About the West Surrey Council Corporate Strategy

Image credit: Surrey County Council

This is my detailed response to a local government consultation “West Surrey Council Corporate Strategy Engagement,” to be found here: [[1]]. This document gives supplementary information to my answer to the on-line questionnaire.

I am responding in my personal capacity as a resident of Waverley borough. Though I should make clear that I am also campaign manager for the local branch (Godalming and Ash) of Reform UK.

I have to say at the outset that I have concerns, at many different levels, with all that has been and is going on in government, and the local government re-organization in particular. And that the case I will make is a complex, wide-ranging one, which requires quotes from, and links to, documentary evidence. That explains the length of this response – over 6,000 words!

The consultation

The consultation is a multiple-choice questionnaire. There are opportunities to give free-text answers to some questions, but these are limited both in number and in answer length. So, it is not possible to include in the questionnaire the level of comments I feel I need to. I therefore provide this in document form.

I understand that the email address devolutionandlgr@surreycc.gov.uk has been set up to receive questionnaires which have been completed on-line. And that this address can also be used to send supplementary information. I will copy this document to that e-mail.

Background

It is important to be clear about the background against which this consultation is taking place. Particularly as the residents of West Surrey, most of all in Waverley and Guildford boroughs – within which our constituency lies – are in a uniquely disadvantaged position in this matter. Moreover, our situation in Surrey may well be of interest to those in other counties.

Local government re-organization

A local government re-organization is being imposed in Surrey by the Labour government. This will abolish Surrey County Council (SCC) and six borough councils (Waverley, Guildford, Surrey Heath, Woking, Runnymede and Spelthorne), and replace them with a new West Surrey Council. Councillors for West Surrey were elected in May 2026, but the council does not take on its powers until April 2027.

Meanwhile, existing councillors on Surrey County Council have remained and remain in power, even though they have had no democratic mandate since May 2025, at which time the scheduled elections were cancelled. Yet they have continued to impose policies they have been pursuing since 2021, like proliferating 20mph speed limits (such as recently in Walton on Thames).

The re-organization is being passed off as “devolution,” but it is nothing of the sort. Under the old system, residents in what is becoming West Surrey were represented by 81 SCC councillors and 242 borough councillors, a total of 323. Whereas West Surrey will have just 162 councillors. This is not bringing local government closer to home, but centralizing power, and making it more remote, less accessible and less accountable.

And future plans for a Mayor of Surrey will centralize power still further. Particularly because it seems very unclear how West Surrey councillors can resist a mayoral agenda, when that agenda clashes with the needs and desires of the local people who elected them. For example, I have seen a statement that a unitary council will not be able to override a mayor’s transport policy.

Surrey has both urban, London-leaning parts, and rural and suburban parts. And the transport needs of people in the two are completely different. In such an area, to install a mayor with the power to impose one transport policy on the whole area is a recipe for disaster. As the people of outer London have found out the hard way. Yet the Tories, and the Lib Dem leader of East Surrey, have actively welcomed the plan: [[2]]. I am concerned that both these parties want to subject us to what I have (not jokingly) called “ULEZ in Puttenham and Peaslake.”

Council debts

A further major factor is that irresponsible financial behaviour from three of the borough councils in the area which will form West Surrey has left them, and so West Surrey itself, in a position of very substantial debt.

Woking’s debt, as of early 2026, was £2.2 billion, or around £20,000 per resident. Discussions are still going on over who will ultimately pay for this. Spelthorne’s debt reached £1 billion in early 2025, but is currently being re-structured. Runnymede’s is about £600 million. Surrey Heath also seems to have rapidly rising debt (I have seen a figure of £170 million), and a projected annual operating shortfall of about £8 million. Guildford’s debt reached £300 million in 2023, but it has improved matters since. Waverley’s total debt of £140 million (about £1,100 per resident) is middling by Surrey standards.

Meanwhile, Surrey County Council’s own debt level surged by almost 50% in a year, to nearly £1.1 billion for 2024/5: [[3]]. And the BBC reports that West Surrey faces a “very challenging” financial position: [[4]].

2025 consultation

There was a consultation, held in the summer of 2025, on the re-organization proposals. However, this was not satisfactory from the point of view of residents of the better-run boroughs in what is now becoming West Surrey. Particularly since no plan was offered to retain the existing structure until the debt issues had been resolved.

Two proposals were offered, one for a division of Surrey into two unitary councils, the other into three. Neither of these proposals was exactly attractive, though the three-unitary was less bad for the people in our area. But it was clear that, regardless of the merits, the two-unitary proposal, strongly supported by the Tories who were at the time in control of SCC, was always going to win.

Status of the re-organization

In September 2026, the re-organization plans in several counties were put on hold [[5]] due to new legal advice. But Surrey was not included in this process. So, the amalgamation into West Surrey and East Surrey is still going ahead, even though there are significant financial issues still unresolved. All this in the context of a funding model for local government, which even central government concedes is broken.

All these outstanding issues put Waverley and Guildford residents, in particular, in a uniquely bad position with regard to the local government re-organization, and threaten to trap us in a “worst of all possible worlds” situation.

The West Surrey consultation

Before asking anything about people’s opinions, the consultation sets out the “draft ambitions” for the new West Surrey Council. In essence, these are the ideas by which those who expect to be in charge of West Surrey want to guide their policies. They are split into four “themes.” I will reproduce those here.

Theme 1: A thriving and sustainable West Surrey

We want West Surrey to be a great place to live, now and in the future. We want people to feel proud of their local area, connected to their community, and able to help shape where they live. We want to protect our environment and green spaces and be ready for the impacts of climate change.

Theme 2: A supportive West Surrey

We want West Surrey to be a place where everyone can live well. This means having access to health and care support and the housing people need to live happy, healthy and independent lives.

Theme 3: A prosperous West Surrey

We want West Surrey to be a place with good jobs, successful businesses and opportunities for everyone. We want people and communities to benefit from a strong local economy.

Theme 4: A trusted and well-run council

We want people to trust their council. This means providing reliable services, spending public money wisely, listening to residents and making good decisions for local communities.

The other councils’ Corporate Strategies

Corporate strategies are nothing new. Surrey County Council, Waverley and Guildford Borough Councils, and Godalming Town Council all have them already. It is instructive to take a look at key extracts from these documents.

But, tucked away in the background behind all these strategy plans, is a document, first published in 2018, called the Community Vision for Surrey in 2030 [[6]]. Despite its age, this document is still being maintained, having last been modified in August 2026. So, this vision must still be being sought; at least by the Tories, who were in control of SCC from 2018 up to May 2026. I shall therefore begin with the vision document.

Community Vision for Surrey in 2030

“By 2030 we want Surrey to be a uniquely special place where everyone has a great start to life, people live healthy and fulfilling lives, are enabled to achieve their full potential and contribute to their community, and no one is left behind.

Our ambitions for people are:

Children and young people are safe and feel safe and confident.
Everyone benefits from education, skills and employment opportunities that help them succeed in life.
Everyone lives healthy, active and fulfilling lives, and makes good choices about their wellbeing.
Everyone gets the health and social care support and information they need at the right time and place.
Communities are welcoming and supportive, especially of those most in need, and people feel able to contribute to community life.

We want our county’s economy to be strong, vibrant and successful and Surrey to be a great place to live, work and learn. A place that capitalises on its location and natural assets, and where communities feel supported and people are able to support each other.

Our ambitions for our place are:

Residents live in clean, safe and green communities, where people and organisations embrace their environmental responsibilities.
Journeys across the county are easier, more predictable and safer.
Everyone has a place they can call home, with appropriate housing for all.
Businesses in Surrey thrive.
Well connected communities, with effective infrastructure, that grow sustainably.”

Surrey County Council [[7]]

(Although the link says 2021 to 2026, the document itself addresses the period 2023 to 2028.)

“We have a key role to play in improving the quality of life for residents of Surrey, enhancing the infrastructure for business and protecting the natural environment for generations to come.

To fulfil that role, we are committed to a very clear set of priorities;

Growing a sustainable economy so everyone can benefit,
tackling health inequality,
enabling a greener future,
empowered and thriving communities.

Underpinning all our work is our overarching ambition to help everyone in Surrey benefit from all the opportunities on offer in our county, and to ensure that no one is left behind. Now, and in the future.

Helping those who need us most, and improving quality of life for everyone.”

Guildford Borough Council [[8]]

“A Greener, Fairer, Thriving Guildford sets out our priorities as a council for the next ten years, and how we plan to make Guildford borough a thriving place to live, work and do business.

Over the ten next years, we’re focusing on five key priorities for our activities as a council. These are:

a more sustainable borough – we’re committed to becoming a more socially and environmentally responsible borough
a more prosperous borough – building on Guildford borough’s strong local economy to attract inward investment
a more inclusive borough – a welcoming borough where people of diverse identities feel valued, respected, included, supported, and represented
decent and affordable homes – we will use the powers and means available to us to ensure that local people have access to decent homes that they can afford
a resilient and well-managed council – we’re committed to public service, we exist to serve our residents, businesses, and visitors.”

Waverley Borough Council [[9]]

“Our vision as a council is to make Waverley a thriving and inclusive place to live, work, and do business.

To do this, over the next four years, we will focus on five key priorities for our activities as a council:

A more sustainable borough
A more prosperous borough
A more inclusive borough
Decent and affordable homes
A resilient and well-managed council.”

Godalming Town Council

Godalming Town Council’s corporate strategy is here: [[10]]. And I’ve already written, excoriatingly, about it: [[11]]. It is worth noting that, unlike SCC before May 2026, the town council is Lib Dem controlled, with significant Green participation and only two Tories. And the composition has been similar since 2019. Before then, the Tories had monopolized the council.

The strategy states that Godalming Town Council will, among much else:

Support and promote Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.
Provide support, grants and promotion for local businesses that are actively working towards becoming carbon neutral.
Promote at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain on private land and ensure it on land that we own.
Support measures to improve air quality and water quality across the Godalming Town Council area.
Ensure that Godalming Town Council is carbon neutral across Scope 1 and 2 by 2025 and across all other areas of its own operations by 2030.
Ensure net zero scope 3 emissions by 2030.
Lobby for and, wherever possible, deliver infrastructure for electric vehicles ahead of 2030.
Promote an understanding of the climate and ecological crisis amongst our community and work together on strategies for reduction of individual carbon footprint.
Support divestment in fossil fuels and oppose development of new sources for fossil fuels through ‘fracking,’ ‘acidisation,’ drilling and other unsustainable approaches.
Strive to be a net exporter of renewable energy to the grid by 2030.
Promote the concept of Godalming becoming a zero-waste town by encouraging repair, reuse, and re-fashioning in addition to re-cycling an increasingly wide range of items, diminishing the quantity of residual waste generated across the town.
Promote opportunities for a balanced, pedestrian and cycle-friendly, sustainable and affordable public transport system.
Continue to lobby for the implementation of a 20mph speed limit for the Godalming Town Council area and take action to promote active and sustainable travel.

Common Themes

It is easy to see similarities between different councils’ corporate strategies. Waverley’s, for example, is a paraphrase of Guildford’s. There are also words or phrases that occur multiple times. For example: “community” or “communities,” “inclusive,” “safe,” “diverse” or “diversity,” “equality” or “inequality,” “resilient,” “sustainable,” “protect,” “environment,” “green” or “greener,” “climate,” “health” or “healthy,” “no-one left behind.”

These suggest that not only the words, but also the ideas behind them, may well have had a common origin. All the corporate strategies contain elements, at least, of what I call “UN-speak.” So, I can give you a good candidate for the common origin of these words and ideas. And it will explain why the “community vision for Surrey,” from 2018, focuses on 2030.

The United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals”

This agenda was agreed on all our behalves by David Cameron, as I recall without any public debate, at the UN in September 2015. It is also known as the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” It can be found here: [[12]]. The UK government says it “provides an ambitious, globally-agreed, shared blueprint for the world we want to see by 2030.” [[13]].

I gave my views on that agenda earlier this year, here: [[14]]. They are not positive. Indeed, I called that vision “nothing less than a blueprint for the complete destruction of human civilization as we know it today, and for tyranny by a self-appointed global ruling class over every human being alive.” And I used the 2021-2 famine in Sri Lanka as evidence that so-called “sustainable development” is, in reality, not sustainable.

Here are some quotes from the 2030 agenda, which may help persuade you that it is a big part, at least, of the common origin of the various “corporate strategies.”

Preamble. “As we embark on this collective journey, we pledge that no one will be left behind.”

People. “We are determined… to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment.”

9. “We envisage a world in which…” “…consumption and production patterns and use of all natural resources – from air to land, from rivers, lakes and aquifers to oceans and seas – are sustainable.” “…sustainable development, including sustained and inclusive economic growth…” and “environmental protection.” “In which development and the application of technology are climate-sensitive, respect biodiversity and are resilient.” “In which humanity lives in harmony with nature and in which wildlife and other living species are protected.”

27. Sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth… will only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”

34. “We recognize that sustainable urban development and management are crucial to the quality of life of our people. We will work with local authorities to renew and plan our cities and human settlements so as to foster community cohesion and personal security…” “The reduction and recycling of waste and the more efficient use of water and energy.”

Goal 3. “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”

Goal 3.9. “Substantially reduce… deaths and illnesses from… air, water and soil pollution.”

Goal 11. “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.”

Goal 11.1. “Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing…”

Goal 11.2. “Provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport.”

Goal 11.7. “By 2030, provide universal access to safe, green and public spaces, in particular for… older persons and persons with disabilities.”

Goal 13.2. “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.”

I think it is fair to say that the thinking behind this agenda, if not always the exact words, has significantly influenced all four of the councils’ strategies, from 2018 up to the present.

My thoughts on the agenda

This is what successive governments, Tory and Labour, have presented as “the world we want to see by 2030.” And there is a hard “do by” date on it. 2030 is only a little over three years away. That explains why the proponents of the agenda seem to be in such a hurry.

When I first read the agenda, back in about 2017, I thought of it as no more than an earnest, good-sounding wish-list. It was not in my worst dreams that they would actually try to do all this to us. Nor that their 2030 target was hard and inflexible. Yet, that is where we now are.

But wait a moment… I thought government was supposed to serve the people? To work for us, for our benefit, and with our consent? Why, then, is it doing all this crap to us?

Some of my reasons for opposing the agenda are political. I do not respect the UN or its fellow travellers, and here is why: [[15]]. Moreover, being an individualist, I want maximum freedom for everyone who respects the equal rights and freedoms of their fellow human beings. I do not wish to go on any “collective journey” with anyone whose desired destination is incompatible with mine. And to allow an undemocratic, unaccountable organization like the UN (or the EU) to influence, let alone to set, policies in a supposed “democracy,” is a travesty. So, I want nothing to do with the “sustainable development goals,” or any part of them, or anyone that parrots the UN-speak in which they are written.

Other reasons are evidential. Having been trained as a mathematician, I don’t draw conclusions without examining evidence and thinking logically. I have enough understanding of science, history, ethics and politics to know, without doubt, that the “evidence” for the UN’s agendas doesn’t support the lies, scares, hype and gaslighting, to which we are subjected by politicians, activists, media, “experts” and many others that stand to gain from those agendas. I know beyond doubt, for example, that there is no “climate crisis” or “nature crisis,” and here’s why: [[16]]. And I know beyond doubt that there has been serious political interference by the UK government, over many years, in the science of air pollution: [[17]].

Moreover, I can read the entrails well enough to see that, far from being better off as a result of the adoption of these agendas, people are worse off. Far from “wealth being shared” and “inequality being addressed,” today the politically rich are getting richer, and we the politically poor are getting poorer: [[18]].

I have more reasons too; ethical ones. I condemn the arrogance and dishonesty of those that want to force me in a direction I and many others do not want, yet have never allowed our opposition to be heard. And I resent the violations of rights and freedoms that successive governments of all parties have done, to me and others, in the name of political agendas I am utterly opposed to. Government, at all levels, ought to serve people, not to oppress us.

West Surrey

To return, full circle, to the West Surrey corporate strategy and consultation questionnaire.

Theme 1: A thriving and sustainable West Surrey

All the strategies use the word “sustainable” many times. But only one says what they mean by it: “more socially and environmentally responsible.” That is very different from what I mean by “sustainable,” which is “able to endure into the future.” What I have experienced is that in recent decades, policies that aim to make us “socially and environmentally responsible” have actually made us far poorer. So, this is not a word I am at all comfortable to see in any strategy. If government, at any level, puts some ill-defined “sustainability” above the interests and prosperity of the people it is supposed to serve, it is failing in its job.

“We want people to feel… connected to their community.” The authors of the questionnaire seem to sense that people have begun to feel disconnected from those around them, both at local level and on a wider scale. And they are right. People living under a political system that treats them badly will always, over time, become alienated from it. And we have been treated badly by governments of all parties for decades now.

“We want people to feel… able to help shape where they live.” Here is another concern along similar lines. All the mainstream political parties offer the same old, same old mealy-mouthed guff. Like (I’ll repeat the list): “community” or “communities,” “inclusive,” “safe,” “diverse” or “diversity,” “equality” or “inequality,” “resilient,” “sustainable,” “protect,” “environment,” “green” or “greener,” “climate,” “health” or “healthy,” “no-one left behind.” Further, all of them support policies that are costly vanity projects, or cause inconvenience or restrictions on our freedoms. The Guildford to Godalming Greenway, and the Farncombe street “improvements,” for example. And some are so extremist, that they want to abandon fossil fuels, which would destroy our Western civilization.

Those of us who don’t believe any of this greenwash, and even more those who, like me, know that it isn’t based on any objective evidence, feel disempowered in the face of a juggernaut, supported by all the mainstream political parties both nationally and locally, that relentlessly grinds away at our rights and freedoms. You should not be surprised that Reform UK, the one party which actually values people over politics and common sense over virtue signalling, has been growing in strength.

“We want to protect our environment and green spaces.” This is self-contradictory. Green spaces – like parks, hills, footpaths, lake shores – are valuable to human beings. So, protecting them (for example from development) is valuable. But “protect our environment” has taken on an almost opposite meaning. See what I said above about being “socially and environmentally responsible.” For me, the environment that must be protected is the environment for human beings. And green mumbo-jumbo like “biodiversity net gain” should never take precedence over it. Besides which, local government exists to serve those who pay for it – and wildlife don’t pay council taxes.

“We want to… be ready for the impacts of climate change.” Strangely, this represents a degree of walk-back compared with earlier extreme green visions, such as “stopping and reversing climate change.” I am a little bit encouraged by this walk-back, as it seems like a baby step towards admitting that “nett zero” was never going to solve anything, and that the eye-watering costs imposed on us have simply been money down the drain.

Now, it’s true that the climate changes. It always has done, and it always will, till Earth is no more. And it did so long before the Industrial Revolution; witness the last Ice Age, the Holocene Climate Optimum, and the Minoan, Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods. No doubt, human industrial activities have had some effect on the climate. But despite rantings by the UN and politicized “scientists” and “experts,” no-one actually knows how much impact humans have actually caused. And no-one actually knows whether, in terms of human flourishing, the impact of a moderate warming (say, 4 or 5^oC) would be positive or negative.

History, though, tells us that humanity has flourished far better in warmer periods than colder ones. So, I for one am not worried about “the impacts of climate change.” Bad weather will happen, and we should cope with it when it happens. And that’s it.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)

The West Surrey Themes do not mention any of these buzz-words. But the phrase “connected to the community” does suggest that this matter should be covered under Theme 1. Particularly since the questionnaire asks about “people with different backgrounds” and “community tensions,” and asks for the detailed ethnic background of respondees.

East Surrey council has, in recent days, issued a bulletin on its activities in this area: [[19]]. “A strong, inclusive and resilient East Surrey.” UN-speak is alive and well and living in East Surrey. And I, for one, don’t approve of EDI, or of any government that mandates it from local councils.

Now, the concern I expressed above is that many residents of our area have lost contact with the political system they are forced to live under. We (for I count myself among them) do not feel included any more.

However, just as concerning is the policy, mandated by successive governments, called “diversity, equality and inclusion.” To make out that this is a framework “to promote fair treatment, representation, and full participation for all people” is to disguise what many people feel about its effects.

There is a widespread perception that high levels of immigration encouraged by successive governments are changing the UK’s culture in ways hostile to native people. In particular, the “equality” ideal has been misused to move towards a two-tier social structure in the UK, with ethnic natives, along with other white people, in the lower tier. The killing of Henry Nowak provided a stark example of this.

A second concern is that the English and British culture, whose values produced the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, is being submerged. Our values are drowning in a sea of other cultures, not all of which are compatible with our own. This is shown up by the more and more contemptuous treatment of the people by successive governments. As, for example, signing us up to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals without public debate, or any opportunity to object. That is not government for the benefit of the governed!

A third concern, particularly affecting women, is that the greatly increasing number of Muslims in the UK is more and more spreading a culture, which assigns to women a much lower status than they have in Western cultures.

Now, I do not in any way condone racism or gender discrimination. I judge individuals by their actions, rather than by characteristics outside their control. Otherwise put, what matters isn’t who you are, but how you behave. That said, to reject people’s cultural concerns by calling them nasty names like “racist” is unjust and unhelpful.

Theme 2: A supportive West Surrey

Living well “needs access to health and care support… to live happy, healthy and independent lives.” Well, yes. But when the NHS is overstretched, and people can’t afford private health services, it isn’t easy even to get a doctor’s appointment.

There are lots of problems with the NHS, most of which are national in scope. But the politicization of health care, which started in 1906 and greatly intensified in 1948, was never going to be sustainable (in the true sense of the word). Anything the state touches eventually turns into excrement. And we’re needing to shovel the stuff now. There is a need for radical reform, which goes way beyond anything West Surrey can do unaided.

“Care support,” on the other hand, is a relatively new idea. It is also something that not everyone needs, at least until they reach old age. It seems to have been bolted on to the welfare state, without a great amount of thought about how best to do it, and in particular about how it should be funded. This is already causing stresses, in that people who have never used such support are now being expected to pay for it, yet there seems to be no guarantee that they will get it as and when they need it. Again, this is wider than West Surrey.

Living well also needs “access to… housing.” There are two separate housing issues at the local level. One, council housing. This system has been going since at least 1919 (perhaps 1890). It isn’t a matter in which I take a great interest, though I note that some London councils have waiting lists of more than 100 years!

The other is mandatory house building targets. This is a very serious problem in Waverley, where the Tories had already mandated a very high target, which Labour promptly doubled. Last year, I responded to a consultation about the Waverley local plan, with this: [[20]]. I still stand by everything I said there.

The housing target represents a 53% increase in the population of Waverley from 2023 to 2043. Waverley Borough Council, rightly, objected to this as unrealistic: [[21]]. This is something which West Surrey council is going to have to fight very hard on, as it is clear that Waverley, and to a lesser extent Guildford, residents have been singled out for social engineering on a huge scale; which would change the character of our entire corner of Surrey, very much for the worse. You need only look at the movements against more new homes in Tongham, and in neighbouring Normandy, to see how people feel on this issue.

Transport

I wonder why “transport” was not included in Theme 2? If where you live is away from town and village centres, you need transport in order to get to and from them. (As well as anywhere else you need to go).

If walking or cycling are not feasible for you, and public transport is non-existent or not good enough, then a car is an essential. After all, the theme does say that people should be able to live independent lives! So, West Surrey must scrap SCC’s policies of making it expensive and slow to drive a car in our area. And Godalming Town Council also should scrap its green virtue-signalling, and let people make their own transport choices. So that indeed, “journeys across the county are easier, more predictable and safer.”

Theme 3: A prosperous West Surrey

I can’t disagree with anything here. But I will say that for people like me (I am 73), it will be too little, too late.

Theme 4: A trusted and well-run council

“We want people to trust their council. This means providing reliable services, spending public money wisely, listening to residents and making good decisions for local communities.” All these things are necessary. Though at the end, I would add “and for every individual in them.”

But the ultimate key to getting trust is being honest with people. That is a lot harder than it sounds. You will need to be open, transparent, candid and sincere in everything you do and say. You will need to adhere fully to the Nolan Principles (yes, I’ve written about those, too: [[22]]). And you will need to work for the interests of everyone in West Surrey. Everyone.

In particular, you will need to fight against impositions from national government, that are damaging, or threaten to damage, the lives of people in your area. For example: You will need to fight against nett zero, anti-car and other bad green policies (it will need a Reform national government to fix those in full). You will need to fight against EDI, and the culture that has resulted from it. And you will need to fight, on behalf of the residents of Waverley and Guildford in particular, against the impossible housing targets.

Specific points on the questionnaire

To the questionnaire itself. I will identify the questions using text from the question or option, as there are no question numbers on the electronic version.

Oh, and I’ll add another UN-speak buzzphrase to my list, as it occurs several times in the questionnaire: “working with partners.”

Making it easier and safer to travel around West Surrey

I feel this option is poorly phrased, because there is a conflict between making travel easier and the overblown “safety” agenda being forced on us. The former requires better roads. (Even if what you want is more buses, they have to travel on roads!) The latter has been used to bring in draconian speed limits, narrow our roads and install obstructions on them.

I am utterly opposed to 20mph speed limits and to narrowing of, or obstructions on, the roads. In particular, safety benefits of 20mph versus 30mph are not proven. See this study, from 2018: [[23]]. It says, of 20mph limits: “Based on the evidence available to date, this study has found no significant change in collisions and casualties, in the short term.” As far as I know, more recent studies have not found any objective safety benefits either.

I am also aware that these policies are being driven by a UN WHO scheme called “Vision Zero.” For an undemocratic, unaccountable organization like the WHO to be pushing policies that seriously affect the everyday lives of people in Surrey or anywhere else, makes a complete mockery of any pretence of democracy.

I feel that I belong in my local area

I have lived in Godalming for 40 years, yet since 2019 in particular, I have found the local political atmosphere malodorous and unpleasant. This is why I cannot respond higher than “Neither agree nor disagree.” (My views on national politics are even more damning).

People from different backgrounds get on well in my local area

The immigrants we have here in Godalming are generally good people. They do useful jobs, like driving taxis and running convenience stores, and I certainly don’t have any problems with them. I only wish it were like that in the big cities.

My local town or village centre is easy to get around if you have accessibility needs

Godalming and Farncombe town centres are both fairly flat. Their catchment areas are not. The problem is not getting around the centres, but getting to and, particularly, back from them. This makes my car an essential to me.

I believe I can personally influence decisions affecting my local area

Definitely disagree. That is one reason why I felt a need to get involved with Reform UK, though my main focus has been more on national and global issues. And for my sins, I have ended up as the local campaign manager.

In conclusion

In my view, the function of government should not be to implement political agendas or ideologies, or to advantage or disadvantage particular groups of people at the expense of others. It should be to provide an environment, in which everyone can live their own lives as suits them best. That is, an environment of peace, tranquillity, objective justice, and the upholding of rights and freedoms for all those who respect others’ equal rights and freedoms. Beyond that, government should get out of the way.

[[1]] https://engage.zencity.io/surrey-county-council/en-GB/projects/west-surrey-corporate-strategy

[[2]] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx29d8z3514o

[[3]] https://guildford-dragon.com/surrey-county-council-faces-biggest-increase-in-debt-in-the-uk/

[[4]] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr1ewpjw2vq3o

[[5]] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2zkj09dy4o

[[6]] https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/finance-and-performance/vision-strategy-and-performance/community-vision-for-surrey-in-2030

[[7]] https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/finance-and-performance/vision-strategy-and-performance/2021-to-2026

[[8]] https://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/17282/Corporate-Strategy-2024-2034

[[9]] https://www.waverley.gov.uk/about-waverley-borough-council/strategies/corporate-strategy-2024-2028

[[10]] https://godalming-tc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Corporate-Plan-2023-27-2-November-2023.pdf

[[11]] https://libertarianism.uk/2025/09/19/some-thoughts-on-godalming-town-council/

[[12]] https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda