than discretionary policy disputes.
We need to introduce a Judicial Review Reform Act within the first 100 days of the administration, amending CPR Part 54 via statutory instrument to amend Order 53/CPR Part 54. These changes would:
Restrict Claimant Standing: Replace the current “sufficient interest” test with a stricter criterion: “Only those personally and materially affected by the decision may apply.”
Tighten Permission Requirements and Limit Remedies: Prevent courts from mandating policy fixes.
Judicial Conduct and Tenure Act – Month One
Section 11(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 currently allows judges to be removed only by parliamentary address for incapacity or misbehavior, a process last used in 1830. This high threshold leaves no remedy for judges whose rulings consistently reflect personal activism over statutory interpretation, undermining public trust in the rule of law.
We need a Judicial Conduct and Tenure Act to amend the 1981 Act to allow the Lord Chancellor to remove senior judges whose adjudication is based on activism rather than narrowly interpreting what the law says.
Judicial Appointments Reform Act – Month One
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 transferred judicial appointments from the Lord Chancellor to the JAC, an independent body that lacks democratic accountability. We need to abolish the JAC and restore judicial appointment powers to the Lord Chancellor, accountable to Parliament. Appointees must be required to demonstrate strict adherence to statutory interpretation over policymaking, assessed via a revised merit-based framework emphasizing legal precedent and judicial restraint.
This would require a Judicial Appointments Reform Act to repeal relevant sections of the 2005 Act, disband the JAC, and reinstate the Lord Chancellor’s role, effective within 6 months. Mandate annual parliamentary reports on appointments to ensure transparency.
Having pre-emptively moved against the intransigence of the state machinery, ministers in an incoming administration then need to move to repeal the toxic legislative legacy of the past two decades.
MILESTONE 3: Undoing the Blairite Legislative Legacy – Legislative Action – Year One
The administrations of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, and Boris Johnson introduced laws that, while well-intentioned, have had catastrophic consequences. The Human Rights Act embeds judicial oversight, the Communications Act stifles free speech, the Climate Change Act imposes burdensome net zero targets, and the Equality Act enforces a framework critics argue undermines meritocracy.
This legislation needs to be repealed and replaced as follows:
British Sovereignty Act – First Parliamentary Session
The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, allowing courts to interpret domestic cases through a supranational lens. This erodes parliamentary sovereignty by empowering judges to overrule elected lawmakers.
Repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a British Sovereignty Act. This new law would mandate that judges adjudicate solely based on UK statutes and common law precedents, free from ECHR influence, while preserving fundamental rights like fair trials and free expression as defined domestically.
Free Speech Act – First Parliamentary Session
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 criminalizes online speech deemed “grossly offensive,” leading to over 3,000 arrests annually for social media posts, many of which involve subjective offenses. Meanwhile, the Serious Crime Act 2007’s replacement of common law incitement with narrower statutory offenses has weakened prosecutorial clarity.
We must amend Section 127 to protect all expressions of opinion, regardless of perceived offensiveness, unless they meet a high threshold of direct harm (e.g., credible threats). Reinstate the common law offense of incitement under the Serious Crime Act 2007, defined as intentional provocation of imminent lawless action, per historical precedent.
Climate Change Repeal Act – First Parliamentary Session
The Climate Change Act 2008 mandates net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, underpinned by five-year carbon budgets and oversight from the Climate Change Committee. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR, 2023) estimates compliance costs could exceed £1 trillion by 2050, with industries like manufacturing and energy facing disproportionate burdens. This hampers economic growth.
We must repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 in its entirety, eliminating net zero targets, carbon budgets, and the CCC. Replace it with a pragmatic energy policy focused on affordability and security, allowing market-driven innovation to address emissions without statutory mandates.
Meritocracy Act – First Parliamentary Session
The Equality Act 2010’s nine protected characteristics (e.g., race, gender, disability) have led to policies prioritizing diversity over competence, with public sector bodies like the NHS spending £13 million annually on equality officers.
We must repeal the Equality Act 2010 and enact a Meritocracy Law stating: “It shall be unlawful to discriminate against any individual in employment, housing, education, or public services on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender.” This shall prohibit public bodies from recruiting, managing, or promoting individuals on any basis other than merit, assessed via objective performance metrics (e.g., qualifications, output).
MILESTONE 4: Unleashing Economic Growth Through Radical Deregulation
Britain will continue to decline without economic growth.
Since the 1990s, the regulatory burden has grown. The post-Brexit opportunity to abolish EU-derived red tape has been squandered. Rather than attempt supply-side reform, successive administrations have resorted to monetary stimulus to offset the sclerotic effects of regulatory excess. We need a different approach to unlock growth.
Planning Deregulation Act – First Parliamentary Session
The UK’s housing shortage—estimated at 4.3 million homes—is partly caused by restrictive planning laws. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) delay projects, while Green Belt policies prevent housing being built where people might actually want to live. Affordable housing mandates further deter development, inflating costs by 20-30%. On top of that, infrastructure projects face years of delay from bureaucratic hurdles.
A Planning Deregulation Act is needed to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to:
Simplify EIAs, reducing their scope (e.g., excluding secondary ecological impacts) and timeline to 6 months.
Repeal most Green Belt restrictions, freeing land for housing while preserving only high-value ecological zones.
Abolish affordable housing obligations.
Classify major infrastructure as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008, bypassing local councils and accelerating approvals.
On top of that, the Act needs to deregulate housing design codes, allowing architects to prioritize customer preferences over compliance checklists.
Energy Freedom Act – First Parliamentary Session
Having repealed the Climate Change Act, a new law is required to remove restrictive regulations that get in the way of oil and gas exploration. An Energy Freedom Act would:
Amend the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2017 to exclude downstream emissions from assessments, enabling new North Sea oil and gas drilling.
Revise Section 4A of the Petroleum Act 1998 (via the Infrastructure Act 2015) to permit fracking without local vetoes.
Remove site designation requirements for small nuclear reactors under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, allowing construction in any location meeting safety criteria, accelerating nuclear capacity by 10 GW.
Red Tape Audit – First Year
Despite leaving the EU, most of the 19,000 EU regulations, many of which stifle innovation, are still in place. Rules like the EU Clinical Trials Directive (retained as the Medicines for Human Use Regulations 2004) delay drug approvals by 12-18 months compared to the US, while GDPR-inspired data laws burden SMEs with £1.6 billion in annual compliance costs.
Establish a Red Tape Task Force to conduct a line-by-line audit of retained EU laws within 6 months.
Labour Market Flexibility Act – First Parliamentary Session
The UK’s labour market is too rigid, with unfair dismissal claims costing employers £1.2 billion annually. Tribunal awards, uncapped since 2004, deter hiring, especially among SMEs.
An Act is needed to introduce a 90-day “at-will” dismissal period for new hires, allowing termination without cause, modeled on US employment law.
MILESTONE 5: Reduce Public Spending
Today, government spending accounts for 45 percent of GDP—up from 36 percent at the century’s start and 40 percent pre-COVID. We should target a reduction to 40 percent of GDP within five years.
To hit that 40 percent mark by 2028-29, the government would need to cut spending by at least £130 billion in today’s (2023-24) prices. But to also pave the way for tax cuts, we should aim higher—trimming £170 billion in total (£130 billion plus an extra £40 billion).
Here’s a blueprint for a budget to slash annual public spending by £170 billion over the next five years.
How to Slash Spending by £170 Billion per Annum Over Five Years
Close Eight Government Departments: £30 billion
Welfare Reform:
Disability Benefits: £12 billion
Universal Credit: £30 billion
Housing Benefit: £15 billion
Public Sector Reform:
Reduce Public Sector Workforce: £24 billion
Two-Year Public Sector Pay Freeze: £8 billion
British DOGE Audit: £25 billion
End Most Overseas Aid: £13 billion
Eliminate Non-Essential Quangos: £13 billion
Total Savings: £170 billion
MILESTONE 6: Tax Cuts
Given the dire state of public finances, when and by how much might we be able to cut taxes?
Cutting public spending by £170 billion annually over five years would give some room for reducing the tax burden, but it needs to be done carefully.
Of that £170 billion in cuts, £130 billion is required to bring public spending down to our target of 40 percent of GDP, with a longer-term goal of reaching 35 percent in a second parliamentary term. That leaves us with a solid £40 billion available for tax cuts.
However, there’s more potential: if we enact the bold deregulation plan outlined in Part IV, we could unlock an extra £60 billion in annual revenue from boosted economic growth by the end of the five-year period. Together, this could enable up to £100 billion in tax cuts.
That said, we must also account for increased defense spending (detailed in Part VIII), which requires around £30 billion. Balancing these priorities, we should phase in tax cuts over five years that reduce the annual tax burden by approximately £70 billion.
Here’s how we could make that happen.
Abolition of All Trade Tariffs (£5 Billion) – Week One
In 2023/24, import tariffs raised less than £5 billion, a tiny fraction of the £891 billion total tax take. Collection costs are high, and tariffs should be unilaterally abolished in the first few weeks of a new administration, delivering an immediate £5 billion boost to consumer purchasing power and signaling Britain’s commitment to free trade post-Brexit. This can be done by amending the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 via a statutory instrument, effective immediately upon parliamentary approval.
Income Tax Reform (£40 Billion) – First Five-Year Parliament
Raise the 40% threshold from £50,270 to £57,820 over the term of a Parliament, reducing revenue by £40 billion annually. This would help 5.2 million households. Abolish the 45% rate, merging it into the 40% band. Evidence from the 2013 cut (50% to 45%) shows revenue neutrality due to increased economic activity.
Over the longer term, incrementally raise the 40% threshold to £100,000+, aiming for a near-flat 20% rate for most earners.
Corporation Tax Reduction (£14 Billion) – First Five-Year Parliament
The 25% rate, up from 19% in 2023, is projected to raise £85 billion in 2024/25, but high rates deter investment. Over the term of a Parliament, the corporation tax rate should be reduced from 25 percent to 20 percent, which would, using static assumptions, reduce the tax take by £14 billion annually. In reality, investment growth means that revenues are unlikely to fall that much. If revenue reduction is less than £14 billion a year, the additional revenue should be used to make further reductions in the corporation tax rate. The long-term aim should be to cut the corporation tax rate to 15 percent.
VAT Reduction and Replacement (£10 Billion) – First Five-Year Parliament
Introduced in 1973 at 8% as a condition of joining what became the European Union, Value Added Tax has since ballooned to 20%. It’s time to prepare to abolish VAT and replace it with a Local Sales Tax.
To get to the point at which VAT can be turned into a sales tax, and then a local sales tax, it is necessary to reduce the rate to 15 percent.
In the first Parliament, the rate should be lowered to a new 18.5 percent rate. This would reduce VAT revenue by an estimated £10 billion (from £175 billion to £165 billion). Cutting the rate might in reality mean that the loss of revenue is considerably less than that. Again, any revenue over the £10 billion fall should be channeled back into further VAT cuts, with the aim of getting to 15 percent in a second Parliament.
Once at 15 percent, VAT should become a tax levied at the point of retail (a sales tax), and city and county governments should be free to set the rate and would collect the revenue as part of a comprehensive overhaul of local government finance (see the Adam Smith Institute paper, Paying for Localism, for details of this).
MILESTONE 7: Public Sector Reform
One iron rule of public sector reform is that reforms do not allow for any reduction in public spending. Reform should seek to ensure we get better bang for our buck, as opposed to reducing the amount of buck spent.
Transforming the NHS – First Year
The UK’s National Health Service is in crisis. Decades of bureaucratic inefficiency and resistance to innovation have left it struggling to meet the needs of a growing, ageing population. Patient outcomes lag behind those of comparable nations.
Incremental reforms have failed to address the root causes of this decline, and more and more money has been spent without any improvements in outcome.
We need a fundamental shift in how healthcare is provided in this country—a bold, market-driven approach that preserves the NHS’s commitment to universal access while unleashing the power of choice, competition, and personal responsibility. Here are five key reforms:
Remove Cap on Trainee Doctors: Britain needs more doctors, yet the government, lobbied by the British Medical Association, has capped the number of training places at UK medical schools to 7,500. This was done intentionally at the behest of the medical profession to limit the supply of doctors for fear of "devaluing the profession". The effect has been that we have had to recruit overseas doctors, many of whom have been poorly trained. The cap needs to be lifted immediately.
Provider Diversity: Harnessing the Private Sector: The NHS must embrace a broader mix of providers to deliver healthcare services. Public money allocated to treat patients should not be restricted to public providers alone. Private hospitals, clinics, and specialist services can and should play a larger role in meeting demand, driving efficiency, and raising standards through competition. Under this reform, the NHS would commission private providers more widely, setting clear quality and cost benchmarks to ensure value for taxpayers. This is not privatization of funding—it is diversification of delivery.
Eliminate the Purchaser-Provider Split with Full Market Entry: The current purchaser-provider split, where commissioners like Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) contract services on behalf of patients, stifles innovation and creates unnecessary bureaucracy. We propose abolishing this artificial divide and allowing private providers to enter the healthcare market freely, competing directly for patients rather than negotiating contracts with intermediaries.
A Right to Choose in Elective Care: Patients deserve control over their healthcare, especially when the NHS fails to deliver timely treatment. We will guarantee patients the right to use their NHS-allocated funds to seek private treatment if waiting times for elective procedures—such as hip replacements or cataract surgeries—exceed a reasonable threshold (e.g., 12 weeks). This “escape valve” ensures no one is trapped in pain or uncertainty due to systemic delays. Funds would follow the patient, with private providers reimbursed at NHS rates, maintaining fairness while incentivizing the public sector to improve. This reform builds on existing choice initiatives but makes them a statutory right, not a discretionary option, putting patient needs first.
Singapore-Style Health Accounts: Empowering Personal Responsibility: The UK can learn from Singapore’s innovative healthcare model, which balances individual empowerment with universal coverage. Under this reform, every citizen would contribute a modest, income-based percentage of their earnings (e.g., 5-10%) into mandatory personal health savings accounts. Employers could also contribute, with tax incentives to encourage participation. These accounts would be used to pay for routine healthcare costs—GP visits, diagnostics, minor procedures—giving individuals direct control over their spending and fostering cost-consciousness. For catastrophic illnesses or emergencies exceeding an HSA’s balance, a national insurance scheme, funded through general taxation or premiums, would kick in to cover high-cost treatments like cancer care or organ transplants. Low-income individuals would receive government top-ups to their HSAs, ensuring equity. This hybrid system reduces reliance on centralized budgets, encourages preventative care, and maintains a safety net for the most vulnerable, all while aligning incentives for patients, providers, and the state.
Education – First Five-Year Parliament
Parents, not government, are responsible for the education and upbringing of their children. We need to return to this fundamental principle if Britain is to be the sort of society it once was.
We need to convert all state schools into standalone institutions, free from local authority control, managed by independent foundations. This could be done by an Act of Parliament that transfers ownership of state schools’ assets from local councils to independent foundations.
At the same time, parents need a legal right to request and redirect per-pupil funding to any school. A Parental Choice Act would empower parents to request the per-pupil funding allocation (about £6,000-£7,000 per year for primary/secondary pupils) from their Local Education Authority. Local Education Authorities would have to transfer that funding to the school of choice, whether state, independent, or newly established.
Schools would be required to publish transparent admissions policies and performance data to inform parental decisions. Schools would not be required to follow a national curriculum, but faith-based schools, particularly Muslim schools, would be vetted to ensure that they do not teach extremist ideology.
MILESTONE 8: Strengthen Defence, Realign Foreign Policy
Our overarching foreign policy goal should be to pursue free trade agreements, mutual defence pacts, and unrestricted movement for citizens among the core Anglosphere nations—Britain, America, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
During the Cold War, the UK maintained four army divisions, a force capable of deterring aggression and projecting power. Today, this has dwindled to two divisions, undermining Britain’s ability to defend itself and its allies. We need to:
Increase Defence Spending to 3% of GDP – First Five-Year Parliament
UK defence spending stands at 2.3% of GDP (SIPRI, 2023), below the NATO average for frontline states like Poland (4.1%) and insufficient given rising threats. A target of 3%—approximately £80 billion annually based on 2024 GDP estimates (OBR, 2024)—would restore Britain’s military edge.
Four Divisions – First Five-Year Parliament
Britain is not a European ally, but part of a wider alliance of English-speaking countries that span the globe. This requires us to not merely have a European capability, but an expeditionary capability. We should build an army with four divisions: two dedicated to European defence, reinforcing deterrence against Russia; one for expeditionary warfare as part of an alliance alongside the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; and one for home defence.
Invest in Emerging Technologies – First Five-Year Parliament
Drones, AI, and cyber capabilities are reshaping warfare. The UK lags behind peers like the US, where drone spending exceeds $10 billion annually. Allocate £10-15 billion over five years to develop and deploy drones, autonomous systems, and cyber defences, prioritizing scalability and interoperability with Five Eyes allies.
Reform Defence Procurement – First Five-Year Parliament
The UK’s bespoke procurement process drives delays and cost overruns—e.g., the Ajax vehicle program, £5.5 billion and counting (National Audit Office, 2023). Off-the-shelf solutions could halve costs and delivery times. Mandate that 70% of new equipment be sourced off-the-shelf from trusted allies (e.g., US F-35 jets), reserving bespoke development for strategic priorities like nuclear deterrence. Revise the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy (2021) to incentivize rapid acquisition.
MILESTONE 9: Remigration & Integration
Britain is a sovereign nation. We must exercise sole and exclusive control over admission to our country and recognize that admission is a privilege. It is a privilege that can be rescinded.
We need to not only deport those in the country illegally, but take away the right to live here enjoyed by those that prove to be a net burden economically, or who fail to assimilate, or who sympathize with terrorism and with the aims of Islamic radicals.
Here is a policy to do that:
Voluntary Remigration – First Year
Sweden’s 2023 pilot offering financial incentives (up to £26,000) for immigrants to return to their countries of origin has seen modest uptake—approximately 500 applications in its first year. We need to do something similar, and while the take-up rate is likely to be low, voluntary remigration is an important step towards involuntary migration.
Launch a voluntary remigration scheme offering £20,000 per individual (or £50,000 per family) to immigrants from Muslim-majority countries willing to repatriate permanently.
Target non-naturalized residents and prioritize high-cost regions (e.g., London, where welfare dependency is pronounced).
Involuntary Remigration: Criminal – First Year
In 2022, the UK deported 3,501 foreign national offenders post-sentence, yet many more legally present individuals continue to strain resources or commit crimes without consequence.
We must legislate to ensure automatic deportation for non-naturalized immigrants convicted of crimes with sentences exceeding three months, effective upon sentence completion.
Involuntary Remigration: Economic – First Five-Year Parliament
A significant number of immigrants living in the UK, legally and illegally, are a net economic burden, living largely at public expense. Dutch research, for example, shows non-Western migrants often cost more in benefits than they contribute in taxes over their lifetimes (Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, 2020). We must be prepared to address this, remigrating foreign-born residents that have been welfare-dependent for prolonged periods of time:
Establish a "public burden test" to revoke residency for legal immigrants reliant on welfare or social housing for over 12 consecutive months, unless they demonstrate sustained economic contribution (e.g., tax payments exceeding benefits received).
Introduce a "fiscal impact assessment" for all working-age immigrants, modeled on Denmark’s "self-support" policy.
Restrict access to public funds (e.g., housing, welfare) for all foreign-born residents unless they meet a minimum contribution threshold (e.g., three years of uninterrupted tax payments).
Revoke residency for those failing to achieve net fiscal neutrality (taxes paid minus benefits received) over a five-year period, followed by deportation, unless there are specific circumstances such as chronic ill health.
Citizenship Revocation and Involuntary Remigration: Cultural Incompatibility – First Five-Year Parliament
The British Nationality Act 1981 permits citizenship revocation when "conducive to the public good", a power exercised 104 times in 2022, primarily for terrorism-related cases. There needs to be a massive increase in the use of this power to revoke citizenship from those supportive of political Islamism.
We must amend the 1981 Act to explicitly allow citizenship revocation for individuals (naturalized or British-born descendants of immigrants) who:
Advocate replacing British law with sharia or other non-democratic systems.
Express support for proscribed terrorist organizations (e.g., Hizb ut-Tahrir). (NB: Islamists accounted for 89 percent of UK terrorism convictions between 2018 and 2022. Legislation needs to recognize that Islamist extremism poses a unique threat, and allow targeted monitoring, residency revocation, and deportation policies accordingly.)
Promote violence against apostates, dissenters, free speech advocates, or minorities.
The process of revocation and removal needs to be overseen by an independent panel, ensuring transparency and fairness.
Jackson, Mississippi
March 2025
Thanks. We need to stop funding the BBC. If the government will not do so, some sort of orchestrated boycott of the license fee may be needed. The BBC is monstrous, not only its current affairs, but it relentless promoting of woke ideology in its drama. A lot of BBC drama is unwatchable because it is full of diversity hire actors that aren't plausible or good. BBC coverage of serious current affairs topics, like climate change, has been inexcusably biased. The world will be better without the BBC
We desperately need a coherent plan like yours, offering the same monumental changes now happening in the USA, in order to remove DEI/Marxism/Tony Blair's baleful WEF influence once and for all from our lives and our politics.
We're not getting any clear direction from Reform and the party appears to be on its way to oblivion. Rupert Lowe and yourself are much more in tune with the general mood.
I don't know if you have a strategy to stop Blair particularly in his tracks ... anything 'nasty, brutish and (in) short (order)' would suit the indigenous UK population nicely.