You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Andrew Neil’ tag.

There are two more increasingly popular Spectator TV videos to view, brilliantly presented by Andrew Neil.

Each of the episodes below is one hour long, but it is unlikely that those seeking real news and analysis will be bored.

As a supporter of President Trump, I was somewhat less impressed with Episode 3, from September 17, which downplayed his chances for re-election as well as his foreign policy, as many of us consider it a peacetime triumph:

Sweden’s state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell was the first to be interviewed about his nation’s handling of coronavirus. As we know, they had no lockdown.

Tegnell regretted not having controlled the many deaths in care homes — similar to those in other Western nations. There were also other lives that could not be saved because of co-morbidities. He said that a lockdown would not have saved them.

The problem in the care homes related to their separation from a national health care system, again, not dissimilar to the tragic result seen in other nations, particularly the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

He indicated that Sweden wanted to ensure that care home fatalities were resolved going forward as well as those among minority populations. He said that an EU commission was looking into those challenges.

Neil asked why Sweden was one of the few countries that ignored the projections from Imperial College London earlier this year. Tegnell replied that Imperial’s models were ‘quite extreme’ and ‘doubtful’. He added that models are not made ‘for prognosis’ because ‘you don’t really know’ what is going to happen.

He said, ‘This is not a competition’ and expressed his desire for more international collaboration and discussion to find a common pathway towards fighting the a second wave of the pandemic as well as agreement on testing.

He said that Sweden had been conducting 80,000 tests a week with no recent deaths.

Good for Sweden. They did well considering they bucked all the odds.

In case the interview is difficult to listen to because Tegnell is on a train, here is another transmission:

Episode 4 of Spectator TV, from Thursday, September 24, covered a multitude of health, economic and political topics:

Kate Andrews talked about the broadcast that Dr Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance made about coronavirus last week. Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave a statement last week on a winter economic programme. It focussed on a change from furlough, which expires in October, to a jobs subsidy for viable employment. She said that there is no doubt that unemployment will rise in the UK in the coming months.

James Forsyth echoed that and said that Rishi Sunak’s plan is to retain as many current jobs as possible but also to create many more.

On that note, Katy Balls said that there is some tension between 10 and 11 Downing Street. Boris errs on the side of health and personal safety. Rishi is more focussed on the economic numbers in order to keep Britain afloat.

With regard to coronavirus, Dr Flavio Toxvaerd, an economic epidemiologist from Cambridge University, said that epidemiologists do not have a good estimation of human behaviour. He did not believe that we were likely to see the latest coronavirus predictions from Whitty and Vallance’s graphs come true. That said, there is a delicate balance to be struck between health and the economy in dealing with COVID-19. Both are critical at this time. Neither can be viewed in isolation.

With regard to his eponymous amendment anticipated to be brought before the House of Commons, Sir Graham Brady said he felt confident that any future coronavirus-related statutory instruments would have to be brought before the House of Commons for debate and a vote prior to implementation.

Questions have been raised as to Boris Johnson’s future as Prime Minister. Katy Balls and James Forsyth both thought that he would not be gone by the end of the year, as many have predicted over the past several days. Leaving the EU, they predicted, will put fuel in the tank for 2021, so to speak.

Turning to the upcoming US elections, Dominic Green said that a Biden administration would favour the EU more than the United Kingdom emerging from Brexit. Again, this assumes that Joe Biden will win the election. Green rightly warned that polls are unreliable. (We saw the same situation four years ago with the polls and the ‘Trump can’t win’ theme. We are seeing it again now.)

Thousands of us are grateful to the NatWest Group for sponsoring these useful broadcasts.

Last Monday, I wrote about the debut of Spectator TV, from The Spectator‘s editors and writers, presented by Andrew Neil.

A lot of viewers loved it:

It’s now on YouTube:

If you missed the first episode …

Episode 2 came out on Thursday, September 10:

Enjoy:

The most interesting parts were with Dr Elisabetta Groppelli, a virologist from the University of London, who has been participating in a coronavirus vaccine trial and explains the complications with said trials.

She said that the UK has pre-ordered the Astra Zeneca vaccine, depending on its success. She added that the UK also has interests in other vaccines that are being tested. She said that she thought that it will be unlikely that any of the successful vaccines will be mandatory but that there will be ‘discussions’ to persuade people to have them.

Katy Balls expressed the Government’s concern about university students socialising and possibly spreading coronavirus with partying, even with the ‘rule of six’ people to any one gathering.

Freddy Gray was as pessimistic as he was in 2016 about a Trump win. He was wrong then. Will he be wrong now? We shall see. He thinks the election result, as the Democrats said at their party conference, will be delayed.

With regard to Brexit, James Forsyth says that the biggest problem we will face is around fish. The French will not want to see a drop in their catch. He also thinks that Angela Merkel will step in at a time that suits her interests.

The questions in the second episode were mostly fronted by Andrew Neil, with a large degree of anonymity.

I enjoyed the first Spectator TV episode more than the first, however, viewers will find much to digest in both.

Once again, well done.

Last Thursday, September 3, 2020, Spectator TV made its debut.

Anyone missing Andrew Neil’s piercing interviews on the BBC should definitely watch it:

You cannot ask for a better hour of interviews and analysis about the events of the past week: simply excellent.

It’s free to view.

Professor Carl Heneghan from Oxford was the guest. He described how the current cases of COVID-19 in the UK differ from the ones we had six months ago: less hospitalisation and very few deaths. He also said that the chances of contracting the virus in Britain now are very low overall.

The possibility of a second Scottish independence referendum was the next topic of discussion. James Forsyth (political editor of The Spectator) and Fraser Nelson (the magazine’s editor) laid out the complexity of the issue as it relates to the United Kingdom as a whole. The Scottish people view independence as a heartfelt emotional issue, hence the rise in the polls for an independent Scotland. Yet, the economic realities point to potential hardship should the nation become independent; the oil price is still very low and Scotland has the most debt of any Western nation. Therefore, it is hard to see how they would get by on their own.

James Forsyth said that the UK government should call Nicola Sturgeon’s bluff and start discussions with her on independence. There would be many issues to resolve: currency, trade, cross-border movement, to name but a few. Once the realities become clearer to the Scottish people, they might vote against it, as they did in their first referendum (2014) which was supposed to settle the question once and for all. Fraser Nelson took a different tack. He said that Unionists (those who want to preserve the United Kingdom) need to make a better — and positive — argument for the Union. Because they have never had to do that, it requires thinking differently and presenting a convincing case to Scots who favour independence.

Katy Balls, The Spectator‘s deputy political editor, described the mood on the Conservative benches in Parliament. One would think that with a majority of 79 (it was 80, until the party whip was withdrawn from Dr Julian Lewis), Prime Minister Boris Johnson would have an easy time of things. However, many MPs had a rough summer defending government policy on COVID-19 to their constituents. They also do not feel as if No. 10 wants them involved in anything useful. Some MPs told Balls that they think Boris is being ‘held prisoner’ in No. 10 and that his principal adviser Dominic Cummings is actually running the show. Furthermore, Boris’s appearances at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) have been a disaster since the House of Commons implemented social distancing. Boris performs much better with a large audience, and it will be some time before he gets one. On a deeper level, however, Conservative backbenchers do not think Boris prepares himself enough for PMQs, which they find insulting to their constituents.

The growing tension between No. 10 and Conservative backbenchers means that Boris has to be careful about what policy positions he puts up for a vote in Parliament. Some, e.g. planning laws, he will delay until local elections are held next year; they are too controversial to vote on now, as he could lose.

The programme ended with a 12-minute Q&A from those who registered to watch the programme live on Zoom. There were a few hiccups with the mute button, but some viewers did get to participate. We did not see their faces, just a black screen with their names to accompany the audio. The questions were intelligently expressed.

If the BBC made programmes like this, no one would be carping about the licence fee.

Roll on Spectator TV. I’m looking forward to the next instalment.

Life looked rosy for the Liberal Democrats at their party conference in September 2019.

Buoyed by her election as leader, Jo Swinson, a Scot, appeared on the Andrew Marr Show on September 15. The Daily Mail reported on the programme and the party’s policies on Brexit:

The clear stance on Brexit was cemented when members at the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth voted overwhelmingly to support a motion to revoke Article 50 it the party gains a majority in a general election.

The move would stop Brexit in its tracks without the need for a second referendum.

“The policy we are debating at conference today is very clear,” Ms Swinson told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

“If the Liberal Democrats win a majority at the next election, if people put into government – as a majority government – the ‘Stop Brexit’ party, then stopping Brexit is exactly what people will get. Yes, we will revoke Article 50.”

The East Dunbartonshire MP added: “We have argued that a specific Brexit deal should be put to a People’s Vote to give clarity.

We still argue for that. But if we end up at a general election then I think we need to be straightforward with people and give them an option for all this Brexit chaos to stop.

I recognise not everyone agrees with the Lib Dems on this. (But) it is genuinely what we think is right for the country.”

Is cancelling a referendum result ‘liberal’ or ‘democratic’?

Some voters did not think it was:

Tweets began appearing about her voting record as an MP in David Cameron’s and Nick Clegg’s coalition government (2010-2015). Swinson voted with the Conservatives more often than the leading Conservative MPs of the day:

She went further than most.

However, those were but minor distractions that never hit the media. On September 19, the Daily Mail reported (emphases mine):

Jo Swinson’s party jumped from 19 per cent to 23 per cent to leapfrog Jeremy Corbyn‘s bitterly divided outfit, according to the YouGov vote tracker. 

It came after the party used its annual conference at the weekend to vow to revoke Article 50 and keep the UK in the EU if it won a general election.

Meanwhile former prime minister Tony Blair said today that UK political parties should be worried about the Lib Dems as there is a ‘great level of frustration’ about the direction Labour and the Tories are taking.

Ms Swinson used the speech to lashed out at ‘insular, closed and selfish’ Brexiteers as she branded Brexit ‘the fight of our lives for the heart and soul of Britain’.

This was the polling result published that day:

London’s Evening Standard published an exclusive interview with Tony Blair that afternoon. The former Prime Minister told the interviewer ‘you’re making me feel under-dressed’ and gave his thoughts on the Lib Dems:

… the dangers to Labour if its leader blunders into “a Brexit election” have increased following Jo Swinson’s first conference as Liberal Democrat leader this week. Her promise of a “very, very clear revoke” could be “attractive” and he thought a “resurgent” centre party could squeeze Labour.

On September 30, Twitter activists had researched Swinson’s husband, who works for a pro-EU organisation called Transparency International:

On October 9, Swinson went to Brussels to meet with EU politicians, including Guy Verhofstadt, who has travelled to England to participate in a few Lib Dem events, including their 2019 party conference:

Here is a bit more about Swinson’s visit. Lib Dem MP Tom Brake is in the far left photo:

She also met our EU negotiator Michel Barnier that day. He negotiates with the government, not opposition MPs. She has some brass neck, but, then, again, she wasn’t the only one bending the ears of EU officials:

On Wednesday, October 30, Swinson appeared on the BBC, where veteran journalist Andrew Neil gave her a grilling for insisting she could become Britain’s next Prime Minister. I watched it. It was a breathtaking half hour. The Express reported the principal soundbite around which the rest of the interview revolved:

Speaking on BBC Two’s the Andrew Neil Show, Ms Swinson said: “I’m standing as a candidate to be Prime Minister, Andrew.”

He interjected: “No one stands as a candidate to be Prime Minister. You’re standing as a candidate in East Dunbarton.”

Ms Swinson continued: “I’m standing as the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

“You’re right, we have a parliamentary democracy system and the leader of the party who secures the most or majority of MPs becomes Prime Minister.”

Oh, my!

She dug herself in deeply during that half hour:

Only two weeks later — one week into the general election campaign — Swinson’s delusions of becoming PM were dashed:

Her approval ratings haven’t budged since.

At the party’s manifesto launch on November 20, Swinson pledged to save Britain’s children from a ‘boiling planet’. You cannot make this stuff up:

Some found her rhetoric unconvincing:

Two days later, Home Secretary Priti Patel took strong exception to Swinson’s illiberal and undemocratic approach to Brexit, based on what she had said on the BBC’s Question Time:

Swinson had said on more than one occasion, the first time in an ITV interview, that she would revoke Article 50 on Day 1 of her premiership, because that is within the remit of the Prime Minister.

The BBC’s Andrew Marr decided not to ask her about that statement. The Mail on Sunday‘s Dan Hodges, Glenda Jackson’s son, wanted to be sure:

That day, Hodges had written a columm for the Mail on Sunday about how Swinson was ‘killing the Liberal Democrats’, particularly in the south west, where they always do well:

True. And the slogan on the Lib Dem leaflets is:

STOP BREXIT

in large upper-case letters.

Negative slogans are nearly always the least persuasive.

She began turning off voters in earnest:

Many men have said, rather politely, that Swinson would do well to wear, as one put it, ‘more business-like attire’. Where do one’s eyes go when looking at her? We would like to look more at her face without the other obvious distraction, which women have noticed, too. A Chanel-style jacket would certainly help.

She also made a huge mis-step by putting a huge photo of her face on the side of the Lib Dem battle bus:

Then Andrew Neil chimed in. Oh, boy, did Neil nail it:

On Wednesday, December 4, she made a second appearance on Andrew Neil’s show. She seemed more realistic but, by now, it no longer matters for her or for the Lib Dems. They have sunk like a stone:

She’ll be lucky if they pick up one more MP.

Neil quizzed her on her past voting record, which she now admits was a mistake. He then asked if we couldn’t trust her to make good judgements in the past, how could we do so now? Fair point, well made:

ITV’s political editor Robert Peston sounded the death knell for the Lib Dems on December 5:

This is the latest polling. Lib Dems are down three points:

Of course, all of us pontificating on and projecting their result next week could be wrong, but, somehow, I doubt it.

Lib Dems: same as they ever were, Jo or no Jo.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019, ITV showed the first debate of the election campaign.

Supporters of smaller political parties criticised ITV for inviting only Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, but, in reality, only one of the two will be Britain’s next PM:

At that point, a week before Remembrance Day (hence the poppies), the Liberal Democrats’ Jo Swinson was confident she had a real chance at becoming PM:

Although Conservatives believed Boris should have been harder hitting on Labour policies, he probably pulled back because a) this was early in the campaign and b) he wanted to help convince undecided or low-information voters that Conservatives have the better policies.

Afterwards, ITV News reported on the highlights (emphases mine):

In the opening exchanges, the prime minister warned the UK faced more “dither and delay” under a Labour government.

He said a vote for the Conservatives would be a vote to finally “get Brexit done”.

“If you vote for us, we have a deal that is ready to go. Approved by every one of the 635 Conservatives candidates standing at this election,” he said.

As soon as we can get that deal through Parliament, as we can in the next few weeks, we can get on with the people’s priorities.”

But Mr Corbyn retorted that he could not deliver on what he was promising.

“That idea that the Prime Minister Boris Johnson’ deal can be dealt with and finished by the end of January is such nonsense,” he said.

“What he is proposing is a trade deal which will take at least seven years to negotiate whilst at the same time saying he will negotiate a special trade deal with the European Union.

“The two things are actually incompatible.”

Also:

Mr Corbyn’s shifted focus onto the NHS, claiming the service would be part of trade negotiations with the US.

Mr Corbyn accused the prime minister of conducting “secret meetings” with the US about the NHS and a future trade deal.

The Labour leader said: “What we know of what Mr Johnson has done is a series of secret meetings with the United States in which they were proposing to open up our NHS markets as they call them to American companies.”

To this claim, Mr Johnson replied: “I’m amazed how often this comes up.”

Mr Johnson insisted: “This is an absolute invention, it is completely untrue, there are no circumstances whatever that this Government or any Conservative Government would put the NHS on the table in any trade negotiations.”

That was the week after Prince Andrew’s disastrous interview on the BBC, which had aired the previous Saturday evening. Moderator Julie Etchingham asked the two leaders about the monarchy. I have highlighted what the PM said, because it has been often misquoted since:

Asked if the monarchy is fit for purpose, Mr Corbyn simply replied: “It needs a bit of improvement.”

Mr Johnson answered: “The institution of the monarchy is beyond reproach,”

Ms Etchingham then asked if Prince Andrew is fit for purpose.

Mr Corbyn highlighted how sympathies should be with Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, which Mr Johnson echoed.

Boris never said the monarchy was beyond reproach, meaning individual royals. He remarked on the institution itself.

Corbyn, who has been repeatedly accused of downplaying anti-Semitism in his party, which, oddly, has been rampant since he took over as leader in 2016, brought up Jeffrey Epstein. As everyone following the scandal knows, his surname is pronounced ‘Ep-steen’, but Corbyn deliberately pronounced it ‘Ep-shtein’, putting real emphasis on it.

The former editor-in-chief of The Independent, Simon Kelner, wrote an editorial about it for the i paper, ‘Conscious or not, Jeremy Corbyn’s mispronunciation of Jeffrey Epstein’s name matters to British Jews’. Too right it does:

The question, which we can be sure will never be answered, is this: did Corbyn do it, consciously or unconsciously (they’re both as bad as each other, by the way), to make Epstein sound just a little more sinister and foreign and, relevantly in the context, more Jewish? It’s hard to come up with an answer that doesn’t make the Labour leader appear either malevolent or incompetent. Given the wall-to-wall media coverage devoted to the scandal over recent days, it stretches credulity to suggest that Corbyn hadn’t heard Epstein’s name pronounced correctly multiple times.

it was a very emphatic delivery – is something else entirely, and Corbyn had to go out of his way to summon up the mittel-European pronunciation

I am more of a pedant than I am an anti-Semite hunter, but my synapses were twitching on both counts. I have a high threshold for anti-Semitism, and I have never thought that there was a prima facie case against Corbyn in this respect. In fact, I share some of his views on the politics of the Middle East. But this definitely pulled me up short. Having just watched his epically short-tempered interview with Krishnan Guru-Murthy on Channel 4, which was filmed in 2015 but went viral this week, it made me wonder whether Corbyn might just be, to borrow [the BBC’s] Eddie Mair’s epithet about Boris Johnson, a nasty piece of work.

While the mispronunciation of Epstein’s name may not be viewed by the majority of viewers as overtly anti-Semitic, it definitely had a nasty edge. No one is offended on Epstein’s behalf (that would be ludicrous), but if I found it offensive, many, many other Jewish people would have found it more so

Whether I am reading too much into a slip of the tongue is open for debate. But what is not in question is that Jeremy Corbyn should be doing all he can to persuade Jewish voters that, on anti-Semitism, he doesn’t just talk the talk. And what he did here was, apart from anything else, very bad politics.

More on this follows below.

Members of the audience were allowed to ask questions:

The debate ended with a hypothetical question from an audience member about what Christmas presents the two leaders would give each other:

Before their closing remarks, the prime ministerial hopefuls were asked what Christmas presents they would buy for each other.

Mr Corbyn said: “I know Mr Johnson likes a good read, so what I would probably leave under the tree for him would be A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens and he could then understand how nasty Scrooge was.”

Responding, Mr Johnson said: “I would probably leave a copy – since you want a literary reference – a copy of my brilliant Brexit deal.”

Pressed by host Ms Etchingham to give a non-political answer, Mr Johnson said: “Mr Corbyn shares my love of plants and trees. I think maybe some damson jam,” to which Mr Corbyn said: “I love damson jam.”

At that point, Boris walked over to Corbyn and invited him to shake hands. It was a spontaneous moment, and it’s a pity that ITV did not report on it. Viewers could see Corbyn backing away from Boris with his outstretched hand. After seconds of hesitation, he extended his own for a limp handshake. Boris’s was much heartier.

What did the general public think? Interestingly, the result was similar to that for the Brexit referendum, which was 52% to 48%:

Leaders of the two main parties take part in debates like tonight’s, in part, to try to win over undecided voters.

A YouGov snap poll suggested 51% of Britons believed Mr Johnson won the debate compared to 49% for Mr Corbyn.

Those who answered “don’t know” were removed from the result, with YouGov adding the figures are so close as to be within the margin of error.

ITV’s political editor Robert Peston told news presenter Alastair Stewart that Jeremy Corbyn needed this debate to present a positive game-changer for Labour, who were trailing in the polls then and continue to do so now. Peston said that it was a draw. People who want Brexit done will vote for Boris. People who are worried about the NHS will vote for Corbyn:

Tom Harwood, who works for Guido Fawkes, said that Labour missed a trick with their claim that the Conservatives would ‘sell the NHS’ to President Trump:

Interestingly, our EU negotiator for Brexit, Michel Barnier, noticed another of Harwood’s tweets — and ‘liked’ it:

Dear me. Whatever next?

Well, the Labour-supporting newspaper, The Mirror, did not exactly go overboard in favour of Corbyn’s performance. Then, again, Prince Andrew was still making the headlines:

At the weekend, the polls remained static. More than one person thought this was because of the anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. They are the only other political party other than the extreme British National Party to be investigated for it. Shameful:

One week later — Tuesday, November 26 — Corbyn appeared on the BBC for an evening interview with veteran broadcaster Andrew Neil. He looked tired, ‘low energy’ (to borrow a Trumpism) and cranky. Neil took him to town on anti-Semitism, forcing him to admit nearly everyone in Britain would be poorer under Labour as well as false claims about the Conservatives wanting to sell the NHS to Trump:

It was generally agreed that, only days after Prince Andrew managed to give one of the all-time worst interviews on television, Corbyn managed to rival him:

This is how bad it was:

These were some of the newspaper headlines on Wednesday:

Andrew Neil began by asking Corbyn if he thought a particular statement about ‘Rothschild Zionists’ was anti-Semitic. Corbyn refused to say, until after the fourth time Neil repeated it:

Guido Fawkes said (emphasis in the original):

Jeremy Corbyn had to be asked four times before admitting ‘Rothchild Zionists run Israel and world governments’ is an anti-Semitic trope. This’ll undoubtedly put the minds of 80% of British Jews to rest…

Corbyn offered no apology for the anti-Semitism in sections of the Labour Party. This video is subtitled:

Andrew Neil grilled Corbyn on taxing everyone more, not just the wealthy:

Neil exposed the fact that Labour’s costings make no sense. Where’s the money coming from? The reply is not an actual Corbyn quote, by the way:

Labour supporters accused Neil of interrupting Corbyn, but:

The Sun has an excellent summary of the interview:

The next morning, ITV’s Piers Morgan picked up Corbyn’s daft comment on ISIS:

The interview got very good ratings:

With regard to the NHS, Neil scored points there, too.

Even Barry Gardiner, the erudite, effete veteran Labour MP — technically a Labour candidate, now that we are approaching the election — couldn’t defend his leader to Andrew Neil with regard to his questionable statements about the Conservatives wanting to sell the NHS to the United States. This interview took place 24 hours later:

Guido Fawkes commented:

The second excruciating Andrew Neil interview Labour has had to go through took place last night, when Shadow Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner was shown up over Jeremy Corbyn’s blatant fibs to the electorate. Labour are banking on people not being bothered to read the 451 pages they produced. Unfortunately for them, Guido has

With this and snapping at a journalist for mentioning anti-Semitism, Gardiner has not been having a good media round…

Those interested can follow Guido’s link in his first paragraph to see the documents in question.

Jeremy Corbyn is talking a lot of nonsense not only on the NHS but everything else his party proposes.

One thing is for certain: so far, he has been a gift to the Conservatives.

It is increasingly apparent that PM Theresa May and her fellow Remainers do not care about the future of their own party.

Leave MP Michael Fabricant might be eccentric, but he speaks the truth:

It is unfortunate that every decent article and editorial in The Telegraph lies behind a paywall, however, at least one can still view the comments.

This one (4 Apr 2019 12:33PM) expresses the average Conservative voter’s perspective on Brexit and the Party (emphasis in the original, those in purple mine):

I cannot recall a time when I have been more disgusted by, and ashamed of, the party I have voted for my entire life

I am 69 years old and was brought up in the North East, a massively Labour area, by strongly conservative parents.  The lessons and morality I learned from them have stayed with me for life.

I may be old, but I am neither stupid nor ignorant. I am university educated and world-travelled and ran my own small business for 30 years, employing staff and exporting my hand-made goods worldwide.  I knew very well what I was voting for when I voted ‘leave’ in the 2016 referendum, my main motivation was to regain our precious sovereignty and our ‘British Spirit’, a word I am struggling to define but I’m sure you get my meaning.  I am in no way prejudiced and welcome people of all shades, religions and nationalities to our Country.  The one thing I do ask is that immigrants make a life in this country and, whilst not forgetting their own heritage, they honour our native mores, lifestyle and laws.

It now seems that our constitutional, democratic values, backed by the Rule of Law, whilst largely unwritten, have been honoured for hundreds of years.  The way in which our current elected representatives in the House of Commons have, by tricks, lying, cheating and deceitful, mendacious behaviour overturned democracy and defied the Rule of Law.  This has started from the top, from the Prime Minister downwards.  How can the Cabinet, MPs of all stripes, behave themselves lawfully and democratically under these circumstances?  The answer is that under such leadership they cannot, and will not.

I never thought I would live to see this appalling day, when we are so grossly, and traitorously, betrayed by a CONSERVATIVE government.  It stinks, and the Conservatives will never, in my lifetime, be forgiven for leading us into rule by a foreign power

May God help us all.

It is unclear what PM May expects to get out of pushing her deal — which seems to be a treaty — and cosying up to Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn except perhaps some sort of EU job. One thing is for certain. She has no future in the Conservative Party:

The Sun‘s article from Wednesday, April 3, 2019, is lengthy and informative. An excerpt follows, emphases mine:

The Sun has been told that 15 Brexiteer ministers are “on the edge” of also walking out – 10 junior ministers, five in the Cabinet.

One of those ministers said: “Many, many colleagues in government are just seething and a lot of us are on the edge now – some over a customs union, others over European Parliament elections.

“What’s for sure is if she asks for a long extension next week it will mean mass resignations.”

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox signalled last night he is one ready to quit if Mrs May watered down her red lines, telling MPs he is prepared to dump “none” of the party’s manifesto promises.

A large group of Brexiteer ministers – known as the Pizza Clubmet twice yesterday, including late last night in the Commons, to try to plot a way to stop Mrs May from softening Brexit further.

Among them were Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom – who hosted the meeting – Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson and Environment Secretary Michael Gove.

Last week, three Conservative MPs resigned ministerial positions, with one — Nick Boles — leaving the Party. Nigel Adams will continue as MP from the back benches as will Chris Heaton-Harris:

On May 2, many local councils will hold elections. Conservative Party associations are working hard to get out the vote, but, given the antics from their own MPs with Brexit, this is proving to be quite a challenge.

Compounding the issue is the prospect of another general election, as May’s popularity continues to tank.

Brexit was supposed to be the great Conservative Party unifier. Instead, it is proving to be incredibly divisive.

What should voters think when the BBC’s Andrew Neil takes down a Remainer Conservative MP — the Father of the House, no less — on live television? This shows how duplicitous Kenneth Clarke is in his push for a customs union. After so many years as an MP, he should know better. Consequently, astute Leavers are wondering why he is pushing for it:

This comment on Conservative Home is directed towards the Clarkes of this Parliament:

How about a survey of Conservative MPs.

1) How many of you think you can get re-elected to Westminster in the event of an emergency GE without the help of your Associations?

2) Given your goppingly ghastly way of trying to subvert Brexit by voting for it not to pass, how do you expect to motivate your party workers.

3) Why do you think you are worth being re-adopted and why shouldn’t your members choose someone more inclined to support a proper Brexit?

4) Are you aware that of the Conservative membership, 3/4 are Brexiteers. 6/10 Labour constituencies voted to Leave 7/10 Conservative constituencies voted to leave – and if you were, WTF are you doing in Westminster?

I can tell the MPs that from the bottom to almost the top, that those who work for the MPs and councillors, including the councillors who are going to be most badly affected, that doing business with Corbyn is new low for the PM. She has to bloody well go.

May’s attempted rapprochement with Corbyn is going to prove difficult for local Conservative members going from door to door, as Paul Goodman explains at Conservative Home:

“Don’t go anywhere near Corbyn – or his supporters,” Tory canvassers will be saying on the doorstep. To which voters will surely reply: “why not? Your own leader is.”

In many areas, local canvassing for May 2 is not going well. Conservative Home’s Harry Phibbs has been out and about getting reactions from Party association members. What follows are reactions from around the country.

In a strong Brexit area of the West Midlands:

… Conservatives are not going to switch to Labour or the Lib Dems. But a lot of Conservatives will abstain. Also, there are rumours of independents standing.

In a rural district:

I must emphasise that the problem is not just with Brexiteers. It is wider than that. It’s down to trust and there is very precious little of it left. There is this dismay at the incompetence and the duplicity. People coming on and saying one thing one week and then doing the opposite the next week.

In a Labour-run local authority:

What is so infuriating is that we had been working hard to make gains. Now we will be lucky not to make losses. Labour locally is in a mess. But what is happening nationally is a very significant problem. The morale of our team is very low. If they are disillusioned then how can they expect to persuade others? People say why bother voting. We end up agreeing with them.

In a Conservative-run local authority:

We are supposed to be in a safe seat. But I don’t think there are any safe seats. CCHQ is very complacent about that. The situation is very volatile. It’s pretty dire at the moment, to be honest. But I think it could change.

In the South East:

It is extraordinarily bad. We have seriously considered stopping canvassing for the time being in case it does more harm than good. Could we be annoying people, winding them up? Over and over again people are saying they will ‘never vote Conservative again.’ I’ve been campaigning for several years now and I have never encountered this pure rage on the doorstep before.

A comment on the article supports all of the above:

All I can add is that as a small c and long standing Leave supporting independent candidate, campaigning hard to keep my seat, I am very grateful not to be a Tory right now. I don’t think I could stand the abuse. Few people want to talk about local issues. It’s mainly the failure to implement the Brexit they voted for and the subsequent denial of a democratic process that makes people so very angry.

A number of Conservative and swing Leave voters are likely to ditch the Party on May 2, even though local councillors have no part in the Brexit process. It’s their way of making a protest statement.

CCHQ and PM May, as Party leader, should be asking themselves probing questions during these remaining weeks. However, it seems unlikely that they will. They live in the Westminster bubble, far removed from voters.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,486 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

September 2020
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,618,319 hits