The Fabric of Care

I’ll begin with a confession, I’m still new to understanding the full breadth of issues faced by those on the margins of our town: people sleeping rough, those leaving prison, individuals battling addiction, caught in cycles of petty crime, women exploited through survival sex work and families under intense financial and social strain.

As we’ve worked to move some of these problems out of the town centre to protect its economic vitality, many have pointed out that this doesn’t address the root causes. They’re correct, and it’s why I’ve spent time recently meeting those on the frontline to better understand the realities they face. I want to especially thank Louise Ritchie from SMART, whose insight and experience have been invaluable in helping me understand both the landscape of local services and the complex, often fragile journeys people take as they try to rebuild their lives.

I’ve become wary of how often we describe everyone involved in crime or anti-social behaviour as “vulnerable.” The word has become a well intentioned catch-all that flattens very different human realities into a single category. It can be patronising, bureaucratic, and ultimately untrue. Some people genuinely need support; others are perfectly capable but are making poor choices. And some, truthfully, don’t want to be helped.

Whatever the cause, the goal remains the same: a safer, healthier Bedford. For some, the motivation is empathy for those in hardship; for others, it’s frustration at the damage done to the town. Either way, helping people rebuild their lives is a win for everyone.

In recent months, I’ve met with many of you: the staff and volunteers at SOS, various departments in the Borough Council, SMART and other individuals working tirelessly on the ground. From those I have met, I believe we need a bold, integrated strategy, one that brings together agencies, charities, institutions, and communities, eliminating duplication, competition for scarce funds and the fragmentation that undermines progress.

What follows is my case for integration: a working outline of how a better system might look, grounded in evidence and examples from elsewhere. If there are gaps or misjudgments, I welcome correction and collaboration.

The Landscape in Bedford: Fragmentation, Strengths, and Gaps

In Bedford we already have a number of services doing valuable, sometimes heroic work:

• SMART CJS / SMART Prebend runs outreach, day-centre provision and drop-in support (hot food, showers, clothing, advice, referrals) for people experiencing homelessness, substance misuse and crisis situations.

• Kings’ Arms Project operates the Winter Night Shelter, offering beds, meals, and outreach in the harsh months, while aiming to wrap in support for people beyond just emergency shelter.

• The Bedford Homeless Partnership, via CVS Bedfordshire, acts as a network of charities, statutory organisations, and community groups to coordinate homeless services in the borough.

• The Council’s Housing Options team handles advice, homelessness prevention, and temporary accommodation.

• Clarence House, managed by Riverside, is a supported hostel in Bedford with self-contained units and support staff.

• Amicus Trust is a long-standing local charity providing accommodation and services for people at risk of homelessness.

• Impakt Housing & Support offers supported housing, domestic abuse support, resettlement services, and training programmes.

These organisations, and many others, do extraordinary work, often under immense pressure. The list above is not exhaustive, nor is any omission by design. Bedford is home to a wide network of charities, faith groups, and community initiatives all playing their part.

In my conversations, there are recurring themes: a sense of isolation, competition for funding, turf protection and disjointed pathways. Clients may bounce between providers, fall through cracks, have to tell their story repeatedly or experience delays and duplications in assessments and referrals. Funding is scarce and often tied to specific outcomes, which can lead organisations to guard their populations or their “brand,” rather than work openly together.

In short, the infrastructure for responding to vulnerability in Bedford is generous, but not well integrated.

Why Integration is Necessary: The Evidence Base

Social problems rarely fit neatly into administrative boxes. Homelessness, addiction, crime, and family breakdown are interconnected and treating them separately means treating them ineffectively. A person leaving prison might confront housing instability, mental health issues, addiction, weak family ties and limited employment prospects all at once. A parent in a struggling family may face debt, poor mental wellbeing, unstable housing and risks to their children. To address one issue in isolation often fails, because the other pressures remain unchecked.

“Integrated care” or “joined-up systems” is not a new slogan, but the evidence is increasingly strong that more coordinated, person-centred approaches yield better outcomes, more efficient use of resources and fewer dropouts or relapses.

• The NICE guideline on integrated health and social care for people experiencing homelessness advocates for multidisciplinary, cross-agency teams, wraparound services (housing + health + social care), assertive outreach, and strengthened information sharing.

• A rapid review of integrated care across the UK (2018–22) identifies core enablers (leadership, shared systems, culture, workforce training) and barriers (siloed budgets, conflicting incentives, poor data sharing) that mirror what I have been hearing locally.

• NHS England’s National Framework for Inclusion Health argues that inclusion health groups, people excluded from mainstream services (homeless, drug users, sex workers, those with justice involvement), demand services built explicitly with integration in mind.

• The Housing LIN / OECD literatures stress “bridging sectors” and service integration for vulnerable groups, combining housing, social care, income support, mental health, employment and justice services into coherent pathways.

In short, Bedford is far from reinventing the wheel. The blueprint exists; what's needed is adaptation, local buy-in, leadership and political will.

Evidence of success elsewhere

In some UK locations, Homelessness Multidisciplinary Teams bring together outreach, health, mental health and addiction services, social care, housing and voluntary sector advocates, often coordinated by a lead organisation. The leads to improved health engagement, fewer hospital admissions and more sustained exits from homelessness.

Where Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) are being built, the alignment of health, local authority, and voluntary partners have enabled better prevention strategies for mental health, upstream social interventions and reduced duplication.

Thus, the concept is not speculative, it is increasingly mainstream in public policy and service design. The question is not whether to integrate, but how and who leads.

A Proposed Model: A Centralised, Coordinated System for Bedford

Here I propose an outline for how Bedford might move forward. It’s aspirational, but grounded in what is known to work.

Principles and core components

1. Person-centred case coordination: Each person in contact with any frontline service is assigned (or offered) a case coordinator (or care navigator). That coordinator helps to assemble a plan across housing, health, employment, benefits, addiction support, legal or justice reintegration, family services, etc.

2. Shared data and a unified client record (with safeguards)

   • Agencies agree to common minimum data standards (demographics, risk flags, service engagement, case plans).

   • A secure central (or federated) system allows authorised partners to see relevant, up-to-date information on an individual (with consent), thus reducing repetition and delays.

   • Alerts/triggers when someone is disengaging, or when new risks arise (e.g. eviction notice, prison release, health crisis).

   • Strong data governance, privacy and user consent built in.

3. Multidisciplinary “hub teams” or task forces

   • Teams combining housing officers, substance use specialists, mental health workers, social workers, probation (if applicable), job coaches and voluntary sector caseworkers.

   • These teams meet regularly (e.g. weekly) to review complex or “stuck” cases and adjust support plans.

   • They can also do joint outreach, co-visit clients, and coordinate transitions (e.g. hospital discharge, prison release) more cleanly.

4. Pathways to Independence — putting people in control
   One of the most important lessons from the Pathways to Independence work undertaken by the Milton Keynes Homelessness Partnership is the recognition that recovery and stability cannot simply be done to people, it must be done with them, and ultimately done by them.

   A new system in Bedford must build on this principle. People need genuine independence to identify, shape, and choose the support they receive. When individuals have ownership of their recovery plan, deciding what kind of help they need, and in what order, they are more invested in the process, more accountable, and more likely to achieve sustainable outcomes. This approach restores dignity, agency, and trust, transforming the relationship between services and those they serve.

   In practice, this means co-produced recovery plans, flexible funding to support personal choices, and professionals trained not just as service providers but as facilitators and mentors. Empowerment, not paternalism, should be the foundation of any integrated model.

5. Pathways for key transitions

   • Clear protocols for people leaving prison: prerelease engagement, guaranteed housing placement, connection to addiction/rehabilitation resources, mentoring, employment support.

   • Continuity for women and victims of exploitation (e.g. sex workers) with trauma-informed and safeguarding wraparound care.

   • Bridge funding or transitional services for families in crisis (for example, temporary top-ups, counselling, parenting support) to prevent escalation.

6. Pooled or blended funding and “navigation funds”

   • Instead of rigid funding silos (e.g. “only for addiction recovery” or “only for housing”), a proportion of resources (local, charitable, grant, public sector) are pooled into a flexible “navigation fund” to fill small gaps in a person’s plan (e.g. travel to treatment, temporary childcare, risk payments).

   • Commissioning agreements (via ICS, local authority, health, probation) that reward joint outcomes rather than narrow key performance indicators.

7. Strong leadership, shared accountability, and co-production

   • A steering board or governance body with representatives from health, the council, probation, police, voluntary sector, and importantly people with lived experience.

   • Shared outcome metrics (e.g. number housed, days abstinent, employment attained, reoffending reduction) publicly reported.

   • Culture change: partners commit to non-territorial behaviour (i.e. no “my client, your client” disputes).

   • Ongoing training in trauma-informed care, cultural competence, inclusion health, and systemic thinking for staff across organisations.

8. Prevention and upstream work

   • Investing in families early (debt counselling, mental health support, youth services) to prevent descent into crisis.

   • Schools, community hubs, neighbourhood networks as early warning systems and referral points.

   • Outreach and low-threshold access points in the community, especially for “hardest to reach” groups.

Why This Would Work (and What Challenges Must Be Overcome)

Benefits and rationale

• Better outcomes: People are more likely to engage, stay with support, and “stick” with change when services feel joined up rather than fragmented.

• Efficiency gains: Less duplication (e.g. multiple assessments), faster referrals, better resource targeting, reduced crisis/respite costs (e.g. fewer A&E admissions, fewer reoffending).

• Improved continuity: When someone transitions (prison, hospital discharge, shelter to permanent housing), the system can support rather than drop them.

• Equity and inclusion: Vulnerable and excluded groups often get lost in system boundaries; integration helps reduce those losses.

• Stronger collaboration and trust: Over time, the network of agencies becomes more trusting and less competitive, especially when they are aligned to shared goals, not siloes.

Challenges and risks

• Data sharing and privacy concerns: Getting buy-in for shared systems, ensuring compliance with data protection laws, consent models, and avoiding misuse.

• Territoriality and culture: Organisations may resist ceding control or changing their ways; staff may worry about role overlap.

• Funding silos and accountability: Many funders demand narrow reporting and tight boundaries; reconfiguring that is politically and administratively difficult.

• Leadership and sustained commitment: Integration efforts need stable leadership, not just one-off pilots.

• Workforce capacity and training: Staff need new skills in cross-sector working, understanding other systems, trauma awareness, and collaborative decision making.

• Measurement and evaluation: Agreeing meaningful metrics and attributing outcomes to joint activity can be tricky.

But none of these challenges is insurmountable, the examples and evidence show that with persistence, shared vision, and incremental steps, integration is achievable.

What Could Be the First Steps in Bedford

Here’s how partners might catalyse movement:

1. Map the system and gaps

   • Undertake a local “vulnerability audit” or needs assessment: who is currently being served (or not served), by whom, with what outcomes?

   • Use that as a baseline for planning.

2. Form a multi-agency steering group or alliance

   • Bring in the key stakeholders: Council, NHS/ICS, probation, police, local charities (SMART, Kings’ Arms, Amicus, Impakt, etc.), faith groups, people with lived experience.

   • Agree on a shared vision and some quick “low-hanging fruit” pilots.

3. Pilot an integrated case coordination service

   • Choose a subset of clients (for example, people leaving prison, or rough sleepers with complex need) and assign a case coordinator in a small pilot.

   • Use that pilot to refine the systems, IT, workflows, consent, information sharing and team meetings.

4. Design a shared data/record framework

   • Develop minimum data standards and protocols; examine existing systems that could be federated rather than wholly new.

   • Ensure data privacy, consent and governance from the start.

5. Set up a pooled “navigation fund” or discretionary resource

   • Even a modest sum could make a difference in enabling small but critical gaps (transport to appointments, advance rent, childcare, etc.).

   • Demonstrate value quickly to unlock further funds.

6. Build workforce capacity and relationships

   • Host joint training sessions, shadowing, cross-agency secondments, learning sessions on trauma, inclusion health, etc.

   • Arrange regular case reviews across agencies to foster trust.

7. Track, measure, iterate, scale

   • Begin measuring key outcome indicators from day one.

   • Use a “test and learn” approach: what works, what doesn’t, adjust, expand.

8. Engage community and lived experience

   • Involve people who have experienced homelessness, addiction, justice contact, exploitation in the design and oversight.

   • Let their voices guide what “success” means on the ground.

A Vision for Bedford: One System, Many Hands, Shared Purpose

Imagine a Bedford where:

• A person leaving prison doesn’t exit into chaos but into active support: housing awaiting them, a coordinative handover, access to treatment, mentoring and a pathway to work.

• A woman trapped in exploitation is met with trauma-informed, nonjudgmental services bridging housing, legal, mental health, safety, and economic independence, without needing to retell her story again and again.

• A family at risk is prevented from sliding into crisis because the social safety net (debt counselling, parenting support, early mental health services) catches them early, informed by local networks.

• Agencies no longer guard clients or compete for the same narrow funding pots, but see their mission as contributing to shared goals and pooled impact.

• Bedford becomes known not for ad hoc responses to vulnerability, but for a cohesive, compassionate, proactive system that lifts people out, up and in.

We will need leadership, humility, resources, trust, and perseverance. But I believe our community, organisations, institutions, volunteers and citizens, is capable of this.

I offer this article not as a final plan, but as a conversation starter. If you see errors, omissions, oversights, or better yet, paths forward, I want to hear from you.

---

Agents of Decay

For the last few months I have been working on ideas to strengthen Bedford’s local economy. It follows three years of continual investment and grants: building a football club from the grass up, launching an annual conference that fills every hotel and brings customers to our shops and restaurants, buying and growing businesses, and launching a fund that channels profits back into the town. I set up hardship funds so no child misses out on playing football; I took over and rebuilt the senior women’s team and secured equal facilities; I created and run a conference whose profits go to talented young people with the Bedford Future Fund; and we have given tens of thousands in youth football grants and a recent £25,000 schools fund for equipment.

These are not humblebrags. I don’t need or want a pat on the back. They are evidence, not of moral superiority, but of intent and of results. When you create activity such as football matches, conferences, customers, you fight decline and build opportunity.

So when an initiative to pilot private security in the town centre drew a wave of criticism, it was not only surprising; it revealed a class of people I have come to call, painfully and precisely, the Agents of Decay.

From Observation to Plan

My approach is informed by research, from Jane Jacobs’ insights on vibrant streets to the practical lessons of Broken Windows policing in New York. I wrote a manifesto for Bedford with a five-point plan to ensure safety, clean up public spaces, invest in infrastructure, nurture entrepreneurship, and foster civic pride. A pragmatic sequence to cut out the decay.

The project necessarily began with safety and security. What I want is simple: that crime and anti-social behaviour is not allowed to blight the lives of shoppers, residents, and business owners; that criminals are not free to make life in Bedford a daily misery; that children are not forced to watch people injecting drugs in car parks; that our public spaces are not owned by those who are intoxicated, fighting, vomiting, having sex, or harassing people. I did not realise that insisting on these basic standards of civic life would be considered controversial.

I spoke to victims, shoppers who now avoid High Street, small business owners who have lost trade, residents afraid to walk their children into town.

With the decay evident and in the absence of sufficient police resource, we took the only responsible step available: a private security pilot, working within the law, integrated with police and CCTV, enforcing the PSPO order and protecting our shared spaces.

The Agents of Decay — what they are and what they do

The critics, some councillors, activists, online commentators, oppose the pilot with predictable arguments. They say, “The police should handle it,” but with limited resources, waiting for a response means accepting decline. They claim we’re “cruel to the vulnerable,” yet allowing public drug use where children see it doesn’t help anyone, it entrenches misery. They label private security “paramilitary,” despite its legal integration with police. They suggest it’s “vanity,” but safer streets and thriving businesses benefit everyone, not just me.

I’ve invited critics to walk with me, meet shopkeepers who’ve lost trade, or hear from residents avoiding High Street. All have declined.

Empathy may come from a good place, but when it weaponises compassion into paralysis it becomes destructive, abandoning the real victims, and ensuring the cycle of decay continues.

Collapsing Arguments

They have a handful of standard objections. Each one sounds principled until you translate it into consequences.

1. “The police should do it.” This is not an argument, it is a demand for perfect institutional capacity. When resources do not exist, ideology that insists on waiting for an idealised state response is an effective abdication.

2. “You’re being cruel to vulnerable people.” Compassion without consequence is complicity. Allowing public drug use to flourish where children see it turns them, the most vulnerable people we should protect, into victims.

3. “Private security is paramilitary/privatisation.” Despite regularly explaining that these are professional, trained and licensed security, they give them names such as a militia or a paramilitary. This is an insult to hard-working people, putting themself in dangers way to fill a hole left by the police: through enforcing the PSPO, by reporting crime, by supporting CCTV evidence. The alternative is lawlessness.

4. “You’re doing this for vanity.” If results means safer streets, reopened businesses, families returning to town is “PR,” then we should want more of it. But it isn’t a vanity project, I’d much rather not be spending this money and focused on growing my businesses.

5. “What if the security make a mistake?” This backwards focus imagines a hypothetical error from a team who, two months in, have not had a single report against their conduct, while giving a free pass to the dozens of very real, very serious incidents happening in the town every single day. To obsess over a potential misstep while ignoring the constant damage done to residents, businesses, and families is not accountability; it is wilful blindness.

An Olive Branch to the Agents of Decay

Yet I want to be clear: this does not have to be a war. I agree with my critics on one essential point, we must help and support those with addictions, which is why I have committed to support SOS by paying their first year of rent and bills so they can expand into a proper facility. But here is the reality: I cannot do it all. I cannot build treatment facilities, I cannot provide housing stock, I cannot run full-time recovery programmes.

So here is my offer, again: join us. If you care so deeply about the vulnerable, give up your evenings, walk the streets with us, sit with addicts, bring your proposals, your networks, your time. Don’t just signal your virtue on Facebook. Convert it into work. Show up. If you truly care, the door is open and the people you claim to care for are waiting.

The Choice Before Us

I want to be as clear as possible. I am not going to stop. I am going to prioritise civil society in Bedford, but if people want to join us the door is always open and funding is available. Those who have visited me know this is true.

We have a responsibility to our children, to families, and to the hard-working business owners whose livelihoods are being eroded. We can ritualise morality from the safety of social media, or we can choose to do the hard thing: enforce order where it matters, create safe spaces, and then use those spaces to incubate culture and business.

If you wish to oppose, you can come physically and take responsibility for the consequences of your opposition. Until you do, your moral posturing are not progressive acts, they are the slow, dull work of rot.

Bedford deserves better. The council is close to bankrupt. The police does not have the funds. We can’t wait, civil society must act. It needs shopfronts with customers.

If you love this town, you will either help or step aside. If you prefer the theatrics of angry virtue to the unglamorous labour of civic work, then the town will pass you by and you will be remembered, if at all, as an agent of decay.

---

Peter McCormack - Personal Statement

There have been many accusations, questions, and concerns raised about my motives for supporting private security in Bedford. I want to be absolutely clear: any suggestion that this is politically motivated is without merit. I am making this statement openly and directly to address those questions once and for all.

Yes, I have been asked many times to consider running for mayor. I researched it thoroughly and concluded it is a thankless and near-impossible job. Local government is strangled by statutory requirements imposed from Westminster, leaving little room for positive projects in our town. Add to this the endless political squabbles between the Lib Dems and Conservatives, and it becomes clear the mayoralty is a stage for party politics, not meaningful local renewal. I have no interest in playing that game.

I have no interest either in standing as an MP. That is a role about representing Bedford in central government. My focus is Bedford itself, and I can achieve far more as a private citizen, free from party machines, bureaucracy, and the constraints of political office. If I ever did stand for office, it would only ever be as an independent, because party politics is destructive to the nation. George Washington warned of factionalism, and we are living through the very divisions he foresaw. But the truth is, I believe I can do more good for Bedford outside of politics, building businesses, supporting charities, and lifting up the town.

My guiding principles are simple: life, liberty, and property rights. I believe in the smallest government possible. Government, almost without exception, is wasteful, ineffective, and destructive. I am deeply opposed to socialism in every form. History has shown us what socialism leads to, the destruction of individual liberty, the subjugation of the individual to the collective, and the suppression of speech, thought, and expression. Nobody risked their life climbing the Berlin Wall to get into East Germany. Wherever socialism has taken root, it has produced misery, poverty, and repression. That is why I will always oppose it.

My goal is singular: the betterment of Bedford. That means two things above all else:

1. Safety for our residents

2. Economic prosperity for our town

I have lived here almost all my life. I have promoted Bedford internationally, bringing people from around the world to our town. I secured record-breaking investment for Real Bedford FC, ensuring economic activity and opportunity for local people. The football club is not a profit-making venture, it is a community project. We built one of the strongest women’s football programmes in the country outside the professional leagues, paying our players from the very start and pushing into the third tier of the women’s pyramid. We have invested over £100,000 into youth football, ensuring no child misses out because of cost.

Beyond football, I created the Bedford conference, an event that fills hotels, restaurants, and businesses every year. Every penny of profit goes into the Bedford Future Fund, which has provided grants to young people for sports, business, and the arts., thus far donating over £40,000.

This year with the football club, we added a schools programme, donating £25,000 for football equipment, and we are now working on an arts programme to support creativity in local schools.

I own businesses in the town centre not to make money, they won’t make meaningful profits, but to help revive Bedford’s high street, create jobs, and give people reasons to come back. I support local charities, independent journalism, netball teams, and individuals in need. I do this because I want Bedford to thrive.

The private security initiative is part of that same effort. I have committed £20,000 of my own money to make Bedford safer. This is not politics. It is about protecting people, supporting businesses, and building confidence in our town centre. I spent months talking to residents and businesses, listening to their concerns. This is my response: practical action, not party-political posturing.

In an age of culture wars and endless suspicion, I understand why people search for ulterior motives. But I have only one motive: to improve Bedford. I do not seek applause, recognition, or political office. My only interest is in seeing our town become safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

I will continue to work for Bedford.

—
Peter McCormack

---

Factionalism and Freedom

When George Washington gave his farewell address in 1796, the fledgling American Republic was still fragile, its unity untested. Washington used that moment to issue one of the most prophetic political warnings in history, a warning against the rise of factionalism.

He feared that political factions would put loyalty to party above loyalty to the common good. He saw that they would pit neighbour against neighbour, make compromise impossible, and eventually erode the foundations of liberty. His words were not idle speculation, they were grounded in a deep understanding of human nature and history. Over two centuries later, we have proved him right in ways he could not have imagined.

How the UK Fell Into the Trap

Factionalism in the UK is now so entrenched that political identity often eclipses personal judgement. We have created a culture where a person's views on immigration, taxation, or education can be predicted almost entirely by whether they are red or blue.

Our media has become an amplifier for this divide. News outlets openly market themselves to one side of the political spectrum, feeding confirmation bias instead of fostering honest debate. Policies are judged not on merit but on who proposed them. A good idea from the “wrong” faction is attacked, and a bad idea from the “right” faction is defended. This is the tribalism Washington warned about, and it is every bit as corrosive now as he feared then.

The Stupidity of Left vs. Right

The “left” and “right” divide itself is an outdated relic. Its roots go back to the French Revolution, when radicals sat on the left side of the National Assembly and conservatives on the right. That seating chart has become a lazy shorthand for politics, reducing the complexity of human values into a binary that fails to reflect the real diversity of thought.

Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, explores why we think differently, why some people value liberty above all, why others prioritise fairness or loyalty, and why morality cannot be flattened into a single axis. Yet our political system insists on framing everything as Left vs. Right, Labour vs. Conservative, Progressive vs. Traditionalist. This forces people into ideological camps, discouraging nuance and demonising dissent.

The Consequences of Factional Thinking

Factionalism does not just make for bad politics — it makes for a fractured society. When every issue is framed as “us versus them,” communities weaken. People stop seeing their neighbours as individuals and start seeing them as avatars of an opposing ideology. This erosion of social trust is the seedbed of authoritarianism: once you see “the other side” as dangerous or evil, it becomes easier to justify using state power to silence or control them.

Why Liberty Must Be the Guiding Light

The only reliable compass for a prosperous society is the defence of freedom, liberty, and property rights. Central planning and collectivism, however noble their stated aims, are alien to the spirit of a free man. When a central authority decides how society should function, it inevitably overrides the will of individuals. Rights become conditional on the prevailing ideology, and dissent is punished in the name of the “greater good.” History shows that this path always leads to the erosion of personal freedom.

Voluntarism: The Alternative to Factionalism

A truly free society allows individuals to live according to their own values without coercion. Voluntarism, the principle that human relationships should be based on consent rather than force, offers a way out of the factional trap.

This does not mean atomised isolation. People can and will form groups, charities, businesses, and movements around shared goals. But these will be voluntary associations, not centrally imposed mandates. In this way, individuality is respected, while those who choose collective action can pursue it without infringing on the rights of others. The result is a stronger, more resilient society, where diversity of thought is not just tolerated but embraced.

A Local Path Forward

In Bedford, this means rejecting the mindset that our problems will be solved by Westminster, or that solutions must come from a single ideology. We should be building a civic culture where ideas stand or fall on their merits, not on whether they align with the Left or Right.

Take security in the town. There are those who believe crime is on the rise and see a private security team as a great addition. Others believe crime isn’t increasing and view private security as powerless goons. Some believe anti-social behaviour should never be tolerated; others think those committing it should be supported, not demonised. Where you fall on these issues is often dependent on your political ideology.

In a voluntary society, both approaches can exist side by side. One private individual can employ security within the law, focusing on public order. Another can focus on outreach work, supporting the homeless or those suffering with addiction. Neither must compel the other to act their way, each can focus on the issues they see as most important, both grounded in life, liberty, and the protection of property rights.

This is the ethos of Project Bedford. Our manifesto is not a mandate. It’s a set of ideas for those who agree to work on together. Those who disagree are free to create their own project, their own manifesto, their own ideas. As long as all respect the freedoms and liberty of others, respect property rights, and uphold the non-aggression principle, different approaches can operate side by side, each contributing in their own way to the betterment of the town.

The Beauty of Freedom

Freedom, liberty, and voluntarism are the perfect grounding principles for a thriving society. They allow disagreement without destruction. They protect the right to act without demanding conformity. And they make progress possible without central control.

Factionalism divides. Liberty unites. Bedford should choose liberty.

—
Peter McCormack

---

Consciously Local - Bedford First Economics

This is a call to every resident of Bedford: What kind of town do we want?

• A thriving market town with independent boutiques and specialist shops?

• A buzzing social and economic hub where money flows between neighbours, not out of town?

• A place of opportunity, where our spending builds the future we want?

If we want Bedford to win, really win, then every pound we spend must be a conscious choice. Not convenience. Not habit. Consciously Local. That means asking, with every purchase: Does this money stay here, making Bedford stronger? Or does it disappear into a corporate spreadsheet?

Convenience might tempt you to buy your steak from Tesco, but your local butcher keeps more of that money in Bedford, pays local wages, and delivers better quality. Habit might send you to Starbucks for a pumpkin spice latte whatever, but why feed shareholder profits when Coffee with Art sells better coffee and reinvests in our community?

Most of these choices are made on autopilot. But when you become Consciously Local, you turn every purchase into an act of regeneration. You help money circulate here: funding jobs, supporting families, and growing the local economy pound by pound.

Why Consciously Local Works

When you spend with an independent Bedford business, up to 70p in every pound stays in our local economy. That’s the Local Multiplier Effect in action, money circulating between Bedford’s shopkeepers, tradespeople, suppliers, and landlords.

Spend with a national chain? That figure drops to around 38p per pound. Spend online with a multinational? The benefit to Bedford is close to zero.

Local spending works harder because:

• Wages stay local – Staff spend their earnings in other Bedford businesses.

• Suppliers are local – Restaurants buy from Bedford butchers and service providers.

• Profits are reinvested locally – Independent owners live here, pay local taxes, and often sponsor community projects.

The Compounding Effect on Our Town

Economists call this the spillover effect. Strong local spending doesn’t just help the shop you buy from, it strengthens the whole web of businesses they rely on.

Example: You order a takeaway from Etna instead of Domino’s. That money doesn’t just go to the pizzeria, it goes to the Bedford baker supplying their dough, the local accountant doing their books, the printer making their menus. It circulates.

Each transaction fuels the next. That’s how towns grow resilient, vibrant economies. But the reverse is also true: every pound sent out of Bedford weakens that web.

What Consciously Local Looks Like

• Make the trip into town, even if you could get it cheaper or faster elsewhere, invest in the experience. Mooch the shops. Have lunch. Stay for a coffee.

• Choose independents on delivery apps. If you use Deliveroo, pick Rice Thai, not Wagamama; Etna, not Pizza Hut. You’re not “just ordering food”, you’re directing capital to the local economy.

• Plan to buy local first. For gifts, clothes, stationery, repairs, Bedford businesses before Amazon.

Why This Is Economics, Not Sentiment

Some people think “shop local” is a warm, fuzzy slogan. It’s not. It’s a hard economic strategy.

The difference between a thriving Bedford and a boarded-up Bedford is the aggregate effect of thousands of tiny consumer decisions. Research shows that shifting just 10% of household spending from chains to independents can generate millions in extra local economic activity each year.

This isn’t theory, it’s measurable GDP growth at the local level. It means more jobs, higher wages, stronger public services, safer streets, and a town centre that attracts visitors rather than repels them.

The Consciously Local Pledge

• Bedford First – Every purchase starts with “Can I buy this locally?”

• Celebrate Local – Share and promote the businesses that do it right.

• Shift Your Spend – Move a % of your regular budget from chains to independents.

• Be Visible – More people in town means more safety, more life, more trade.

Bedford will not be saved by government schemes or outside investors alone.

It will be saved by us, pound by pound, choice by choice.

Consciously Local isn’t a campaign. It’s a discipline. We will get the town that we deserve. If you agree with the theory but don’t support it yourself, you are part of the problem.

—
Peter McCormack

---

An Open Letter to Bedford

By Peter McCormack

Note: While this letter may speak in terms of “I,” it must be understood as a call from “we.” This is not just a personal mission, it is a collective effort, shaped by the voices of local residents and businesses I’ve spoken to and worked with. What follows is not merely my opinion, but the shared concerns and aspirations of our community.

A Call to Reclaim Our Town

I want to open with three simple questions:

1. Have you noticed the decline in Bedford?

2. Do you think things are getting worse?

3. And do you want things to get better?

If your answer to these questions is yes, then I am asking, wholeheartedly and without reservation, for you to join me and be part of the solution.

Decline is not just a problem in Bedford. Towns and cities across Britain are struggling with the same issues, but that does not mean it must be this way. For the last year, I’ve been studying this decline, travelling to different countries, meeting with people leading change, digging into the causes and the history, always asking the questions “why is this happening and how can it be fixed?”

The answer, in the end, is painfully simple: The problem is government. And they are not equipped to fix this.

This is not about Left or Right. It is not about Labour, Conservative, or Reform. This is a multi-decade erosion of civic pride and responsibility, a decline fuelled by poor policy, poor incentives and a national economic model that squeezes the economic blood out of towns like ours.

I have also come to a sad and painful conclusion: Government will not come to save us.

As such, it is down to us to spark a civic response and take the restoration of our town into our own hands. If you want a town that is beautiful, and prosperous, where local businesses thrive, where your children are safe, then you have a duty to be part of that civic restoration. Every single one of you.

You must join working groups. You must support local initiatives. You must spend your money locally. But if you sit idly by and wait for someone else to fix it, I say this unapologetically: you are part of the problem.

This week I announced the launch of a pilot private security programme in Bedford. It’s a small but important first step in a wider effort to reclaim our town.

On Thursday, 24th July at 7pm, I’ll be hosting a civic meeting at Real Coffee. I’ll provide the coffee. You bring your ideas and your commitment. Together, we’ll begin mapping out a vision: to reclaim the soul of Bedford and make it once again a thriving, safe, and successful market town. You don’t need permission. You don’t need a licence. You only need the courage to stand up and act.

So What Can You Do?

This is not a one-man mission, I don’t have all the ideas and some might be wrong, I am only trying to coordinate effort. This is about all of us.

1. Security:
   I’m personally funding a pilot programme of private security patrols. If you’re ex-police or have experience in this area and want to volunteer your time, come and join us.

2. Cleaning:
   The council has done its best, but it’s an endless task. We need volunteers to pick up rubbish, fix things and clean graffiti. I will provide the materials for this, I need volunteers to help.

3. Culture & Creativity:
   These Saturdays should not be viewed as defensive, they are a celebration. If you run a local business, lean in. Throw open your doors. Make Bedford buzz again.

4. Marketing & Media:
   We need help communicating what we’re building. If you’re a marketer, designer, or media-savvy local, help us amplify this effort to support the town.

Most Importantly…Spend Your Money in Bedford

Everyone can do this. Make a personal commitment to visit the town centre once or twice more each month. Mooch in the shops. Eat at local restaurants. Spend some money with your neighbours.

Every pound spent locally circulates back into our community. Buy your meat from the local butcher, not Tesco, and you support local farmers. Buy your coffee from the local café, and you’re paying for someone’s ballet lessons, not a dividend to Starbucks shareholders.

Yes, the supermarket is convenient. Yes, Starbucks has a pumpkin spice whatever. But those small decisions of convenience are slowly hollowing out our town.

This requires effort. Conscious effort. And if you make it, the town will respond.

You’ll see the florist return. The butcher reopen. New restaurants emerge. It’s happened in every successful market town where people chose to invest in themselves.

But if we do nothing? If we pass up this opportunity? Then we will get what we deserve.

On Private Security

The security pilot will be operated by Belmont Security, an experienced and licensed private security firm. They will deploy 10 security personnel to operate from 8am to 6pm every Saturday throughout August.

While many have welcomed the initiative, I know there are a minority with concerns. Let me be clear: this project operates entirely within the bounds of common law. We are not establishing a parallel police force, we are exercising our right to protect people and property. There are many similar programmes operating up and down our country.

Our patrols will support businesses, protect car parks, and ensure safe access into town. They will liaise with the police on any incidents and supply evidence for prosecution. And if the police decline to act, we will consider private prosecutions. Because repeat offenders must face consequences.

We are not here to harass or intimidate, we are here to welcome and support. But we will not tolerate:

• Open drug use

• Shoplifting

• Aggressive begging

• Public intoxication

• Littering, spitting, harassment

• E-bikes and scooters weaving through pedestrians

If you are against this, if you believe the above is okay, then I am afraid I do not have the time to discuss this with you. The rights of the many must not be sacrificed to protect the criminal few.

To the Police Officers of Bedford

You have my unwavering support. You are doing God’s work under impossible circumstances. I’ve spoken to you, and I know the challenges you face: chronic underfunding, political meddling, and red tape. You didn’t join the force to file reports and pose for social media photos. You joined to do police work. Let’s work together.

To John Tizard

Calling this a political stunt is beneath you. I met you face to face and told you that all I care about is the safety of the town. You had the chance to lead. You chose vanity. You sent out camera crews instead of patrols. Weakness dressed up as spin. Your focus on PR ahead of policing is the embodiment of a political stunt, style over substance at the expense of public safety.

You are a weak man and you are unfit for the role. Resign.

To the Mayor and Council

I appreciate your time and candour. I now understand the impossible financial pressures you face. Mandates from central government leave you with few tools and fewer choices. But the people are ready to step in. We are here to support you.

To the People of Bedford

Every single one of you has a role to play. And if you do not contribute, then do not complain. I’m willing to put in the time and the money. Please, help me.

• Come to the meeting.

• Join a working group.

• Start your own initiative.

• Support your local shops.

• Reclaim Bedford.

Hopefully I will see as many of you as possible on Thursday.

—
Peter McCormack

---

Let Bedford Work

This is the third in a series of papers on rebuilding Bedford. The first made the case for rejecting decline. The second focused on restoring order and civic pride. This paper sets out the path to local prosperity, through decentralisation, economic freedom, and radical trust in the people of this town.

Reclaiming Bedford: Paper No. 3

Towns like Bedford don’t die because of one single act of destruction, they die from slow suffocation. From economic overreach. From a creeping belief that only government can fix what’s broken. But government is not working. And it hasn’t worked for a long time.

Bedford doesn’t need more top-down plans from people who’ve never run a business. We’ve already seen the failure of these approaches, those expensive town centre 'masterplans' that waste our money on consultants and branding, only to result in more empty units and less footfall.

What Bedford needs is space to breathe. It needs the freedom to build. And it needs to trust the instincts, drive, and creativity of the people who live and work here.

This is a call for radical localism, inspired by Jane Jacobs, who defended the bottom-up vitality of real neighbourhoods, and Friedrich Hayek, who showed why the central planner can never match the collective wisdom of free individuals making their own decisions.

This paper sets out five bold actions Bedford can take to unlock its potential: trust local knowledge, scrap top-down planning, create an economic free zone, cut taxes and audit every penny the council spends.

Action 1: Trust Local Knowledge

In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs warned against the fantasy that cities could be engineered like machines. “Cities,” she wrote, “have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.”

She saw what we see now: planners don’t understand real life on the ground. The heartbeat of a town. The hidden economy. The informal exchanges that make a place tick. When government tries to control that from above, it flattens everything that makes a town thrive.

Hayek echoed this in The Use of Knowledge in Society, where he explained that knowledge is “dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory information” held by individuals. Government can’t replicate it, it can only get in the way of it.

So the implication is simple: the more we trust people, the more they’ll build.

Innovation doesn’t come from strategy documents or consultations. It comes from people trying things, quickly, freely, without waiting for permission.

But under government bureaucracy, that spirit gets buried. Under high taxation it gets suffocated:

• A café wants to put out a few extra chairs - there’s a form for that.

• A barbershop wants to play music - they need a licence.

• A business wants to hire someone - they face a minefield of employment law designed by union-backed politicians.

All of this under a tax regime that bleeds businesses dry, choking off the profits that fuel ambition and innovation. Government has abandoned its purpose and become a parasite, treating every penny you earn as theirs to seize at will. Let’s call it what it is: legalised state racketeering.

Bedford doesn’t need more red tape. It doesn’t need fairness lectures from people who’ve never made payroll. It needs to unleash its builders, traders, and entrepreneurs.

Action 2: Scrap Top-Down Planning

Jane Jacobs spent much of her life fighting modernist planners who wanted to bulldoze neighbourhoods and replace them with “rational” developments. What they left were dead zones: soulless towers, failing estates, and streets nobody wanted to walk down. She called it “a senseless order, imposed by command.”

That same spirit is alive in our councils and government departments today: endless frameworks, consultation exercises, performance indicators, but no life, no urgency, no instinct to say yes to people with ideas.

As Hayek put it in The Road to Serfdom, “The more the state ‘plans,’ the more difficult planning becomes for the individual.” Every licence, restriction, and delay is a barrier between a good idea and action.

Top-down planning doesn’t build towns. It kills them.

Bedford needs permissionless action, the freedom for people to trade, test, build and create without waiting for bureaucratic sign-off.

Action 3: Create an Economic Free Zone

Local businesses are the heartbeat of Bedford but they’re being strangled by business rates, rent, energy costs, regulation and unfair competition.

The Problem with Business Rates

Business rates were meant to fund local services through a tax on commercial properties. But in today’s economy, they’ve become a weapon against local businesses, an outdated tax crushing the very entrepreneurs that give towns their character.

In theory, they’re simple: your property gets a rateable value based on what it might rent for. That value is multiplied by a government-set figure (currently 49.9p for small businesses) to give your bill. What’s not simple is the world local businesses are now forced to compete in.

Unfair Playing Field

Online shopping has changed everything. People now order with a click, and high streets pay the price. Soulless retail parks, built with parking, scale, and tax efficiency in mind, leech life from town centres. Supermarkets no longer just sell food; they’ve moved into clothing, electronics, pharmacies, cafes, and even banking, colonising every high-margin sector once served by independents.

And then come the multinationals.

Take Starbucks. They don’t just open a single store, they cluster multiple locations across towns to maximise visibility and convenience. With global supply chains and vast marketing budgets, they can offer slick branding, loyalty schemes, and seasonal promotions that small independents can’t match. Landlords often favour them with better rent deals, seeing them as stable, big-name tenants. And while local cafés pay full whack on business rates and taxes, Starbucks has been widely criticised for using complex international structures to minimise their UK tax bill. The money flows out, the independents fold, and we’re left with a high street that looks the same in every town.

And their coffee is crap.

Why Local Matters

The local café owner buys milk from the corner shop, beans from a UK roaster, pays local wages, and reinvests their profits back into the community. Every pound spent with them circulates through the local economy 3–4 times, building resilience, not extracting it. Yet they’re hammered by high rents, punishing business rates, and taxes on everything from space to staff to waste.

And what do they get in return?

This isn’t just bad policy, it’s economic vandalism. If we don’t act, our town centres will rot into ghost towns: boarded-up shops, chain-store mediocrity, and a fertile ground for the growing problem of anti-social behaviour.

We must not accept this. We will not accept this.

That’s why Bedford’s town centre should be an Economic Free Zone: zero business rates for small, independent, locally-owned businesses. This wouldn’t apply to chains. It’s targeted relief to restore fairness and revive our town centre with the personality of the people that live there..

As Hayek said, ‘Competition is a discovery procedure’, a way to reveal what works by unleashing many independent attempts. But that only happens when people are free to try. And right now, locals are taxed out of the race before it begins.

Ah, but business rates are a statutory tax set by Westminster. Councils have discretion to offer rebates or local relief schemes, they should use that power boldly

Action 4: Cut Council Tax, Restore Freedom

Council tax has risen by 36% nationally over the past decade, but in Bedford, it's even worse. Band D households now pay over £2,356 a year, a 44% increase.

And what do we get in return? Fewer police, more crime, a high street which is dying.

Does council tax need to rise every year? Absolutely not. So why does it? Because there are virtually no constraints. When a council lacks fiscal discipline, it simply raids the pockets of hardworking residents.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Councils should commit to reducing council tax year on year, not as a gimmick, but as a moral and financial imperative. This doesn’t mean cutting essential services. It means putting first things first: safety, cleanliness, and core infrastructure. Everything else must prove its worth or go.

As Hayek warned, “Once it is recognised that the function of government is not to ensure particular results to particular people, but merely to provide a framework within which individuals can pursue their own ends, the justification for taxation beyond the minimum required for those functions vanishes.”

Lower council tax means more money in people’s pockets, more dignity, and more economic freedom. It also forces the council to confront the hard questions it’s been avoiding…

Action 5: Audit Everything. Cut the Fat.

We need a full, public audit of every pound spent by Bedford Borough Council, not just to find waste, but to ask: should the council even be doing this at all?

Councils have expanded their scope far beyond what’s reasonable. They’ve become quasi-governments, running PR departments, sponsoring “inclusivity” officers, funding vanity schemes, duplicating services already handled by charities or the private sector.

We must embrace constraint.

Constraint focuses the mind. It forces prioritisation. And it restores public trust, because right now, few people believe the council spends their money wisely.

The council’s role must be redefined:

• What must it do?

• What might it support?

• And what should it never touch again?

Everything else should be left to civil society, business, volunteers and the community. The people who already do the real work anyway.

This approach requires humility, the recognition that no central body can solve every problem for every citizen. The more a council tries to solve, the more it undermines the very foundations of society: initiative, responsibility, and self-reliance.

That’s why we start with a line-by-line audit of council spending. Every contract. Every job role. Every department. No sacred cows.

We should ask:

• Is this essential?

• Could it be done more efficiently?

• Should it be done at all?

This process begins with a freeze on all non-essential spending. A review of procurement contracts to eliminate waste and sweetheart deals. An end to funding lifestyle activism, PR departments, fringe initiatives, and political pet projects. A discipline to say no to the creeping belief that the council exists to fix every grievance, subsidise every want, and cushion every personal hardship.

This isn’t austerity. It’s clarity. And it’s the path back to liberty through discipline and responsibility.

From Civic Dependency to Civic Action

Jane Jacobs called cities “problems in organised complexity.” You can’t solve them from spreadsheets. You can only steward them with trust and freedom.

Hayek called this spontaneous order, the emergence of structure and value when free people act on their knowledge without central instruction.

That’s the Bedford we want: not micromanaged into mediocrity, but alive with civic energy. Where locals take responsibility, clean streets, open shops, support neighbours, host markets, build culture.

A town not controlled, but thriving. Not directed, but dynamic.

Final Word

We don’t need another five-year plan. We don’t need more consultations. And we definitely don’t need another government-funded ‘town centre revitalisation scheme.’

We need freedom. We need trust. We need government to step aside and let Bedford work.

---

No Broken Windows in Bedford

Reclaiming Bedford: Paper No. 2

In the early 1990s, New York City faced what felt like irreversible decline. Crime was rampant, public spaces were decaying, and confidence in the city’s future was falling. But then something remarkable happened. Under Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton, a new strategy was introduced: Broken Windows Policing.

The theory came from criminologists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. Their argument was simple but profound: if a window is broken and left unrepaired, it sends a message that no one cares. And if no one cares, small crimes escalate into larger ones. The answer was to take the small things seriously: fix broken windows, clean up graffiti, tackle petty crime, and uphold public order.

This approach wasn’t about zero-tolerance brutality; it was about setting and enforcing standards that made law-abiding citizens feel safe again. And it worked. Crime plummeted, businesses returned, and New York experienced one of the most dramatic urban turnarounds in modern history.

Similar Crossroads

Walking through Bedford’s town centre, as with so many across the country, you can sense echoes of the decay New York once faced: rubbish on the High Street, boarded-up shops, public drunkenness, open drug use and entire buildings left to rot. It’s all too easy to grow numb to it, to accept this decline as the new normal. But this isn’t normal, and if we don’t act, it will only get worse.

The town centre isn’t just a place where people buy things. It is the heart of our town: our economic engine and our social commons. It’s where people come to work, relax, meet friends, support local businesses and build lives. When we neglect the town centre, we do more than let buildings decay, we allow our civic life to collapse.

Reversing Terminal Decline

Terminal decline doesn’t happen overnight, it creeps. First, footfall drops as people no longer feel safe or welcome. Businesses struggle and eventually shut their doors. Jobs are lost. What’s left behind is a vacuum, quickly filled by anti-social behaviour, addiction, crime, and despair.

The fewer reasons people have to come to town, the more it becomes a place people avoid. And when we lose the town centre, we lose more than an economic hub, we lose pride, opportunity, and community.

We can reverse this decline, reclaim our town and build a place where businesses thrive, families feel safe, and our community can flourish once again. It starts with the will to act.

Clarity, Courage & Discipline

Discipline in public life means upholding standards. It means drawing boundaries. And it means refusing to confuse empathy with enabling destructive behaviour.

Too often, local authorities fall into what Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy: a well-meaning but ultimately self-destructive instinct to tolerate behaviour that ruins public life for the majority. I’ve seen it firsthand in America’s progressive cities. San Francisco is the prime example. As Michael Shellenberger writes in San Fran-sicko, misguided compassion has led to a city where open-air drug markets, untreated mental illness, and aggressive homelessness are tolerated under the guise of social justice, while families and businesses suffer. In short, progressive policies ruin cities.

Let us say this clearly: there is no place for misguided progressive policies that allow a small minority to make life unbearable for everyone else in Bedford. We’ve tried the liberal approach. It has failed. Now it is time for tough love, order, and responsibility.

Bold Actions

To restore Bedford, we must take bold and unapologetic action:

1. Expand and Enforce the PSPO (Public Space Protection Order)
   The Council already has the powers to address anti-social behaviour, but they are too narrow, too weak, and rarely enforced. We need to expand the PSPO zone to cover the entire town centre and enforce it vigorously. That means no more turning a blind eye to groups of alcoholics gathering on the green at the top of the High Street, drinking, fighting, vomiting and scaring residents. If the police won’t enforce it, the Council should deputise a private security team.

2. Zero Tolerance for Drug Crime
   Open drug use has become common in the town. With it comes petty theft, intimidation, and an atmosphere of danger. Business owners are sick of watching crackheads shoplift and make the public car parks feel unsafe. The police must be told in no uncertain terms: the town centre is a no-go zone for drugs. Arrests must happen. Enforcement must be visible.

3. Clamp Down on Aggressive Begging
   Not all begging is the same. Some is coercive, some is criminal, some is part of organised activity. We need a clear distinction between those in genuine need, who should be supported, and those harassing residents, intimidating shoppers, or running scams. The public must feel safe and unbothered in town.

4. Review the Housing of Vulnerable Populations in the Town Centre
   There are people who want help and want to change. They should be supported. But those who refuse help, persistently offend, or fuel anti-social behaviour should be excluded from the town centre. HMOs that have effectively become crack houses must be shut down, and those abusing the housing system must lose access to it. We are not obligated to subsidise destruction.

5. Stop the Importing of Other Councils’ Problems
   It is outrageous that councils like Luton are offloading their most difficult cases onto Bedford. If someone is placed here without a connection to the town and brings disruptive behaviour, they should be supported to return to their community. Bedford is not a dumping ground.

6. Clean the Streets and Raise Standards
   Basic civic pride starts with clean streets. Today, too many areas are filthy with overflowing bins, takeaway litter, smashed bottles. Businesses must take responsibility for the area outside their premises. The Council must enforce cleanliness standards. When the streets are clean, people feel different and they behave differently too.

Civic discipline

Civic discipline isn’t about punishing the vulnerable, it’s about protecting the community. It is about drawing a line between help and harm. It’s about making Bedford safe for the elderly, welcoming for families, and vibrant for entrepreneurs.

The liberal approach, based on vague compassion and endless tolerance, has led to decay. What we need now is a return to conservative principles: structure, responsibility, pride in place, and hard work. That’s how we restore our town.

We act now or we lose what’s left.

No more broken windows in Bedford.

---

A Declaration of Civic Restoration

Reclaiming Bedford: Paper No. 1

Bedford is in decline. As are many towns across the U.K.

Empty shops, rising crime, and a tough economic environment highlight a decline that many of us see and feel.

Families, workers, and businesses are caught in systems that no longer serve them. Local politicians lack the power to act decisively and central government policies often prioritise self-preservation over lasting change.

So why is this happening, and how can we fix it?

Historic Perspective

In trying to understand the problems we face, we can look to the parallels with the founding of the United States. Faced with distant and unresponsive governance, the American colonists returned to first principles regarding core ideas about liberty, self-determination, and the proper role of government.

In 1776, the American colonists described a government that taxed without consent and deployed bureaucracies to harass and control. The people were treated not as citizens, but as subjects.

Does this sound familiar?

Thomas Jefferson wrote that when a government becomes “destructive of these ends”, the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. The American patriots did not wait for permission. They did not ask politely. They did not accept decline as destiny.

Thankfully, the United Kingdom is not on the verge of violent revolution, nor should it be. Instead, we have the opportunity to drive a different type of revolution: a peaceful one driven by community. No muskets. No militias. Only resolve. Resolve to act, to organise, to reject decline and build something better. Because when government no longer works, we must act.

Government is the Problem

At the national level, government has grown into a stagnant blob, a creature of its own appetites. It taxes endlessly, spends blindly, and regulates obsessively. It talks of fairness while presiding over a rigged and decaying system. It offers benefits in place of opportunity and surveillance in place of safety.

Locally, councils are trapped. Shackled by statutory duties that leave no room for bold action. Their budgets are consumed by social care mandates while local entrepreneurs are held back by a business rates system hostile to growth. Even those with good intentions are rendered impotent by the machinery of government.

The consequences are there for us all to see. Bedford’s town centre has become a place where drug addicts and alcoholics roam the high street, openly taking drugs and contributing to the plague of shoplifting which the police refuse to deal with. Shops sit vacant, and families, especially women, come to the town less and less as they feel unsafe. Coupled with a neglect for the aesthetics of the town, it is unsurprising that so many refer to the town centre as a “shit hole”.

Bedford is not unique with these problems but it can be unique with its refusal to accept decline as inevitable. It can show the country that when government cannot fix a town, the people can.

A Call to Action

What is needed now is an army, not of soldiers, but of locals. Locals who are proud, angry, and determined. Locals who believe Bedford can be more than it has become. If united, this town can be rebuilt from the ground up. Not in theory. In practice: specific, implementable, unapologetic plans.

Those who believe this must do more than agree, they must act. Show up. Sign up. Speak up. Join the working groups.

---

This article was inspired by the American Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers.

More articles will be written to highlight why we must take action to reclaim our town.