Once these charters are signed, governments get sued for BILLIONS if they try to take democratic control back.

Honduras declared Próspera unconstitutional. Próspera is now suing for $11bn under investor protection treaties (ISDS).

Malik's own DMs to me revealed:
"Trustees are always appointed... Democratic choice runs counter to long-term interests"
"Secretary of State decides" on village vetoes

Forest City 1 is the opposite: private control, appointed boards, tax breaks, wholly dependent on the pot of £160 million State aid for profit motive (illegal in the EU), democracy removed.

That's what "independent of the state" means: Taxpayer risk, private profit, democratic accountability removed.
Williams compared it to Milton Keynes, which was built by a PUBLIC corp accountable to Parliament, elected councils, normal taxation, and NO SEZ exemptions.

❌ Appointed trustees forever—residents can't vote them out
❌ Secretary of State can override 90% village opposition
❌ 80-acre land gift to founders worth tens of millions ❌ Legal documents hidden for "two to three years"

What @LBC NEVER mentioned:
❌ Forest City seeks Special Economic Zone status = £160m taxpayer subsidies per zone
❌ Co-founder Shiv Malik privately admitted seeking "Canary Wharf-style tax reductions"

Patrik Schumacher - anarcho-capitalist architect who worked on NEOM (death sentences for displaced residents per Amnesty International) and Honduras' Próspera (cut water to villages, now suing Honduras for $11bn) - also signed.

I can never get my head around the lack of shame or embarrassment.

I've complained to IPSO about 2 recent Phillips columns.

He wrote "the fact that a plumber is likely to earn more than a professor."

The Times defence is that this was an opinion column...

That in turn risks depressing voter turnout, which is going to be a far more beneficial move for Reform than anything else. It doesn't mean being silent on Labour's inhumane policies though. Those policies harm people right now, while reinforcing Reform's narrative. 4/

It would be foolish though to assume that things under Reform wouldn't be worse. What is needed is a government which challenges Reform rather than being led by it, as is happening at the moment. If Labour carries on the same trajectory there is a risk of people thinking "Reform can't be worse". 3/

This is not a suggestion, even remotely, that Labour's current strategy of "support us doing evil crap because otherwise Reform's evil crap will be worse" is the right one. Reform's evil crap will be, but they'll get away with a lot because Labour have laid the groundwork and "normalised it". 2/