You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Liberal Democrats’ tag.

Happy New Year!

Happy new decade!

I enjoy, albeit with trepidation at times, looking back at the decades I’ve lived through and charting the change from beginning to end.

O tempora, o mores!

1960s

In 1960, growing up in the United States, I remember that things were still quite formal. Most people took care in the way they spoke and in their appearance. They were careful to conduct their households in a respectable manner. By the middle of the decade, that began to change but not too noticeably.

By 1968, a social revolution was underway, including sexually. What was once private became public. Attire reflected that. Women began wearing skirts above the knee. Men’s clothes became more form-fitting.

Sloppiness and drugs became fashionable with the advent of hippies. Even though they were a small minority, they received a lot of media coverage. A slogan connected with them — ‘If it feels good, do it’ — began to pervade society at large.

Cinema and television reflected this change.

At home, Americans moved from watching westerns to tuning into a zany comedy hour. In 1960, Gunsmoke was the most viewed programme. In 1969, it was Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In. Gunsmoke had moved to sixth place in the Nielsen ratings.

Film genres and themes also shifted. In 1960, the great epics were popular, with Spartacus the highest grossing film and Exodus coming third. Psycho was second. In 1969, while Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid was in the top slot, Midnight Cowboy was at No. 3, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice was No. 6 and an X-rated movie, I Am Curious (Yellow) was No. 12. It would have been unthinkable in 1960 that an urban drama about homosexuality, a movie about swingers and one that was pornographic would have been so popular nine years later.

1970s

The cultural shift continued in the 1970s. American magazines and newspapers devoted many column inches to social drop-outs experimenting with communal living. Swingers were becoming popular in suburbia. Again, those were two small sub-groups of society, but everyone — even the most respectable — knew about these two phenomena.

Pop music got bolder, more sexualised. I remember in high school that we talked a lot about sex and could hardly wait to start dating so that we could experiment. Our parents wondered what was wrong with us. The idea of sin and the forbidden went out the window. ‘If it feels good, do it’ had spread to the middle classes. Previously forbidden carnal acts were encouraged as being completely ‘natural’. This furthered the evolution of a shame-free society. Today, I read that some teenagers don’t kiss on a first date; instead they engage in oral sex.

Interestingly, one of the most suggestive singers of the decade, Eric Carmen of the Raspberries, laments where this has led today:

I remember neighbours of ours getting divorced. The wife said that she could earn her own living now, thank you very much. The husband was heartbroken. We felt sorry for their two children. Until then, my family and I personally did not know any couples who got divorced. It just didn’t happen to everyday individuals. However, divorce rates continued to rise and, these days, no one bats an eyelid.

More women started working. What began as a liberating elective would turn out to be a mandatory means of survival in marriage in the years that followed. Few of us knew that then, though.

Returning to music, it was a great decade for youngsters. FM radio produced rather excellent stations devoted to little known genres that never reached Top 40 AM stations. Through them, we discovered prog rock from Britain: Yes, Rick Wakeman, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer, to name but three musical greats. There were many more, too numerous to mention here.

Near the end of the decade we had disco. Saturday Night Fever was a huge box office hit and propelled John Travolta from television (Welcome Back Kotter) to cinema fame.

The most popular television sitcoms, such as Welcome Back Kotter, were all set in metropolitan areas. In terms of television in general, The Waltons was probably the only show with a rural setting.

Halfway through the decade, I spent a year in France, which was much quieter than the US socially and still quite formal, even though the more leftist state university students were generally unkempt and unwashed. In many respects, the country was a bridge between the 1960s and the 1970s in the nicest possible way.

1980s

Leaving university, I recall that many of my friends latched onto the Reagan zeitgeist and became conservatives.

They turned into their parents and lost the fun-loving verve they once had. I stayed single the longest, so was more acutely aware of a shift into respectability and suburban living.

I lived in a major US city then, earning my own way in life. For relaxation, I used to go to matinees at the weekend. The price of admission was cheaper and the cinemas were nearly empty, giving me the impression I had the big screen all to myself.

I saw a lot of world films in the first part of that decade, some from Brazil and Australia but mostly Britain and France. French film became a passion. Even one of the UHF television channels showed French films from the 1950s. Bliss.

As far as music was concerned, my favourite FM station played British and European singles apart from reggae on Sunday afternoons. More bliss.

Then, around 1986, something began to change. Although my favourite radio station stayed the same, the movie theatres weren’t showing as many foreign films. Within a couple of years, they stopped showing them altogether. One of my lifelines had vanished, sadly. The American films that replaced them were not very good, either, so I stopped going to the cinema.

Everything became very one-dimensional. America, somehow, had lost the link with the zeitgeist of European culture, which it never recovered. It used to be that people in the 1960s and early 1970s made a two- or three-week trip to western Europe to see the historic sites they learned about in school. It was what we today would call a bucket list item.

Fortunately, by the end of the decade, employment events intervened — and further improved — for me.

1990s

Living in England, I realised that I had an insatiable appetite for history and politics. I learned a lot about both thanks to a gift subscription to The Spectator, which I had read about in English lit class in high school. It’s been around since 1828.

In 1990s, my in-laws told me that Margaret Thatcher’s time was up. She had become too full of herself. We had high hopes for John Major.

I remember the 1992 election, which Major won handily. I could not understand the rage of my female colleagues who expected Neil Kinnock to win. They stayed up all night drinking, waiting for a Labour government that never came. The next day, at work, they were hungover, tearful — and, above all, angry. Why did they think he stood a chance? Perhaps I had been reading too much of The Spectator, but I had no doubt that Major would continue as Prime Minister.

By 1997, most of us felt change was needed. The Conservative MPs on the front bench seemed like tired, bloated bureaucrats. None of them had an original idea. Most seemed to be lining their own pockets. I was most consterned by Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley, who started closing A&E (Accident and Emergency) services at local hospitals. What was she thinking?

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister in 1997, nearly everyone I knew rejoiced. Change was coming.

And how …

2000s

The first few years of Labour were fine. I was enjoying my work too much to pay any attention.

By 2005, I longed for a Conservative government, especially when Gordon Brown became PM with no general election.

After that, Labour became unbearable, banging on about people’s personal lives and habits. The smoking ban came into force in the summer of 2007. Ministers assured us in television interviews that private members clubs and hotels would be exempt. No, not at all. It was a blanket ban everywhere.

It was during this decade that London elected its first mayor, Ken Livingstone. He served two terms and introduced the city-wide congestion charge for motor vehicles, which we called the Kengestion Charge. My colleagues at the time reminded me that, as head of the old GLA (Greater London Authority), he was known as Red Ken.

Boris Johnson succeeded him, also serving two terms. His administration made the streets tidy again and also lowered crime.

By 2006, I started looking more closely at the EU and the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels who seemed to rule our lives. I agreed with those disgruntled Britons who wanted a referendum on our membership.

Most of all, however, I was sick and tired of Labour, to the point of despair.

I also asked my far better half to cancel my gift subscription to the The Spectator, as it had changed its editorial line considerably after Boris Johnson left as editor. Although more people now read it, it is a former shadow of itself. I would not call it neither conservative nor traditional at all any more.

2010s

Hope came in the May 2010 general election.

The Conservatives had to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. It was the David Cameron and Nick Clegg Show, but at least Labour were out of the picture after 13 years.

David Cameron referred to himself as the ‘heir to Blair’. It took me some time to see it, but he was not wrong.

He set out to reform the Conservative Party and alienated older, faithful members in their local associations. CCHQ suddenly did not need their help.

On a broader level, Cameron will probably be best remembered for opening up marriage to same-sex couples and for offering us the EU referendum, billed by all parties as a ‘once in a lifetime’ choice which they all pledged to implement.

A number of televised debates took place in 2016. I watched them all. Some of my friends were less than convinced by the Leave proposition. The one clincher was Brexit The Movie, which is an hour-long eye-opener about the Brussels gravy train and better than any of the debates, no matter how good:

I stayed up until the early hours of the morning of Friday, June 24, 2016 to watch the result. When it was clear that Leave had won, I went to bed. The next day, my far better half and I woke up to Cameron resigning because he did not like the result. We had a celebratory lunch in London and went to a party that evening that had been planned months earlier. I remember the apprehension we both felt about sounding out the other party guests as to their views on the EU. We later discovered that were not alone. Finally, someone there broke the ice upon his arrival by exclaiming:

Is everybody HAPPY? I certainly am!

At that point, we were free to talk about Brexit.

Theresa May became Prime Minister later that summer.

Across the pond, another sea change was happening: Donald Trump’s candidacy. It was even more of a shock when he won. A startled nation awoke to find that Hillary Clinton was not their president.

The conflicts about Brexit and Trump continue today. Opponents to both have grown ever more vehement.

On September 20, 2019, the British website Spiked issued a thought-provoking documentary on Trump and Brexit. It’s 26-minutes long and well worth watching. To cover Brexit, their reporters interviewed residents of Southend-on-Sea in Essex. To cover the Trump phenomenon, they interviewed Pennsylvania journalist Salena Zito and residents of Erie, which was once a major industrial powerhouse in that state. It has fallen on very hard times, indeed:

The major theme running through both is, as they put it, ‘change’, which I believe they should have called ‘self determination’ and ‘recovering the aspirational dream’.

One thing that struck me was the interview with the owner of a gym in Erie. He said that his father raised seven children on a janitor’s salary:

You couldn’t do that now.

Too right. Both parents now have to work — unlike in the 1960s — and few households can support more than two or three children.

People in Britain and the United States want to work and save more of their hard-earned cash. They also want good job opportunities for their children.

A fisherman in Southend said that, because of EU rules, he is restricted to an ever-smaller part of waters in which to fish. The number of fishing boats has continued to decline, he added, and the number of fisherman has also dropped dramatically. That is why he, and many others in Southend, voted Leave in 2016.

The decade closed with Boris Johnson’s landslide victory on December 12. Historian David Starkey explores what this means for the nation in this 57-minute documentary from The Sun, ably conducted by a young reporter:

Starkey explores the evolution of Parliament since Victorian times, when it became the institution we know today. As many Northern constituencies flipped from Labour to Conservative, Starkey says that Boris’s pledge to revitalise the North will mean little unless he espouses their values of patriotism, which, he says, has been a dirty word for many years.

He says that Boris could well become a figure like Charles II, who restored the monarchy beginning in 1660. Many of their personality traits are similar, he notes, particularly their penchant for bringing a nation together and reforming it at the same time. It is well worth watching when you have the opportunity.

There is much more to Starkey’s interview than summarised here. He talks about the people of the North, Labour, Jeremy Corbyn, David Cameron, Tony Blair and, significantly, Benjamin Disraeli. Starkey hopes that the PM will study his Victorian predecessor’s successes closely.

With that, I must close for now. There are many developments over the past 60 years that I have not mentioned. This is merely to give an idea about the direction that Western society took as the decades rolled on.

Welcome to 2020. Let’s hope it brings many good tidings. I wish all of us the very best.

Thursday, December 12, 2019 was the day the Conservatives won their biggest victory since 1987, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister.

By contrast, Labour suffered their worst drubbing since 1935.

Even though he was re-elected in London’s Islington, Jeremy Corbyn will be resigning — at some point:

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson, lost her seat in Scotland:

As such, she had to resign:

In Northern Ireland, the DUP’s Nigel Dodds lost his seat to, of all parties, the polar opposite: Sinn Fein.

As for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, they got 2.0% of the vote and no parliamentary seats. The man is a spent force now, and he should retire from political life.

So, on to Boris’s big night out. He defeated his Labour opponent comfortably in the constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip in west London:

Contrary to what the leftist media predicted, he increased his majority over Labour:

He returned to central London to give a speech there:

He thanked everyone who voted Conservative as well as volunteers and candidates:

Nationwide, the Conservatives won some traditional Labour seats:

London, meanwhile, largely remained Labour, although Felicity Buchan managed to return Kensington to the Conservatives:

The biggest news was Conservative Mark Fletcher’s defeat of Labour’s Dennis ‘Beast of Bolsover’ Skinner. Even Margaret Thatcher couldn’t do that:

Another huge Conservative win was Sedgefield, Tony Blair’s former constituency:

Boris now has a comfortable majority not only to stave off calls for a second Brexit referendum but also to leave the EU early next year.

Whilst it is too early to wish everyone a happy Brexmas, yesterday might as well have been called Boris Day. Guido Fawkes has a montage of Boris’s greatest video clips. Some of these go back to when he was Mayor of London. He admirably hosted the 2012 Olympics:

I wish Boris Johnson all the best as he continues his stay in No. 10 presiding over what he now calls The People’s Government.

May his vision last summer of ‘sunlit uplands’ come true for all of us in Great Britain.

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.

Friday, November 29, 2019, began as a normal day in the general election campaign.

Tom Harwood, who works with Guido Fawkes, ably outlines what the political parties were up to until the afternoon, when a terror attack took place on London Bridge, effectively halting the campaign for 24 hours:

Guido’s accompanying column received a lot of comments, including the following.

On Brexit, a reader quoted an MEP on the necessity of No Deal (emphases mine):

Ben Habib MEP: “There is perhaps only one way the Conservative Party could comply with its pledge to be out of Transition by the end of 2020 with a deal along the lines set out in its manifesto. That is if it is prepared to take the UK out of Transition without a deal. It remains as true today as it did in 2016 that, to get a good deal, the UK must be prepared to leave with no deal.”

Labour pledged more madness. Only a few days after they promised to plant 2 billion — yes, you read that correctly — trees in Britain, they came up with a massive housing pledge. Another reader discussed Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s plan:

John Mcd threw the kitchen sink in with his environmental pitch today not only Labour building more houses than their is bricks on the planet, every house will have solar panels and heat exchangers. No longer grasping, just saying anything because they just ignore the facts.

Another reader discussed what would happen if Labour’s — McDonnell’s — plans for corporations came to fruition:

McDonnell intends to steal 10% of a company’s share capital and give it away. Either he steals existing capital or a company creates more shares. Either way the value of the company remains the same but now everyone’s shares will be worth less either because there are more shares or the shares have been given to someone else. So, anyone paying into a Defined Contribution Pension Fund and there are millions doing just that, will suddenly find that their savings are worth a lot less than before the capital restructuring. Someone tell the voters.

Another comment examined the Liberal Democrats‘ Jo Swinson’s perorations on climate change:

‘Climate Change’ – we can’t “fight it by leaving the EU”. 🤔

What won’t we be able to do as an EU state in relation to climate change – that we otherwise can do as a member ?

Given the fact that China produces more C02 emissions that the EU Britain and the US combined – what is it that we are supposed to do ?

Has Swinson thought this through ? Or is it just a risible hollow slogan for yoghurt knitters in the middle classes ?

Someone pointed out what the 2017 terror attack — also on London Bridge — did to the Conservatives‘ chances days later in the June 8 election:

… the problem is that the Tories are allowing Labour and the others to constantly raise the NHS, climate, trust, WASPIs and everything else besides, in an effort to sideline the Brexit debate. And I’m worried that it’s working! Tories need to get the agenda back on message ASAP. Also, I presume that I don’t need to point out the disturbing similarity to the 2017 campaign in what we’ve witnessed unfold on London Bridge today, and that it signalled the beginning of the end for Theresa May’s majority as soon as Labour used those atrocities to introduce reduced police numbers into the debate. I’m nervous. Very, very nervous!

That concerns me, too. However, Boris Johnson is not Theresa May. He’s campaigning across the country every day.

Moving on to Twitter, someone pointed out that a fatal incident has occurred before each of the last three plebiscites in Britain:

Friday afternoon took a dark and bloody turn as events unfolded at London Bridge.

Cambridge University was holding a conference at Fishmongers’ Hall near London Bridge. The subject of the conference was prisoner rehabilitation.

Attending the conference on day release wearing an electronic tag was 28-year-old Usman Khan, who, as the Press Association (PA) reports:

was a convicted terrorist released half-way through a 16-year prison sentence for a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange.

Last Friday:

Usman Khan killed a man and a woman in the knife rampage on Friday afternoon and injured three other people, who are being treated in hospital.

The 28-year-old, who was on licence and wearing an electronic monitoring tag, was attending a conference on prisoner rehabilitation organised by University of Cambridge-associated Learning Together at Fishmongers’ Hall and reportedly “threatened to blow up” the building.

Armed with two knives and wearing a fake suicide vest, Khan was tackled by members of the public before he was shot dead by police on London Bridge next to the Hall.

Video footage posted online shows Khan being taken to the ground as one man sprays him with a fire extinguisher and another, reportedly a Polish chef, lunges towards him with a narwhal tusk believed to have been taken from the wall inside the Hall.

Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu said he had been living in the Staffordshire area and that police were “not actively seeking anyone else” over the attack.

Why do police always say that? Often, in the weeks that follow, it turns out there was a plot involving more than one person, including some that had no prior police record but were aiders and abetters.

What about the attack that same day in the Netherlands? This is what happened in The Hague:

Returning to London Bridge, no doubt this is the first time many of us have heard of a narwhal tusk, but you can see below what they look like in nature on this species of whale, also known as the unicorn whale. The tusk protrudes from a canine tooth. The narwhal lives in Arctic waters.

A narwhal tusk was hanging in Fishmongers’ Hall. A quick-thinking man deployed it against the terrorist:

Here’s a dramatic video of events as they happened. The second tweet shows Fishmongers’ Hall. One of the pikes shown below was used in subduing the terrorist:

Here is a video of what happened on London Bridge when the police arrived. Fishmongers’ Hall is pictured in the second tweet:

Understandably, everyone would like to see the men who subdued the terrorist given an honour or reward of some sort. However, one of them was also a prisoner on day release, attending the Cambridge University conference. James Ford had committed a horrific murder in cold blood in 2003 and was given a life sentence in 2004. Hmm:

The Mirror reported:

James Ford, 42, was jailed for life in 2004 for the murder of 21-year-old Amanda Champion, who was found strangled with her throat cut in Ashford, Kent, in July 2003 …

Ford found himself embroiled on the London Bridge attack as he helped bring down the knife man while out on day release from his life sentence.

Ford is understood to be in the final days of his sentence at HMP Standford Hill, an open prison in Kent.

It’s believed Khan was tackled by ex-offenders inside Fishmongers’ Hall – who had all been invited to a conference on rehabilitation.

Source say Khan began “lashing out” in a downstairs room of the hall but was grabbed by the conference-goers and bundled out of the front door as he tried to go upstairs.

Those who tackled Khan on the street were not ex-offenders.

Ford’s victim’s aunt Angela Cox has told how she was contacted yesterday by Kent Police who informed her Ford had been involved in the terror attack as a member of the public, reports the Mail.

Angela, 65, said she was “angry” Ford was out on day release after the horrific murder of her niece – who had the mental age of a 15-year-old.

She said: “He is not a hero. He is a murderer out on day release, which us as a family didn’t know anything about. He murdered a disabled girl. He is not a hero, absolutely not.

They let him out without even telling us. Any of my family could have been in London and just bumped into him.”

Angela described how a police liaison officer had called her yesterday asking if she was aware of the London incident before revealing Ford had been captured on TV.

The still-heartbroken aunt said the officer told her “don’t worry” before saying Ford was at the scene and “being classed as a hero”.

Former factory worker Ford has never revealed his motive for killing Amanda.

At the time of his jailing, a judge told him: “What you did was an act of wickedness.

“You clearly have an interest in the macabre and also an obsession with death including murder by throat cutting.”

On to people who should be classed properly as heroes, we have the Polish kitchen porter employed at Fishmongers’ Hall who allegedly grabbed the narwhal tusk. By December 3, it transpired that Lukasz Koczocik was indeed one of the pursuers, but not the man brandishing the tusk. Lukasz was the man with the pike. The attacker stabbed him five times. Fortunately, the heroic kitchen worker was released from hospital on Saturday. He has been nominated for an official honour in Poland:

It seems the tusk got broken:

Not surprisingly, questions arose about the terrorist’s early release:

As with Labour (1997-2010), the Conservative government has had its part to play in law and order failures:

You can see from the following that Usman Khan did not act alone in 2010. Several other men were involved, some released since their 2012 conviction:

On that basis, I do wonder if police did the right thing in saying they are not looking for other suspects at this time with regard to Friday’s incident.

Again, what about the attack in the Netherlands that day? This RT article has one description of the suspect; Euronews has another. Dutch police said then there is no terrorist motive. On November 30, with a suspect in custody, they said it is ‘too early to speculate’ as they are investigating ‘several scenarios’.

Perhaps these statements are meant to keep the public calm while police investigate further.

Yet, we find time and time again that terrorism is the motive and that, especially in France, more than one person is involved somewhere along the line.

Sentencing and law enforcement soundbites should be reviewed.

Cambridge University was not left unscathed Friday afternoon. Sadly, one of their employees, Jack Merritt, was the first fatality. My condolences go to his family and friends:

The Guardian reported:

Merritt worked as the course coordinator for Learning Together, a programme run by the University of Cambridge’s institute of criminology which had been running a course at Fishmongers’ Hall next to London Bridge on Friday.

Two people were killed and three were injured when 28-year-old Usman Khan launched a knife attack. Khan was arrested in December 2010 and released on licence in December 2018, wearing an electronic tag.

David Merritt posted on Twitter on Saturday: “My son, Jack, who was killed in this attack, would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or for detaining people unnecessarily.”

His words came as Boris Johnson, said the system of automatic release from prison was flawed.

A second Cambridge graduate, Saskia Jones, 23, also died in the attack. My condolences to her family and friends at this difficult time.

This was the Prime Minister’s column for the Mail on Sunday:

The early release of dangerous prisoners — terrorists, murderers and the like — needs a thorough rational, not emotional, discussion.

Many of us have been wanting this for several years.

If not now, when?

How many more people, including those who advocate for prisoners, will have to die?

On Friday, November 22, 2019, a special two-hour Question Time was broadcast.

Fiona Bruce, the show’s host, moderated a discussion involving questions from a live audience put forward to the four main party leaders in half-hour segments.

The programme began with Jeremy Corbyn. Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP followed. The last two were Jo Swinson of the Liberal Democrats and Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party.

It was really sad to see that Boris Johnson’s Conservatives are the only political party running on a pro-Brexit platform. Labour favour a watery Brexit with a second referendum. Jo Swinson said in a previous interview on ITV last week that in the (unlikely) event she became Prime Minister, she would revoke Article 50 all by herself on the first day. The SNP are all about Scottish independence and only the Scots can vote for them. They, too, oppose Brexit and would appeal to the EU to allow Scotland to join as a separate nation.

Who won?

On Saturday, November 23, The Express reported on a poll it conducted among readers. Not surprisingly, most participants thought that Boris won (emphases mine):

A total of 50 percent of people believed the Conservative leader stole the show, with less than a quarter of readers (23 percent) convinced Jeremy Corbyn won.

Of the 22,368 people who voted in the poll, 11,307 believed Boris Johnson won – versus just 4,816 people. who voted for Mr Corbyn.

Of the four candidates, Jo Swinson seemed the least popular, with just eight percent – 1,776 people – believing she won the debate.

In fact, more people said they didn’t know who won – with this option being chosen by 1,924 people.

Coming third was Nicola Sturgeon, who teased a “less formal” arrangement with Labour to stop Brexit and end austerity, with 2,545 votes for the SNP leader.

One commenter, ‘fitz’, said the Prime Minister managed to “scrape through” after a tough start.

They said: “Boris had a tough job, but he scraped through ok at the end.

“I do not have any doubts that he will win the election with a modest majority of MPs who will support him.”

I hope that proves to be the case.

Nicola Sturgeon

Nearly all the leaders received tough questions from the audience. Nicola Sturgeon seemed to receive fewer:

I was hoping someone would ask her more about Scotland being financially self-sufficient post-independence without English money provided through what is called the Barnett Formula and what plans she would have for a Scottish currency. The SNP believe they can continue to use the British pound!

But I digress.

Sturgeon was adamant that Scots alone could decide the fate of the Union, which has existed since 1707:

Sturgeon relaxed with a book on the way back to Scotland:

Jo Swinson

Jo Swinson got a verbal blast from a Brexit supporter. The Express reported on the exchange:

Catherine, the audience member, asked: “Is revoking Article 50 confirming to 17.4 million people that you think we’re stupid and don’t know what we voted for?”

The Lib Dem leader said: “You cannot accuse us of not being upfront about wanting to stop Brexit. We have been crystal clear about that from the very beginning.

“Not for one second do I think that means you or anyone like you is stupid. I think it means we disagree.

“I really want us to be in a situation in this country where we can disagree with each other, Catherine.”

Ms Swinson continued: “That means that you want to leave, and I don’t think that makes you a bad person.

“I want to remain in the EU and I hope you think that doens’t make me a bad one.”

The audience member shot back: “You can disagree with me but you lost.

“You don’t get to keep disagreeing with me.”

Well said, Catherine.

On Saturday morning, Chuka Umunna, former Labour MP, now a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, was asked on a BBC radio programme about Swinson’s Question Time performance and the Lib Dem’s anti-Brexit policy. The Express reports:

Mr Umunna, who standing in the cities of London and Westminster constituency on December 12, insisted the Liberal Democrat position to revoke Article 50 was not a mistake, despite Ms Swinson facing a tough grilling by furious audience members on the special leaders debate last night. The Labour-turned-ChangeUK-turned-Lib Dem politician told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme: “No, there’s been no mistake made on this policy.”

Mr Umunna added: “It’s absolutely clear – you can’t save the NHS and address the issues in it at the same time as not seeking to stop Brexit, not least because 10 percent of our doctors come from the EU, and 7 percent of our nurses come from the EU.”

What no one from any party has addressed is WHY we have so few British doctors and nurses these days. I do not have an answer myself.

Anyway, The Express article related another audience member’s blast at Swinson on the Question Time special:

Ms Swinson faced yet another awkward encounter when another audience member branded the plan to stop Brexit “undemocratic”.

An audience member said: “You are not saying we will go back to the people, you are unilaterally saying ‘Revoke it.’

It’s undemocratic from somebody who wishes the last three and a half years had never happened.”

A startled Ms Swinson responded by saying the Liberal Democrats had campaigned for a so-called people’s vote for the past three years without getting the support in the House of Commons.

Swinson also received a grilling about her voting record when she was an MP in the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government from 2010-2015. Swinson voted ‘Aye’ to more Conservative policies than Conservative MPs did during those years:

The woman asking that question was no ordinary member of the general public. To some viewers, her face seemed very familiar. They were not wrong. The woman is an actress:

That did not go down well with some viewers, and, in my humble opinion, rightly so:

Returning to Jo Swinson, the questions did no favours for the Lib Dems:

Jeremy Corbyn

Right at the outset, Jeremy Corbyn received a verbal smackdown from a long haired, bearded man:

Then, one of Corbyn’s supporters chimed in:

Corbyn’s position on Brexit has been rather nebulous, so, someone asked him about it:

This is what Corbyn said:

Boris Johnson

Boris confirmed to Fiona Bruce and the audience that he had been watching the programme backstage.

The Left have been hammering at Boris for an alleged lack of integrity. Yet, I cannot think of a single politician who has told the truth 100% of the time. Anyway:

As in the United States with the 2016 election, the Left are alleging that Russia interfered in the Brexit referendum campaign. Before Parliament was dissolved, Boris declined to release an official report about it, saying that, customarily, the Prime Minister reviewed such documents over a matter of weeks rather than days:

Someone brought up former Conservative MP, Dominic Grieve, a muckraking Remainer:

Boris got many more difficult questions.

He handled them well. Here he is on education:

And on Brexit:

Many of the questions and remarks were not fair, because he was not a sitting MP for most of the time the Conservatives have been in government. He was Mayor of London during several of those years, a fact that he put forward to the audience. He also said that he has been Prime Minister for only 120 days!

Overall, he managed a conversational tone with everyone, no matter how obnoxious they were:

Nearly everyone is upset over the blatant bias that Fiona Bruce and Mentorn Productions show on Question Time. Therefore, people overall — outside of Leftist activists — empathised with Boris, such as this journalist:

Boris also got a boost from this viewer:

And these:

The Prime Minister was gracious afterwards:

Conclusion

Outside of the usual bias, the Question Time Leaders Special was good, because it is probably be the only time in this election campaign when party leaders will take questions from a live audience.

For those who would like to read more about the programme as it happened, see the Daily Mail (here and here) as well as The Guardian.

Interestingly, whilst the Conservatives were at their annual party conference, the opposition benches were largely empty.

Strange. Last week, they voted against proroguing Parliament from Monday through Wednesday because they had serious work to get on with.

Or so they said.

As it turned out, only a handful of the diligent, hardworking opposition MPs showed up on those days.

On Tuesday, October 1, a Brexit-related session headed by George Eustice, the minister for DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) covered the draft Common Agricultural Policy from July 24 which would be used for Brexit. The end of the debate is here. It’s a pity that only the opposition agricultural ministers and a couple of other MPs attended:

On Wednesday, October 2, Foreign Minister Dominic Raab headed PMQs — Prime Minister’s Questions — as Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave his rousing speech in Manchester to the party faithful.

That morning, the Labour Whips issued a directive to their MPs not to ask Urgent Questions that day:

It was even worse when the afternoon’s proceedings began.

Recall — as if we could forget — that the opposition claim to be the champions of the vulnerable, especially women.

So, it was particularly galling to see that very few of them turned up for the second reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill:

Only a few Liberal Democrat MPs attended that afternoon. Labour produced more, but could have done much better.

Good grief.

Apparently, this bill and some others have been carried over post-Queen’s Speech on October 14:

Therefore, if this is true, the opposition knew full well that they could have easily prorogued for three days during the Conservative Party Conference but chose not to out of sheer spite. Ditto the Supreme Court when they cancelled Boris’s prorogation.

The main and most moving speech of the debate was that of Labour MP Rosie Duffield. Her testimony of a recent relationship is well worth sharing with your daughters or nieces.

Women cannot be too careful when getting involved in a long-term relationship. If this can happen to an MP, it can happen to anyone. Please watch:

This bill is Theresa May’s. She brought it forward as a backbencher, therefore, before she became Prime Minister in 2016. How slowly the wheels of legislation turn.

Theresa May also gave an impassioned speech for the bill near the end.

Debate continues after October 14.

Attendance improved when Boris appeared on Thursday, October 3, to discuss a new proposal for Brussels, sent to Jean-Claude Juncker the day before:

Note the final paragraph about the Northern Ireland backstop on the first page:

This is the European Commission’s announcement about the letter (click on the image to enlarge text):

Many MPs who offered comments following Boris’s address commented positively. Even most Remainers accepted the proposal, albeit with a request for more details, which will be forthcoming. Only two or three diehard Remainers spoke out against it.

Several MPs hoped that the EU commissioners were watching the positive reaction.

Guido Fawkes has more, including this video of Boris’s speech:

Guido gives us the transcript of Boris’s five elements concerning the abolition of the proposed backstop, the crux of the leaving date delay thus far (italics in the original):

  1. In the first place all our actions are based on our shared determination to sustain the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, the fundamental basis of governance in Northern Ireland the protection of which is the highest priority of all.

  2. And from this follows the second principle – namely that we shall of course uphold all the longstanding areas of co-operation between the UK and our friends in Ireland including the rights of all those living in Northern Ireland, North/South co-operation and the Common Travel Area, which predates both the Good Friday Agreement and the European Union itself.

  3. Third, we propose the potential creation of a regulatory zone on the island of Ireland covering all goods, including agri-food. For as long as it exists, this zone would eliminate all regulatory checks for trade in goods between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

  4. But fourth, unlike the so-called backstop, such a regulatory zone would be sustained with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, as expressed through the Assembly and Executive. They will give their consent during the transition period as a condition for these arrangements entering into force. Thereafter, the Assembly will vote again every four years – and if consent were withheld, these arrangements would then lapse after one year.

  5. Fifth, it has always been a point of principle for this government that at the end of the transition period, the UK should leave the EU Customs Union whole and entire restoring sovereign control over our trade policy and opening the way for free trade deals with all our friends around the world.

In short: no hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. Instead, there would be a regulatory zone covering all goods, including foodstuffs. Northern Ireland’s Assembly and Executive would vote on the arrangements in the near future and every four years after that. (I do not know how that will work if Stormont is not sitting, but, no doubt, the government can find a way.)

I’m guardedly hopeful that Boris is onto something positive with this. It won’t please Brexit Party members, but we were never going to get an absolute No Deal. I’m hoping that David Davis’s Canada ++ arrangement can be revived. Theresa May insisted that his plans be superseded by her Withdrawal Agreement in July 2018, no ifs, ands or buts. Davis resigned as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on July 8 that year. It was all downhill from there.

Davis has not tweeted his reaction, but another staunch Leave MP, John Redwood, offered his thoughts on Boris’s proposal:

Unfortunately, the Twitter replies to that were very angry, indeed.

It is essential to keep in mind that trade and other agreements will be in transition once we leave the EU.

It’s not as if everything will change dramatically on November 1 (God willing) or whenever we leave.

The transition period is likely to last anywhere from two to four years, depending on negotiations.

As for prescription drug shortages, some of which are occurring now in the UK and being blamed on Brexit: several EU countries have been experiencing similar shortages of essential medication for several months now. France and the Netherlands are among those nations. We cannot blame Brexit for that.

More news from last weekend will help put the Remainers’ tricks into better context.

BBC bias — Andrew Marr Show

The flagship Sunday morning television news programme is the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

On September 29, 2019, Marr interviewed Prime Minister Boris Johnson, followed by the Shadow (Labour’s) Education Secretary Angela Rayner.

Boris could barely get a word in edgewise, whereas Marr let Rayner speak uninterrupted:

Language humbug

The topic of language used in the Commons on Wednesday, September 25, was still a huge issue for Remainers. The media storm continued into Monday.

Here’s Gina Miller, who is leading anti-Brexit lawsuits:

Boris somehow made dirty words out of ‘humbug’ and ‘surrender’ for them last Wednesday evening.

So did Attorney General Geoffrey Cox earlier that day:

Guido Fawkes had this (emphasis in the original):

Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, just gave one of the most barnstorming speeches Guido has seen in many years:

This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these benches… This parliament is a disgrace. They could vote ‘no confidence’ at any time, but they’re too cowardly.

Guido has a feeling this one may go viral…

Indeed. Both the AG and the PM spoke eloquently — and wittily — getting their points across with aplomb.

On the other hand, at least one rebel Conservative used blunt language. Here’s Dominic Grieve:

Grieve was on Robert Peston’s ITV news show last Wednesday. It seems this is acceptable and non-hyperbolic language — as long as it comes from a Remainer:

A few days later, the Scottish equivalent of Gina Miller — another Remainer lawyer bringing similar lawsuits — let rip on the PM:

The women

As America’s Left did with Donald Trump, Britain’s Left — including notional Conservative Remainers — played up two news stories about Boris, involving women.

Jennifer Arcuri

This events in this story took place during Boris’s time as Mayor of London. It is developing and could be politically motivated, especially as Boris and the current Mayor of London Sadiq Khan trade occasional verbal jabs with each other.

It is strange that no one outside the London political bubble has heard of Jennifer Arcuri until now, when a) we are on the Brexit countdown and b) the Conservative Party Conference was starting at the time this news broke.

From the BBC (emphases mine):

It is alleged businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri received favourable treatment due to her friendship with Mr Johnson.

The prime minister was referred by the Greater London Authority on Friday.

Mr Johnson has denied any impropriety, while a government source described the referral as “politically motivated”.

The allegations regarding Mr Johnson’s friendship with technology entrepreneur Ms Arcuri first emerged last weekend in the Sunday Times.

They refer to claims that Ms Arcuri joined trade missions led by Mr Johnson when he was mayor of London and that her company received several thousand pounds in sponsorship grants.

The Greater London Authority’s monitoring officer – whose job it is to monitor the conduct of the mayor and other members – said it had written to the police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

It said it had referred the PM to the IOPC “so it can assess whether or not it is necessary to investigate the former mayor of London for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office”.

It added that it has recorded a “conduct matter” against Mr Johnson which happens when there is information that indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed.

But it does not mean that a criminal offence is proved in any way, the GLA’s monitoring officer added.

“The IOPC will now consider if it is necessary for the matter to be investigated.”

The reason the IOPC is involved is because the role of the mayor of London is also London’s police and crime commissioner

Responding to the referral, No 10 said: “The prime minister, as Mayor of London, did a huge amount of work when selling our capital city around the world, beating the drum for London and the UK.

“Everything was done with propriety and in the normal way.”

Charlotte Edwardes

Charlotte Edwardes was a young columnist for The Spectator 20 years ago, at the time when Boris was the magazine’s editor.

Last weekend, she wrote her maiden article for The Sunday Times about the time the 35-year-old editor squeezed her thigh around that time. Interestingly, Ms Edwardes’s current boyfriend is the aforementioned Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor. Timing is everything:

Not surprisingly, the story made the front page of The Sunday Times, which a proud Peston retweeted:

Both the social and the political angles merit explanation.

I remember reading about The Spectator‘s parties at this time. They were legendary. Many celebrities, authors, journalists and politicians hoped for invitations to the magazine’s summer garden party and/or the Christmas lunch.

Writer Toby Young, who also wrote for the magazine when Boris was editor, remembers the atmosphere:

Toby Young might have overstated things a bit, but Boris did have a way with the ladies, so there is probably more than a germ of truth to that.

An 82-year-old lady rang The Jeremy Vine Show (Channel 5) to say she wouldn’t mind an evening out with Boris. I do not think she is an outlier, either. Again, we should consider the timing of Miss Edwardes’s revelation and wonder why she did not come forward sooner:

That tweet makes an excellent point about timing.

Here is more information:

Yes, there was a rumour that Edwardes’s colleague, Mary Wakefield, was sitting on the other side of her and supposedly remembered that Boris touched her thigh, too.

Or, perhaps not.

Interestingly, Mary Wakefield is married to Dominic Cummings, the PM’s chief adviser on Brexit:

The story annoys both Leavers and Remainers:

No. 10 denied the story, and Labour MP Paula Sherriff, who was the first to mention the late MP Jo Cox’s name last Wednesday, offered Edwardes her moral support:

At the Conservative Party conference, the PM’s father, former Conservative MEP Stanley Johnson, defended his son eloquently to Kay Burley of Sky News:

People at home were unimpressed:

Kay Burley isn’t exactly blameless, though. You can see her red hair in the photo below from an old story:

The news story surrounding the photo is about Naomi Campbell’s appearance at Uxbridge Magistrates Court in north-west London in 2008.

Naturally, reporters raced to get quotes from the model and photographers wanted photos. Mayhem ensued, as the Daily Mail reported on June 21 that year:

Sky News presenter Kay Burley clashed with a photographer during the mayhem when Naomi Campbell arrived at court yesterday.

The newscaster, 46, was apparently hit in the cheek by a camera – and was then seen with her hand around a photographer’s throat.

Given the scrum, witness accounts differed:

There were suggestions that the photographer, Kirsty Wigglesworth from the Associated Press agency, had bumped into Miss Burley and injured her badly.

A witness said: ‘We were walking in alongside Naomi and basically, Kay got whacked in the face by a photographer.

‘Kay pushed back the photographer after she had her cheekbone smashed by this person. The photographer’s aggressive behaviour was extraordinary.

But another witness, who saw the second half on the incident, said: ‘Kay Burley had her hands around the photographer’s neck. It was really, really vicious.

‘The only way the photographer stopped her was by pulling her sunglasses off.

‘She has got marks around her throat.’ It is claimed that Miss Burley and the photographer were taken to one side by the police about the incident.

Remainer news

Whilst the Conservatives are at conference in Manchester, with some MPs flying back and forth to London via helicopter because opposition benches refused to adjourn for three days, Remainers have been busy elsewhere.

Not many opposition MPs attended Monday’s afternoon session in the Commons. Speaker Bercow spent only a couple of hours before turning over the rest of the day’s proceedings to a female Deputy Speaker.

Civil servants

Civil servants are under strain after summer holidays to deliver background work on Brexit. They complained of stress earlier in the year. They’re lucky they do not work in the private sector:

Labour and Lib Dem views

Former Home Secretary Jack Straw says that, although he disapproves of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership …

… he will still vote Labour for tribal reasons.

Party before country … not surprising.

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson plans to block Corbyn’s possible ascendancy as temporary PM:

Rebel Conservative MPs

I am disappointed to read that David Gauke, now an Independent MP, spoke at the Conservatives’ conference:

On Monday, September 30, Sky News reported that Gauke focussed on the language issue (emphases mine):

Ex-justice secretary David Gauke spoke at the Conservative conference in Manchester despite having been effectively expelled from the party – by having the Tory whip withdrawn – for voting against Boris Johnson on Brexit earlier this month.

He accused the prime minister of a “strategy that is about stoking resentment”, with Mr Johnson having recently been criticised by opposition MPs for his use of language …

Hence we have the language of surrender, of betrayal, of collusion. Because that feeds into a strategy that is about stoking resentment, nursing grievances, provoking anger.

“It means our politics becomes debased, it means the Conservative Party becomes a much more aggressive, much more confrontational, much more divisive party …

“And we cease to follow the traditions of our great leaders. We are no longer the party of Churchill, we are more the party of Trump.”

Dominic Grieve poled up, too, although not as far as a podium. He says he received an unsettling message:

Reading out a message he received on his phone during the event, which he revealed read: “You are a foul traitor”, Mr Grieve said: “This sort of atmosphere, which is being currently – I’m sorry to say it – but bluntly encouraged by the leader of the Conservative Party… is unacceptable behaviour and it is undermining our democracy and [will] smash it up.

“We will all have to live with the consequences – not only in our constituencies but our neighbourhoods and it will extend to each one of us.”

Mr Grieve, who supports a second EU referendum and Remain, added he was “pleased” to have attended the Manchester conference despite having been advised by some not to go.

“Most people here have been rational, pleasant and engaged even when they’ve come up to disagree with me,” he said.

Alistair Burt, another rebel — and the co-author of the Benn-Burt Bill, which attempts to thwart No Deal on October 31 — insisted he was still loyal to the party:

He revealed he recently chose not to stand at the next general election as he could not recommend a no-deal Brexit, which the government insists is still a possibility on 31 October, to his North East Bedfordshire constituents.

Describing how he has been a Conservative Party member for almost 50 years – but has now had the Tory whip withdrawn – Mr Burt added: “I was also parliamentary private secretary to two Conservative leaders: Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith.

“I stood behind Iain Duncan Smith at one of the most difficult times in the Conservative Party’s history.

“I don’t need any lessons on loyalty from anyone in telling me what to do for the Conservative Party in the future.”

It’s not as much about the Conservative Party, Mr Burt, as it is for the nation: the 52% of Britons who voted Leave on June 23, 2016.

More to come tomorrow.

The 2019 Conservative Party conference began on Sunday, September 29.

As has been the case for the past few years, it is taking place in Manchester.

Guido Fawkes has the perfect caption:

I reported on Friday that MPs voted NOT to adjourn during these three days, despite the fact that the House of Commons did not meet for the Liberal Democrat and the Labour Party conferences. A great many Leavers fear that mischief could be afoot during the Conservatives’ absence.

The Mail on Sunday reported that No. 10 Downing Street is investigating possible ‘foreign collusion’ on the part of Remainer MPs. It was the paper’s front page story (click here and here for easier reading, as well as the website link to the article):

 

I am not sure whether anything quite like this has ever happened on this scale in Britain. It certainly hasn’t in modern history, meaning the last century, at least.

If true, this is serious stuff, especially if Speaker of the House John Bercow can get involved acting as the Prime Minister. What the heck?

I did not know this about sedition. If true, sedition is not a crime anymore in the UK. Good grief. How can that be?

Note that we are talking about turncoat Conservatives here, those who have had the party whip withdrawn and are now classified as Independent MPs.

David Gauke is now an Independent MP. I agree that these are serious accusations, but he appears to be digging a hole for himself:

Hmm, with all the complaints from last week, which ran into the weekend, about Boris Johnson’s language, one wonders:

As if that isn’t bad enough, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn convened a meeting with the Liberal Democrats’ Jo Swinson on Monday to put forward a VONC — Vote of No Confidence — against Boris Johnson. Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), is herself not an MP but has MPs representing the party in the House of Commons. Talks are continuing:

And, the Labour vote for 16-year-olds could be scheduled during the Conservatives’ absence. It is doubtful that Speaker Bercow would stop it. This is the Shadow (Labour’s) Education Secretary Angela Rayner. She was on Andrew Marr’s BBC show on Sunday:

As for Speaker Bercow, Guy Verhofstadt really likes him:

Bercow might be standing down at the end of October, but he can wreak a lot of havoc before then.

The other big question at the weekend was whether Boris would feel compelled to resign. The media were full of scaremongering stories. I hope this is true:

The flowchart below looks accurate:

A majority of the British public backs Boris.

Lord Ashcroft conducted a poll on Brexit for the Mail on Sunday:

My latest research, published today, looks at the fundamentals: how voters have reacted to the drama not just of the past few weeks but the years since the EU referendum, and how this week’s events fit into the longer story.

For many people, and not just among those who backed Leave in the increasingly distant 2016 referendum, that story is one of frustration and failure – or, worse, deliberate actions to delay Brexit for as long as possible or stop it altogether.

Here is a key graphic from the poll:

It is hard to know what to make of it all.

One thing is for sure. Even though opposition MPs are whining about the absence of democracy, their masks have slipped.

We now know they do not care one jot for 17.4m Britons who voted to Leave in 2016 — and won: 52% to 48%.

More on the latest Brexit and Boris developments to follow tomorrow.

Welcome to another bumper edition of Brexit Chronicles.

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019, Britain’s Supreme Court — formerly known as the Law Lords — decided that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and that MPs should return to the House of Commons on Wednesday.

They did not say that Boris Johnson personally broke the law in this regard, only that the prorogation was unlawful.

That said, this appears to be the first time a court of law has ruled against a prorogation, a fairly common occurrence throughout the history of the House of Commons. This legal decision on prorogation sets a potentially dangerous precedent, although I would be happy to scrap the Labour-instituted Supreme Court and see a return to the Law Lords. Pictured below are the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox and Baroness Hale:

Baroness Hale, speaking for the Supreme Court, wore a large spider brooch when she read out the decision. Hmm. A spider brooch about the size of a tarantula. Optics, anyone?

She also erred on one of the names in her statement, as Conservative MP John Redwood points out:

Unfortunately, that detail is unlikely to render the decision invalid.

At the time the Supreme Court reached its decision, the Labour Party conference was going on at the time in Brighton.

Before recapping this week’s events, in 2016, thousands of British barristers signed a letter imploring MPs not to enact the result of the referendum. This I did not know:

Now back to the present day.

Be advised of occasional foul language below!

Thwarting Brexit

Leave voters across the country can see what opposition MPs are doing. I reckon more and more voters are tuning in to BBC Parliament to watch proceedings.

Even renowned historian David Starkey has been vocal about stubborn Remain MPs refusing to fulfil the Leave result:

The danger is that if we adopt the Customs Union proposals that Remainers want, we will have far less control over our own trade, currency, armed forces and laws than we did as a full member of the EU before MPs voted to trigger Article 50 (emphases mine):

It’s all been a set up from the very beginning. The UK was only ever half in but after this, if we don’t leave 31/10 they’ll make sure we’re all the way in it right up to our necks. Full implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. Euro and all!

The Liberal Democrats, led by Jo Swinson, wrote to the EU Commission about Brexit, when only the government in power — currently Conservative — should be dealing directly with them. This was brought up in Wednesday’s Commons session, by the way, so it is true:

The move has not gone down well with some voters:

Note the petition:

Labour Party conference

The Labour Party produced a laundry list of far left policies to discuss at their conference in Brighton.

A teenage vote would keep a left-wing government in power forever. Reason No. 1 not to vote for Labour:

A trade unionist says other policies will be difficult to explain to voters:

Re the abolition of private schools: who is going to pay for the chaos this would cause? The taxpayer. Here’s Diane Abbott, who sent her own son to the private City of London day school:

This would devastate towns where there are private — including what the British call ‘public’ (e.g. Eton, Harrow, Rugby) — schools. Angela Rayner is the shadow education minister. Her name comes up in the second tweet:

Then there was Labour’s protest for a People’s Vote on EU membership. Erm … we had one on June 23, 2016. It was the referendum.

Emily Thornberry loathes England, by the way:

Labour MPs voted twice before the prorogation to oppose a general election, by the way. A general election is also a people’s vote:

Conservative MP James Cleverly, party chairman, has a good, concise summary of Labour’s policies — including their refusal to vote for a general election, when they’ve asked 35 times for one in Parliament. The video is subtitled:

This is what happened at conference. Diane Abbott makes it look as if Boris Johnson never tabled his two motions for a general election before prorogation.

Dishonest Labour — the perfect party for lo-fo voters and a clear danger to the nation:

I hope Labour never again see power during my lifetime. Thirteen years of them (1997-2010) was almost more than I could bear.

Despite the Labour Party conference, which normally produces a positive bounce in the polls, the Conservatives are still ahead. Why hasn’t Britain Elects updated their party leaders photo?

People also want a general election:

Brexit negotiations difficult

The Benn-Burt bill, which received royal assent on September 9 and forces the PM to ask the EU for an extension if there is no deal, has made the Prime Minister’s and the government’s Brexit negotiations very difficult. This was the status on September 21:

Nevertheless, Boris and his Brexit ministers soldier on.

The following took place on Thursday, September 26:

Michael Gove says that the No Deal Brexit committee has been meeting frequently:

Another Brexit meeting, announced yesterday, took place today:

Boris’s statement

Boris gave a statement to MPs at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday about the ‘zombie Parliament’, the longest since the Civil War in the 17th century. Brexit Central has the full transcript. Excerpts follow:

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on yesterday’s Supreme Court verdict and the way forward for this paralysed Parliament.

Three years ago, more people voted to leave the European Union than have ever voted for any party or proposition in our history.

Politicians of all parties promised the public that they would honour the result.

Sadly, many have since done all they could to abandon those promises and to overturn that democratic vote.

And after three years of dither and delay – that left this country at risk of being locked forever in the orbit of the EU – this government that I lead has been trying truly to get us out.

And most people – indeed most supporters of the party opposite — regardless of how they voted three years ago — think the referendum must be respected. They want Brexit done, I want Brexit done, people want us out on 31 October — with a new deal if possible but without if necessary.

64 days ago, I was told that Brussels would never reopen the Withdrawal Agreement. We are now discussing a reopened Withdrawal Agreement in the negotiations.

I was told that Brussels would never consider alternatives to the backstop – the trap that keeps the UK effectively in the EU but with no say.

We are now discussing those alternatives in the negotiations.

I was told Brussels would never consider arrangements that were not permanent. We are now discussing in the negotiations an arrangement that works on the principle of consent and is not permanent.

I was told there was no chance of a new deal but we are discussing a new deal.

And this is in spite of the best efforts of this Parliament to wreck our negotiations by their attempts to take No Deal off the table.

The truth is the majority in this Parliament are not opposed to the so-called No Deal — this Parliament does not want Brexit to happen at all.

Many of those who voted for the Surrender Act a few weeks ago said then that their intention was to stop a No Deal Brexit.

They have said every day since that Parliament must vote against ANY deal at all.

I think the people of this country can see perfectly clearly what is going on.

They know that this Parliament does not want to honour its promises to respect the referendum.

The people at home know that this Parliament will keep delaying, it will keep sabotaging the negotiations because they don’t want a deal

The public don’t want another referendum – what they want and what they demand, that we honour the promise we made to the voters to respect the first referendum.

And they also want us to move on — to put Brexit behind us and focus on the NHS, on violent crime and on cutting the cost of living.

That is why I also brought forward a Queen’s Speech. My government intends to present a programme for life after Brexit.

But some members of this House could not stand that either. Instead of facing the voters, the opposition turned tail and fled from an election. Instead of deciding to let the voters decide, they ran to the courts instead.

And despite the fact that I followed the exact same process as my predecessors in calling a Queen’s Speech, the Supreme Court was asked to intervene in this process for the first time ever and it is absolutely no disrespect to the judiciary to say I think the Court was wrong to pronounce on what is essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy.

So we have Opposition MPs that block and delay everything running to the courts to block and delay even more — including blocking legislation to improve and invest in our NHS and keeping violent criminals in jail.

The people outside this place understand what is happening

Out of sheer political selfishness and political cowardice members opposite are unwilling to move aside and let the people have their say.

They see MPs demanding that the people be given a say, then running scared from the election that would provide them with one.

And worst of all they see ever-more elaborate legal and political manoeuvres from the party opposite which is determined, absolutely determined, to say “we know best” and thumb their noses at the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union.

The Leader of the Opposition and his party do not trust the people.

The Leader of the Opposition and his party are determined to overthrow the referendum result whatever the cost.

They do not care about the bill for hundreds of millions of pounds that will come with every week of delay.

They don’t care if another year or more is wasted arguing about a referendum that happened three years ago.

All that matters to them now is an obsessive desire to overrule the referendum result

I have to confess, Mr Speaker, that I was a little shocked to discover that the party whose members stood up in Brighton this week and repeatedly – and in the most strident terms – demanded an election, I hear them, is the very same party whose members have already this month – not once but twice – refused to allow the people to decide on their next government.

For two years they have demanded an election but twice they have voted against it …

So if in fact the party opposite does not in fact have confidence in the government, they will have a chance to prove it….I think they should listen to this Mr Speaker.

They have until the House rises today to table a motion of no confidence in the government, and we can have that vote tomorrow.

Or if any of the other parties, the smaller parties fancy a go, they can table that motion, we’ll give you the time for that vote

It is time for this Parliament finally to take responsibility for its decisions. We decided to call that referendum. We promised time and again to respect it.

I think the people of this country have had enough of it — this Parliament must either stand aside and let this government get Brexit done or bring a vote of confidence and finally face the day of reckoning with the voters.

And I commend this statement to the House.

No one from the opposition benches put forward a motion for either an election or a vote of no confidence.

People watching at home thought the PM’s speech was excellent.

The language issue

On Wednesday, Boris deplored the Benn-Burt bill in his above address and referred to it as the Surrender Act.

He is absolutely correct.

Opposition MPs took exception and said he should not refer to it as such, because MPs’ feelings were hurt. We watched the proceedings on television and do not understand how they arrived at that conclusion.

Boris also said ‘humbug’, which opposition benches also found hurtful.

A Labour MP, Paula Sherriff, then brought up Jo Cox, the Labour MP who was murdered in cold blood just days before the 2016 referendum.

The Prime Minister replied tactfully and mentioned Jo Cox’s name, saying that she would have wanted Brexit to go ahead in line with the referendum vote, the people’s will.

The media seized on this by making it sound like the PM brought up Jo Cox’s name first. He most certainly did not. That link also has videos of Ms Sherriff, which do not show her in a flattering light.

Ms Cox’s widower, Brendan, had this to say. I listened to the PM and did not hear him demonise the late MP in any way, but Mr Cox might have heard about the exchange second hand:

The atmosphere in Wednesday’s evening session was appalling. Speaker of the House John Bercow did very little to keep order. Opposition MPs spoke over the PM, they shouted in a hostile manner and Bercow said practically nothing.

On Thursday, talkRADIO’s Julia Hartley-Brewer interviewed a virtue-signalling Liberal Democrat MP:

Previously, she interviewed another virtue-signalling Lib Dem MP. Note the contrast in tone from said MP:

She gave a short message to opposition MPs on Brexit and language:

The language issue was debated at lunchtime on Thursday in Parliament.

Opposition MPs spoke of death threats.

Well, Conservatives have been on the receiving end of threatening behaviour, too, as Vicky Ford MP pointed out during the debate.

A little over a year ago, anti-Brexit people demonstrated outside of Jacob Rees-Mogg’s house, with his children present, more about which below.

Only a few days ago, a rapper accepting a music award held a dripping head effigy of Boris Johnson.

Threats are happening to MPs on both sides of the House of Commons:

Opposition language — the truth

In Thursday’s debate on language, following a statement by Labour MP Jess Phillips, who has also received death threats, a Conservative MP brought up Labour MP John McDonnell’s wish to assassinate Margaret Thatcher.

Of course, Speaker Bercow shut that down pretty fast.

Let us look at what John McDonnell said some time ago:

Backbencher has an excellent article explaining the full nasty and violent context of McDonnell’s aforementioned statements.

Another MP with the first name of John has also used foul and insulting language, directed below at a Conservative MP:

Here is a past video from the aforementioned Jess Phillips about her own party leader:

Also this (click on second tweet to see it in full):

Also:

And this:

And what about the language used in Remainer protests? ‘Betrayal’? ‘Treason May’?

That’s mild compared to this:

If those examples are not convincing enough, Guido Fawkes has many more.

After all is said and done, PLEASE leave everyone to their opinions!

No threats, please!

Let us live in peace, whatever our views!

As the wise Church of England clergyman, the Reverend Marcus Walker points out:

No adjournment for Conservative Party conference

The main opposition parties, Labour and the Lib Dems, have had their party conferences but voted against an adjournment for a few days next week for the Conservatives to have theirs.

How petty:

I could not agree more with the following opinion:

Certain cross-party bills will be tabled for next week, as the Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, agreed with MPs on Thursday afternoon.

More to follow next week.

Once upon a time I really liked Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party.

They worked hard on local issues, opposing lazy Conservative and Labour councillors.

I knew one of them fairly well. We commuted into London together. Another Lib Dem councillor who lived nearby also took the same train. These were accessible people.

That was when Charles Kennedy led the party. Unfortunately, because of a personal issue that was becoming painfully obvious in public, he had to stand down.

When Menzies ‘Ming’ Campbell took over the party, it began to change. I remember going off them when they overwhelmingly voted to give convicts the right to vote. I have always felt very strongly that convicts have sacrificed their ‘right’ to vote. Harming someone, either physically or through property damage and theft, is inexcusable. They have broken the social contract. Even if they have done their time, that is the price they pay — forever, in my opinion.

Under Ming Campbell, the Lib Dems moved further leftward. Even the late Paddy Ashdown said at one of their party conferences a few years ago that they were a left-wing party. I was shocked to see someone I’d viewed as sensible say such a thing.

What follows is a recap of their 2019 party conference in Bournemouth — along with an update.

Kirsten Johnson resigns as PPC for North Devon

Yesterday, I wrote about Kirsten Johnson, the PPC (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) for Devon. She has US/UK dual nationality and insulted the county’s Leave voters in a Radio 4 interview on Sunday, September 15, 2019.

Every party, from the Greens to the Conservatives, criticised her. What she said about the citizens of her adopted country was shameful.

Fortunately, the backlash was so great that she has since stood down as the Lib Dem PPC for North Devon:

In fact, she’s even deleted her Twitter account.

The following tweet is from the Conservative Party chairman and the current MP for North Devon. I like the North Devon resident’s response:

Guido Fawkes has an excerpt of her resignation statement:

It is with the deepest regret that I resign as the Parliamentary Candidate for North Devon Liberal Democrats with immediate effect.

I am acutely aware that my comments in the recent Radio 4 interview caused offence, and I reiterate my sincere apologies. Whilst I have had many very good interviews, on this occasion I totally lost the thread of what I was saying, which was interpreted in ways that I certainly did not intend or believe about the people of North Devon.

Uh huh.

At least the mask slipped now, rather than later.

Party conference unsettling

I caught probably two hours’ worth of the Lib Dem conference this year.

That was quite enough. What these MPs and councillors said was startling.

Each time I tried to watch BBC Parliament’s coverage at length, I had to turn off the television.

Did you ever have the experience growing up when you said or did something outrageous and a parent or grandparent said, ‘Stop it! You’re scaring me!’

Well, that was my reaction to the Lib Dems this year. What makes it even scarier is that many Britons think that they are still the reasonable political party they were in the 1990s. No, they are not.

See the lengthy list of conference motions that passed. Three of them follow.

Deprivation of citizenship

In the debate on Motion F34, Lib Dems said that the Home Secretary Sajid Javid was wrong to revoke ISIS bride Shamima Begum’s British nationality.

They want any future Home Secretary to go through the courts first!

On September 15, The Guardian reported that Christine Jardine, responsible for leading Lib Dem positions on home affairs, said:

The decision to strip someone of their citizenship is a very serious one and should only be taken when absolutely necessary. Instead, we have seen Conservative home secretaries abuse this power for political gain with tragic results.

“These are people brought up, often born here, with families and loved ones who deserve a government that will take responsibility when they are radicalised and go abroad to join terrorists. They should be prosecuted in the UK for their crimes and interrogated to learn exactly how this happens and prevent terrorists from recruiting more young Brits.

“Liberal Democrats demand better. We will introduce new safeguards so that home secretaries must show good reasons for revoking someone’s citizenship. We will also ensure that the best interests of any children involved are taken into account, and that no one is left stateless.

I watched a half hour of the debate on this and had to turn it off. Sajid Javid did the right thing. One of the talking points was discussing radicalisation with young people. Sorry, but there is no ‘educating’ people who want to be terrorists. Nothing and no one can stop them.

Climate crisis

I watched part of the debate about keeping data on everyone taking a trip on commercial aircraft. I had to turn that off, too.

While much data is gathered, part of Motion F29 concerned tabulating how many times an individual flew on a plane per year.

Fortunately, someone had the wisdom to say that a number of people who fly frequently on business would be adversely affected.

That said, Motion F29 passed. It calls for, among other things, a national Citizen’s Climate Assembly. Anything with ‘citizen’ in it should raise an alarm.

Music venues

I had to turn this debate off, too.

A musician and the PPC for Hove and Portslade, Beatrice Bass, moved Motion F25 on music venues.

Watching her, I sensed she felt quite angry towards England. I also noted a hint of a foreign accent. It turns out she was born in Davos, Switzerland, and has dual Swiss/UK nationality.

So, like the aforementioned failed American PPC, she, too, comes from abroad. They weren’t the only two, either. Several others from abroad also spoke at conference. I wonder if putting forward so many foreign PPCs is a good idea. Will they have England at the heart of their policies? I doubt it. But, I digress.

Beatrice Bass said that England is the only British country to have restrictive laws on music venues, especially with regard to noise. She wants those laws relaxed. Many of us do not. We are grateful for noise abatement laws. Some of us have to get up for school or work in the morning.

Glee Club

Speaking of music, every year, their party conference has a private evening session called Glee Club. Members make up songs ridiculing public figures.

This year’s stand out was the take on Tony Blair. I’m no fan of the former PM, but this is too much:

Guido Fawkes says that the song is a Glee Club oldie from 1995, now a party classic:

Lib Dems took part in their annual conference sing-a-long last night, and despite the referendum, their new recruits, and support from Alastair Campbell, Mrs Blair, and probably the Former Prime Minister too, they launched into the Lib Dem classic: “Tony Blair can f*ck off and die

The song, originally written in 1995 about rejecting the idea about coalition with the Labour Party, became a Lib Dem Glee Club favourite in the post-Iraq era. Guido brings you the lyrics so you can sing along at home:

So bye, bye to the great Lib-Lab lie
That it’s made in heaven
‘cos that’s pie in the sky
Us Lib Dems will take courage and cry
“Tony Blair can f*ck off and die”
“Tony Blair can f*ck off and die

Jo Swinson

This year, Jo Swinson made her first speech as party leader.

It is interesting that she wears red a lot. Is it because it’s her colour, or is she trying to send a message?

She probably considered the photo op as a team building exercise.

Guido Fawkes has the story (emphases in the original):

Jo Swinson staged what is set to be the oddest photo op of party conference season when she walked her MPs into the Bournemouth sea. There are honestly easier ways to get to Europe, guys…

Whilst there was a decent turnout for the photoshoot, some Lib Dem MPs not shore about the visuals chose not to cave into pier pressure. It really will be sink or swim for the Lib Dems over the next few months…

Some people have investigated Jo Swinson’s voting record when she was an MP both before and after the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government (2010-2015). She voted more often with the Conservative government positions than Conservative MPs did:

Then there’s this, as seen on Twitter:

That editorial about a monument to Margaret Thatcher rings a definite bell. However, Swinson was a young MP at the time and I didn’t think any more about it. She was on some of the Sunday political television programmes around that time, too.

Jo Swinson not only did a dramatic turnaround on her conservative views as a Lib Dem, she also did a 180-degree turnaround on EU membership.

Adam Heilbron unearthed vintage footage of Swinson criticising the EU and proposing a referendum on the UK’s membership:

From that, Guido Fawkes’s team put together two videos:

reminding Guido of a time when the Lib Dems were both liberal and democratic… 

Guido concludes:

Give it another decade and she might have flopped back to being a eurosceptic again!

One cannot help but wonder if there is some sort of incentive behind these ginormous flip flops.

Article 50 revocation

Anyone fence-sitting on Brexit should be aware that voting for Lib Dems in a general election will lead to revocation of Article 50 straightaway.

It is unlikely that Jo Swinson will become PM. There is no way the Lib Dems could win a majority or even an overwhelming minority to form a government.

That said, they have firmly established themselves as the Remain party in Britain.

In her maiden conference speech as party leader, she invoked the memory of past party leader, the late Paddy Ashdown:

I wish he could see our party now.

However, Paddy Ashdown said he was firmly committed to following through with the Leave result:

On September 14, she wrote a piece for The Guardian which says:

The Liberal Democrats are the strongest Remain party in the UK, and we continue to grow, adding members, councillors and MPs. When a general election comes, we will be ready for it and ready to take our clear, pro-European message to the country. We want to stop Brexit, and if the Liberal Democrats win the general election then we will revoke article 50.

Our country deserves better than Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson. The Liberal Democrats are the positive, hopeful alternative that the country needs.

That’s democracy in action (not).

At the same time, she calls out the new facial recognition surveillance:

I’m not a fan of it myself … but it’s a lot less dangerous than revoking Article 50!

In any event, the Lib Dems’ position on revocation of Article 50 without a second referendum has the cross-party People’s Vote campaign wondering about the party’s participation.

On September 17, Guido Fawkes had this:

His article says, in part:

One unexpectedly joyous by-product of the change of policy by the LibDems, to ignoring the referendum result totally, is that over at the People’s Vote campaign Tom Baldwin wants to purge LibDem MPs. James McGrory, the former LibDem SpAd for Clegg, is trying to keep them on board. Anna Soubry is saying they must be purged. So much for plurality and a new kind of centrist politics. Chaos….

Tom Baldwin has tweeted that our story is bollocks. Am assured that the question of the LibDem’s status with the campaign is being actively discussed in the office.

The day before, The Guardian published a pointed editorial on Swinson’s position. It ends with this:

The winner-takes-all mentality behind Ms Swinson’s policy is troubling. The lack of a democratic mandate for revoke means it could entrench a permanent divide in British life that will be impossible to bridge. Politicians ought to think about their policy’s consequences. If the Lib Dems’ idea is accepted, then why couldn’t the SNP be permitted to hold a second independence vote if it won the next Holyrood election? Then there are the accusations of inconsistency. In 2008 Ms Swinson wanted a referendum on EU membership. Two years later she campaigned on a manifesto that committed the Lib Dems to an in/out EU referendum. She was a minister in an austerity government that did so much to create the pain and division behind the leave howl. In 2016 an EU referendum took place. The country voted out. Three years later, Ms Swinson won’t accept the outcome of a plebiscite she had said she wanted.

The Lib Dems are positioning themselves to tap future popular revulsion against the major parties. Yet the politics of protest only works if there is something to protest about. If Boris Johnson strikes a Brexit deal with the EU, where does this leave Ms Swinson? The Lib Dem policy also gives Labour a clear run at a second referendum. Ms Swinson’s offer is just to permanently polarise the electorate around Brexit. The Lib Dems still have no distinctive pitch for issues beyond leaving the EU. This is the party of ideas, home to Keynes and Beveridge. But there’s no sign of a middle way being plotted by the party between the extremes. Unless Ms Swinson can do so, the odds will be stacked against the Lib Dems in a general election.

Even Polly Toynbee noted ‘Swinson’s remain extremism’.

Scottish PPC sacked

On September 16, Guido Fawkes reported that a Scottish Lib Dem PPC was given the heave-ho.

Galen Milne has made menacing remarks, to say the least, about prominent Conservatives — including the PM and Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg:

A Lib Dem parliamentary candidate who called for Boris Johnson and other top ministers to be h[anged], drawn and quartered before being burned at the stake, has been axed by Jo Swinson.

Galen Milne – who was due to stand in the Scottish seat of Banff and Buchan – made the comments on Facebook, where he also called Tory MPs “rats” and advocated a “final solution” to split the Tory Party.

Taking the graphic comments in his stride, earlier Jacob Rees-Mogg Tweeted:

True! Being hanged, drawn and quartered was for plebs.

For more information …

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

© 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 1,472 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

August 2020
S M T W T F S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

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

  • 1,609,216 hits