Bill Carmichael

Immigration plan shows the benefits of Brexit

2020-09-15T12:40:00.002+01:00

In a famous speech Portia, the cross-dressing lawyer in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, sings the praises of the quality of mercy:

She says: “It is twice blessed. It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.”

Sometimes I think immigration is a bit like that because it also offers a double blessing – it can benefit the individual immigrant, and also bring advantages to the host country that accepts newcomers.

The immigrant has the chance to escape poverty, corruption and war and build a better life for his or her family. That’s why millions of people are queuing up to escape the Islamist war zones of the Middle East and the socialist hellholes of Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, for freer countries where their hard work has a better chance of reward.

And the host community benefits from an injection of fresh and younger blood – particularly important in a rapidly ageing population, such as the UK’s. Immigrants can make a contribution not just in economic terms in the work they do and the taxes they pay, but by raising their families and integrating successfully they can also help build strong, stable communities.

And let’s not forget that some of the world’s most successful countries – for example the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – were largely built on the backs of immigrants.

Benefit

So generally I am in favour of immigration because it offers this win-win benefit. But in the 2016 Referendum I voted to leave the EU and everything I have seen since has convinced me I did exactly the right thing.

One reason I wanted out of the EU was the freedom of movement rules imposed by Brussels.

So, I hear you ask, what’s the difference between freedom of movement and immigration? The answer can be summed up in a single word - control.

Now we are finally an independent nation once again we can decide, through our elected representatives, who we allow into our country and who we keep out – just like every other sovereign state in the world.

We no longer have to follow the diktats of unaccountable EU bureaucrats whom we never voted for and couldn’t get rid of.

Discrimination

And never forget that the EU’s immigration policy is inherently racist in that it discriminates in favour of predominantly white skinned people in Europe and against predominantly black and brown skinned people in the developing world.

Now we can set our own rules it means that the brilliant software engineer from India or the world-class paediatric surgeon from Kenya have a better chance of entering the UK than the career criminal from Lithuania or the Mafia boss from Italy.

We were never allowed to make such common sense decisions while we remained under the yoke of the racist EU.

For these reasons I welcome the UK’s new points-based immigration policy announced by Home Secretary Priti Patel this week.

Under the new rules prospective immigrants can accrue the necessary points to come and work in the UK by being able to speak English, having employment skills and a job sponsor and having a salary of at least £25,600.

The minimum salary is flexible and could be as low as £20,480 if they are filling a job where there are shortages, such as nurses.

Applicants with higher education qualifications, particularly in science, technology, engineering and maths will be awarded extra points.

They will be banned from claiming income related benefits and will be required to pay a £400 a year fee to use the NHS. They will be allowed – as at present – to bring in their spouses and children.

Control

It all seems pretty sensible to me although there have been complaints from some industry sectors, such as farming and care homes, that it could lead to labour shortages.

But we have a pool of 1.3 million unemployed people. Some of them are possibly unemployable – but surely not all. If the right incentives and training are offered many of them may be tempted back into work.

And the key thing here is that we are in control. If the new rules do cause problems for some industry sectors, they can be quickly tweaked by our elected representatives in Parliament.

We no longer have to go cap in hand to the Berlaymont Building.

To quote Martin Luther King: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty we are free at last!”

Rail building lessons from the Victorians

2020-09-15T12:23:00.001+01:00

A few months back I was tramping across the north Pennines when I came across a delightful little valley I never knew existed.

Smardale, few miles west of Kirkby Stephen, is a miniature jewel of a valley that has been turned into a nature reserve managed by the Cumbria Wildlife Trust.

It is a truly magical spot, and most spectacular of all is the disused Smardale Gill railway viaduct that strides 550 feet across Scandal Beck on 14 glorious, 90 feet high stone arches. It is a smaller, less well known and, dare I say, prettier version of the famous Ribblehead Viaduct a few miles to the south.

I was intrigued. Here were the remnants of a trans-Pennine rail route I had never heard of. Who built it and why?

Intrepid

The answer to that question just about sums up the intrepid and entrepreneurial qualities of our Victorian ancestors who tackled engineering problems with such confidence and brio that they made Britain the most successful country on the planet.

In the 1850s the manufacturers of Barrow-in-Furness on the West coast were in need of a plentiful supply of comparatively cheap, good quality coal to feed their iron and steel furnaces.

On the opposite side of the country the coalfields of County Durham close to the East coast produced exactly that. The trouble was what lay between the two – the daunting and incredibly difficult terrain of high moors and steep valleys of the Yorkshire Dales and North Pennines.

But in an astonishingly short time a railway was planned and built. When the engineers encountered those steep valleys they simply built a viaduct to carry the rails, as at Smardale Gill where the viaduct was constructed at a cost of £11,928 – the equivalent of about £1.4 million in today’s money.

In 1861 the South Durham and Lancashire Union Railway opened for business and the line enjoyed more than 100 years of productive life until it was closed in 1962.

Dithering

Listening to Prime Minster Boris Johnson finally giving the green light to the HS2 high-speed rail project this week I couldn’t help contrasting the can-do attitude of our Victorian forefathers with the timidity, dithering and delay of current planners.

HS2 was first mooted by the last Labour government back in 2009 and since then we have spent eleven years in planning at a cost of more than £4 billion – without a single mile of track being laid.

Even after the scheme has been given the final go-ahead this week, it could be 2040 before the first HS2 services operate in Yorkshire.

The initial idea was for a Y-shaped network of more than 330 miles of track linking London to Birmingham, and then in a second phase up to Manchester and Leeds.

The project promised a £15 billion boost to the economy and a narrowing of the productivity gap that exists between north and south.

Up to 18 trains an hour, each carrying up to 1,000 passengers, would travel at speeds of 250mph.

But there have been doubts from the beginning that have only increased as the cost of the project ballooned from an initial £32 billion to something north of £100 billion today.

Investment

But we in the north have a more fundamental problem with HS2 – the whole concept was devised back to front.

What the north’s creaking rail system needs is investment now – not in 2040. Yet the HS3 project, otherwise known as Northern Powerhouse Rail, a new high-speed rail line linking Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull and Newcastle, was tacked on almost as if it was a bit of an afterthought.

What is clear is that Northern Powerhouse Rail should have been built first to boost the economies of the great cities of Yorkshire, Lancashire and the northeast – and once that had been completed consideration given to improved links to London.

In his statement to the Commons this week Johnson insisted the two schemes were not “an either/or proposition” and added: “Both are needed and both will be built – as quickly and as cost effectively as possible.”

Let’s hope so, and I am sure the Yorkshire Post will be vigilant in making sure the Prime Minister keeps that promise.

But I can’t help thinking that if the Victorians had been in charge the whole thing would have been built by now.

Trump far more in tune with US voters

2020-02-11T13:12:00.000+00:00

It has been a very good week for Donald Trump – so good in fact it is hard to imagine that things could have gone any better for the US President.

The biggest news came on Wednesday when the US Senate voted to acquit him on two charges of impeachment, which would have removed him from office.

This result was widely expected as the vote was split largely on party lines and Trump’s fellow Republicans control the 100-member Senate. The chances of getting the necessary two-thirds majority for a guilty verdict were always vanishingly slim.

So no real surprise there – but the Democrats have wasted an enormous amount of political capital, money and effort on what has emerged as little more than a futile gesture.

For two years they shouted about “Russian Collusion” in the 2016 election, only for the exhaustive Mueller Report to conclude there was no collusion after spending $25 million and interviewing 500 witnesses.

Rather than learning from that debacle the Democrats decided to run full pelt down another blind alley with impeachment – only to hit another brick wall at the end.

So while the Democrats are depressed and demoralised just nine months ahead of the presidential election, Republicans are cock-a-hoop.

Energise

The impeachment process has achieved little – except to energise grass roots Republican support for Trump. Trump’s approval rating has soared to 49% - the highest since he was elected. But among Republican supporters his approval rating is at an astonishing 94%.

And it has allowed Trump to shape the narrative. Already he has denounced the “hoax impeachment” as a ruse cooked up by bitter and angry Democrats who couldn’t beat him fairly and squarely at the ballot box.

He paints himself as a political outsider pitched against an establishment set on destroying him, which was perfectly encapsulated in a Tweet the President sent to his 60 million followers recently. It said: “In reality they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.”

Priorities

And Trump’s State of the Union address to Congress earlier this week gave a clear indication of what will be the Republican campaign priorities in the coming months.

While the Democrats obsess over identity politics and creating gender-neutral bathrooms, Trump will focus laser-like on his strong suit – the economy, jobs, putting food on the table and keeping people safe. In other words precisely the issues that actually matter to ordinary voters.

With a characteristic lack of modesty, Trump listed his achievements in his speech. But even if you dislike him as a person, the facts speak for themselves: a healthy economy with GDP growing at between 2% and 3%, more than six million jobs created, unemployment at a 50-year low, lowest unemployment among blacks and Asians on record, and a successful clamp down on illegal immigration.

He has a good story to tell and you can bet he will hammer it home at every opportunity.

Clown show

Meanwhile efforts by the Democratic Party to choose a candidate to take on Trump have descended into an unmitigated clown show. The Iowa caucuses – the first big showcase event of the primary season – were thrown into chaos when a phone app being used to record the votes crashed.

Republicans gleefully pointed out that the Democrats who couldn’t organise a vote in one of the US’s smallest states were the same people who wanted to run America’s entire health care system.

The Democratic line up of contenders is an uninspiring charisma-free zone, ranging from dull centrists to eccentrics on the far left of the American political spectrum.

Do any of them have the broad popular appeal, the bread and butter policies and the courage and stamina that will be required to beat Trump in what will be a dirty fight?

Trump is without doubt a divisive figure, loved and hated in equal measure. If you look at social media you would think Trump is bound to lose in November. But that is the mistake Labour made last December. Social media is not real life.

Ordinary voters don’t scream through a megaphone or hurl abuse at perfect strangers on the internet. They quietly raise their families, go to work and, crucially, at election times they go out and vote, while the keyboard warriors of Twitter are snoring under the duvet in mum’s back bedroom.

That’s why I think Trump stands a good chance of re-election, and this week he took a big step towards that goal.

ends

Time to toast the UK's Independence Day

2020-02-11T13:04:00.001+00:00

There is a nice bottle of bubbly on ice and I’ll certainly be raising a toast at 11pm tonight when the UK finally frees itself from the protectionist cartel that is the European Union.

But the overwhelming feeling is one of relief, rather than celebration. Relief that we have survived what amounted to an establishment coup against the people, and navigated our departure with our democracy – just about – intact.

The last three and a half years have been the most disturbing period I can recall in our nation’s recent history – and a lot of this is to do with the tone of the debate rather than the substance of the arguments.

The Referendum result in 2016 came as a terrible shock to many but perhaps naively, I expected that now the issue was definitively settled the country would come together after the divisiveness of the campaign.

After all democracy can only survive if the losers in a democratic vote accept the result, and we were promised by then Prime Minister David Cameron that “the government will implement what you decide”.

Tide of hatred

But it didn’t turn out like that. Instead the Referendum result unleashed a tide of hatred directed at ordinary voters, the like of which we have never witnessed before.

Leave voters were constantly smeared as stupid, ignorant, racists, bigots, knuckle-dragging xenophobes and Nazis. Northerners, older and working class people came in for particularly virulent abuse.

All this for the apparently unforgiveable sin of wishing to live in a free and independent country once again.

At first I put this down to sore loser syndrome. This is an incredibly spoilt generation who are used to always getting their own way. Once they got over the shock of losing for once, they would calm down a bit.

Not a bit of it – in fact it got progressively worse. Eventually Leavers such as myself learned to avoid the topic of Brexit entirely in social situations for fear of some spittle-flecked Remainer screaming in your face that: “You’re worse than Hitler!”

Subvert democracy

Even worse the Remainer establishment set out to deliberately subvert our democracy using every tool at its disposal, ripping up decades of convention and trashing Parliament’s reputation and the Supreme Court’s political neutrality in the process.

In those dark days I began to fear that the Remainers would succeed in simply “cancelling” Brexit, causing incalculable damage to our democratic institutions.

The question of whether our democracy could survive this assault became much more important than the relatively trivial matter of whether we stayed in the EU.

Remember also at this time the ardent Remainers in the Labour, SNP and Lib Dem parties had the option to compromise by voting for Theresa May’s half-in, half-out deal. But they rejected any accommodation. Only total victory against Brexit would do.

EU jingoism

Luckily, ordinary voters thought differently and in six separate elections – the 2014 and 2019 European elections, the 2015 and 2017 general elections, the 2016 Referendum itself and Boris Johnson’s thumping victory last month – they consistently voted to leave. Democracy has won a famous victory.

But why have so-called progressives wrapped themselves in the EU flag like the jingoists of Victorian times? After all the EU is what leftists of Tony Benn’s vintage would have called a “big businessman’s club”, ruled by a top-down unelected bureaucracy that deliberately discriminates against the Developing World. The last word you would use to describe the EU is “progressive”.

Then it struck me – this has nothing to do with the facts (which are indisputable) but everything to do with emotion. Being pro-EU is all about self-image. It is a way of displaying your virtue and telling everyone what a cool, modern person you are. Brexit has destroyed this illusion and that is why Remainers are so utterly furious all the time.

Take for example the absurd fuss over the Brexit commemorative 50 pence coin, with many Remainers, such as Alastair Campbell and Lord Adonis, saying they won’t accept it in their change. This is not the act of rational people.

I liked the tongue in cheek suggestion given to Remainers that they should send their 50 pences to Brussels and receive 20p back from the EU, with strict instructions on how to spend it. It would be like they never left!

Tonight I’ll be making a toast I learned in France many years ago: “Je lève mon verre à la liberté”.

Santé, Prost, Cin Cin, Salud and Cheers!

Hot air emissions spoil climate at Davos

2020-02-11T12:59:00.000+00:00

The World Economic Forum in Davos doesn’t appear to have achieved very much in its 50 years of existence – but at least it is always good for a laugh.

It is the highlight of the social calendar when politicians and rich celebrities fly into Switzerland on private jets in order to deliver finger wagging lectures to ordinary people on the evils of flying.

The theme of this year’s gabfest is – and I am not making this up – creating a sustainable world, and it aims to address a key question: “How to save the planet”.

Well you could start by not using so much aviation fuel couldn’t you? The complete absence of any hint of self-awareness is what makes Davos comedy gold.

Stung by accusations of hypocrisy after 1,500 jets flew into the conference last year, Davos has come up with same lame excuse used by Dame Emma Thompson when she flew first class across the Atlantic to join an Extinction Rebellion protest against climate change.

Davos announced that this year it was, like Thompson, offsetting all air travel by purchasing carbon credits to fund emissions reducing projects.

Does this remove the emissions created by the jets? Er… no, the planes still burn vast amounts of fuel and pump tons of carbon into the atmosphere. It just enables rich people to feel a little less guilty about trashing the planet.

Carbon offsetting is the modern equivalent of the sale of indulgences in 16^th Century Europe that so angered Martin Luther and helped spark the Reformation.

Then rich people paid vast sums to the Roman Catholic Church so they could carry on sinning. Today rich people pay vast sums to the Holy Church of Global Warming so they can carry on flying.

Highlight

One of the highlights of this year’s conference was a speech by the 17-year-old queen of climate activism, Greta Thunberg, who incidentally graciously granted an audience to Prince Charles, who was also a speaker.

She scolded the delegates saying: “Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fuelling the flames by the hour.”

She dismissed the idea of a “low carbon economy” and demanded an immediate end to all oil and gas extraction and a move to zero emissions, not in 2030 or 2050, but right now.

If we followed her advice we would be back in the Stone Age. The world economy would collapse with devastating consequences, particularly for the world’s poor. But hey ho, perhaps that’s worth it if it allows rich westerners feel a bit better about themselves?

Optimism

In contrast to Thunberg, US President Donald Trump’s speech was optimistic, if typically boastful, highlighting his own achievements on the economy, energy, trade deals and much else.

Although he didn’t mention Thunberg by name, he rejected the “prophets of doom” and their “predictions of the apocalypse”.

And he had this to say about climate activists: “These alarmists always demand the same thing – absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives.”

The suggestion here is that climate activism is not so much about the saving the planet, but more about exercising political power and controlling people.

So we have presented at Davos two very different and seemingly irreconcilable views of the world. One believes we are on the brink of climate catastrophe and we have to dismantle the economy to avoid it. The other sees human ingenuity and free markets as the key to a more sustainable future.

Poverty reduction

We should be extremely cautious of suggestions – by people like Thunberg – that we have to destroy capitalism in order to save the planet.

The simple fact, backed by hard statistics, is that free markets and capitalism have resulted in dramatic reductions in poverty not just in the West but in the developing world too.

A billion people in the world’s poorest countries have been lifted out of extreme poverty and there have been big gains in longevity and literacy and a reduction in infant mortality and deaths from preventable diseases.

In addition we have seen big improvements in our environment. For example in the UK our air, rivers and seas are vastly cleaner and greener than they were 100 years ago.

Of course we need better energy efficiency and careful stewardship of the earth’s resources. But we shouldn’t do anything that would imperil the human progress that capitalism has wrought.

Long-Bailey is right over Lords reforms

2020-02-11T12:54:00.001+00:00

I never imagined I would have much in common with Rebecca Long-Bailey, but this week she made a comment that had me nodding my head in agreement.

She is the Salford and Eccles MP who is considered the “Corbyn continuity” candidate for leadership of the Labour party.

As the standard bearer of the party’s hard left establishment she reckons that there was little wrong with Labour’s election campaign last month, going so far as to award Jeremy Corbyn 10 out of 10 for his leadership qualities.

This despite the fact that Corbyn led Labour into its fourth straight election defeat and its worst result since 1935.

According to this narrative it wasn’t Labour’s policies or leadership that were to blame, but instead it was all the fault of the stupid voters who got it wrong. The working classes of this country have badly let the Labour party down – not the other way around.

It reminds me of that old Bertolt Brecht joke about the government dissolving the people and electing a new one.

Feudal relic

So blinkered and myopic is Long-Bailey’s analysis of Labour’s recent catastrophe that if she wins the leadership election we can expect more of the same – and at least a solid decade of Conservative government.

But even a stopped clock is right twice a day and Long-Bailey was absolutely correct when she suggested abolishing the House of Lords.

This feudal relic has become so bloated and ridiculous and such an affront to democracy that it has made the UK an international laughing stock.

There are now more than 800 members of the House of Lords, making it the largest legislative chamber outside the Chinese People’s Congress. But unlike its Chinese communist counterpart not a single member of the House of Lords is elected.

To put this into perspective, the upper house in the United States – the Senate – has just 100 members, all of them elected.

Why the UK needs more than 800 upper house legislators when the US, which has five times our population, can make do with just 100, is one of life’s great mysteries.

Vote loser

As if to make Long-Bailey’s point for her, the Conservatives this week elevated Zac Goldsmith to the House of Lords after the environment minister lost his Richmond Park seat last month to the Liberal Democrats by more than 7,000 votes.

Very sad to him personally I am sure, but hardly a big loss to the nation. Goldsmith’s main claim to fame is losing a London Mayoral election and coming up with the bonkers idea of charging people to use supermarket car parks to save the planet – a guaranteed vote loser if ever I saw one.

But being comprehensively rejected by voters is no bar to political patronage – at least as long as the House of Lords exists. Goldsmith is apparently a good friend of Boris Johnson and that is all that matters.

So he turned up this week for his first day as a member of the House of Lords apparently wearing synthetic ermine. How apt! An ersatz lord, wearing ersatz fur, in an ersatz legislature!

In fact Johnson was relatively restrained in his appointments to the Lords, nominating just Goldsmith and culture secretary Nicky Morgan, who decided she wanted to carry on her political career without the bother of standing for election.

Cronyism

But over the years prime ministers of all political hues have packed the Lords with an unsavoury collection of failed politicians and dodgy party donors that have made the upper house a byword for cronyism, corruption and expenses fiddling.

According to former Lords Speaker Baroness d’Souza only a tiny minority of Peers do any work, such as contributing to debates or sitting on committees. The rest simply pocket their £300 a day tax-free allowance and enjoy the subsidised bars and restaurants in what has been described as “the best day care centre for the elderly in London”.

There are “many, many peers who contribute absolutely nothing but claim the full allowance” according to the Baroness, and she should know.

So I’m with Long-Bailey on this one if on nothing else. There is even a suggestion, published in the Times newspaper earlier this month, that a plan drawn up by Lord Salisbury, and currently being considered by Johnson and his team, is to reform the House of Lords to turn it into a “House of Regions” to give a bigger say in Westminster to the north of England. Sounds like a plan to me.

Britain should back Trump over Iran

2020-02-11T12:47:00.001+00:00

According to some of the more excitable political commentators World War Three should have broken out by now, sparked by Donald Trump’s decision to kill one of the world’s most deadly terrorists.

Thank heavens that hasn’t happened – at least so far – although the situation in the Middle East would make a large keg of gunpowder look relatively stable.

To delicate Western sensibilities the US president’s tactics – do as I say or I’ll bomb you to smithereens – may seem terribly crude, and there has been much pearl clutching among lefties and woke celebrities.

But in an Iran ruled by a bunch of ruthless, blood-soaked bigots, such displays of sheer brute power gain you at least a grudging respect.

According to the 16^th Century Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli it is “much safer to be feared than loved”, and fear certainly seems to be the driving force in Iran’s response to America’s new found assertiveness.

I can imagine the ruling mullahs gathering over sweet tea and saying: “You know - this Trump guy is just crazy enough to carry out his threats!”

How else to explain Iran’s curiously muted response to the killing of Qasem Soleimani, the main instigator of that country’s terror operations, in a US missile strike?

Progress

Iran has demonstrated dozens of times in the past that it is perfectly capable of unleashing large-scale bloodshed against both civilians and Western officials and armed forces.

But Iran’s face-saving retaliation when it came this week – a few missile attacks against US bases in Iraq – were apparently carefully calculated so as to not cause any casualties at all.

So we have gone from a situation where Iran was doing all it could to kill Westerners, to a situation where Iran is doing all it can to avoid killing Westerners.

That has to be progress of a sort. In other words Trump’s tactics appear to be working.

Moral equivalence

But what should the UK’s response be to heightened tensions in the region? Quite simply we should give our full backing to the USA, for two reasons – one practical and the other moral.

In terms of practical realpolitik we should back the winner, and there is little doubt that the US is going to win. Its military is immeasurably more powerful than Iran’s and if the mullahs are foolish enough to keep poking Trump with a stick it is going to end very, very badly for them.

But more importantly the US is in the right here. The idea that there is some kind of moral equivalence between Iran and the US is one of the barmiest ideas to come out of the modern left.

If you are gay in Iran you can be hanged from the neck from a crane until you are dead. If you are a woman you can be jailed for more than ten years for removing your headscarf. If you demonstrate against the government you face being massacred by the security forces – as 1,500 protesters have been in recent months.

Iran – and in particular Soleimani – has been responsible for much of the sectarian slaughter in Syria, the violence in Yemen and for terrorist attacks on civilians around the world.

America is far from perfect but you would have to be suffering from a terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome to seriously think “the US is just as bad as Iran”.

But many do, including of course the leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, who turned this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions into a lament for a dead terrorist. Has Corbyn ever met an enemy of Britain that he couldn’t support?

Like Corbyn many on the left now believe that everything the West does, or ever has done, is irredeemably evil, and everything enemies of the West do, is a force for good – even if that means backing racists, misogynists and terrorist killers.

It is a cartoonish view of the world that has more in common with Tom and Jerry than Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin. There is no subtlety or nuance – everything is black and white: West is bad; non-West is good. It is an intellectual cul-de-sac that leads nowhere.

Luckily voters rejected this anti-British worldview in last month’s general election, and unless Labour can begin to understand why that happened they will be out of power for a long time.

EU will only survive if it reforms

2020-01-07T15:42:00.001+00:00

An ocean of ink has been spent over the last three years arguing the pros and cons of the UK leaving the EU with the big question often posed - will we survive?

Well at the moment it depends on who you ask. At one end of the spectrum are the Leaver optimists who envisage healthy economic growth through what has already been dubbed the Roaring Twenties, driven by Singapore-style swashbuckling free enterprise.

At the other end are the Eeyore pessimists of the Remain camp who forecast total economic collapse, widespread food and medicine shortages and an outbreak of genocide and untreatable venereal diseases.

The truth, as is often the case, will probably lie somewhere between these two extremes - although much closer to the former I think - and I suspect that most people won’t notice much difference to their daily lives.

But there is an equally interesting question that so far has not received as much attention. Not “can the UK survive without the EU”, but “can the EU survive without the UK”?

EU Poorer

There is little doubt that the UK’s departure is a grievous blow to the EU and will leave it poorer, less productive and with higher unemployment.

This is because the UK is the second largest economy in the bloc accounting to some 16% of the EU’s total GDP.

According to the Financial Times, the loss of the UK will make the EU’s economy smaller than that of the United States.

The EU will also lose about 13% of its population and one of its largest and most prosperous cities - London - which is also a global financial hub.

But it is the loss of British money that is causing most consternation in Brussels. Currently the UK contributes about £20 billion a year to EU coffers, receiving roughly half of that back in rebates and subsidies.

That means the UK’s departure will blow a £10 billion hole in the EU’s accounts, and as the EU steadfastly refuses to economise it means that other “net contributor” countries, notably Germany but also the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and a few more, will have to pay substantially more to keep the EU’s creaking ship afloat.

According to some estimates Germany will have to pay more than £2 billion extra a year. I cannot imagine that going down well with voters already fed up that they are treated as Europe’s cash cow.

Imperialism

Of course the EU should be strong enough to survive these setbacks, serious though they are, at least in the short term. But the EU’s survival in the longer term depends on what lessons it takes from Brexit.

For some the removal of the obstacle of British intransigence presents an opportunity to go full throttle for “ever closer union” with even more centralisation, EU control over the tax and spending of member countries, a European Army and the virtual eradication of the democratic nation state.

This is the dream of the new imperialists, such as the federalist fanatic Guy Verhofstadt, who want to see the creation of a New European Empire that will be in perpetual conflict with other world “empires” such as China, India and the United States.

If the EU is foolish enough to follow this delusion, I don’t see it lasting very much longer. The simmering resentment against an overbearing, top down, anti-democratic bureaucracy forcing though unpopular policies and tax rises, will erupt into violent street protests. Think of France’s “gilet jaune” protests but on a much larger, pan-European scale.

If however the lesson taken from Brexit is that the EU must learn to listen to its citizens and be more responsive to their concerns and ambitions, then perhaps there is a future for a more democratic version of the EU.

Liberty

If the EU is to have a future it is not as a “United States of Europe” but as a friendly association of free, independent countries cooperating on trade, security and other matters, but in terms of tax and spending, domestic and foreign policy, subject to the democractic will of their own citizens.

If such an organisation eventually emerged from the wreckage of Brexit, the people of Europe may be grateful - once again - to the British for securing their liberty.

And who knows - perhaps a few decades down the line the UK will decide to re-join?

Three predictions for 2020

2020-01-07T15:37:00.001+00:00

It is that time of year when I dust off my trusty crystal ball and peer into the future to see what 2020 will bring. Welcome to the latest edition of Old Bill’s Almanac.

Actually I don’t need a crystal ball for my first prediction, because it is pretty much nailed on.

By the end of January we will have left the corrupt, anti-democratic, moribund cartel that is the European Union and we can begin life as a free, newly independent, self-governing nation once again, in full control of our money, our laws and our borders.

Hurrah! What a cracking start to 2020!

Of course we still need to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, but the new government seems so confident that can be wrapped up within 12 months that they have enshrined it in law.

And the EU already seems much more conciliatory and prepared to compromise now that their Fifth Column of Remainers have been so comprehensively routed in the election earlier this month.

Remember an EU trade deal has enormous benefits for both sides, and German and French exporters are as keen to get a good deal as we are.

Project Fear

It would be nice to think that in 2020 Remainers, who have indulged themselves with ceaseless toddler tantrums for more than three years just because they lost a democratic vote, will finally stop whingeing - but don’t bet on it.

Expect many more Remainer tears as Independence Day approaches, not that it will make the slightest difference.

And it will be fascinating to see if any of the more lurid gloom mongering of Project Fear comes to pass once we leave the EU - genocide, total economic collapse, diabetics dying for want of insulin, a shortage of cheese and Mars Bars and an outbreak of a super-strong venereal disease - to name just a few of the more preposterous predictions.

I forecast none of these things will happen - but we will soon find out who is right, won’t we?

Nastiness

The early months of the year will also be time to grab a large bag of popcorn and settle back in your armchair for what promises to be the most vicious Labour party leadership battle in living memory.

The two wings of the party hate each other more than they hate the Tories, and the posh revolutionaries of the extreme left who have seized control of the party machinery will ensure the coming election will be characterised by sectarianism and undiluted nastiness.

The problem is that neither wing of the party can escape blame for the catastrophic general election result. For example Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry, standard bearers for the centrists, were also the architects of Labour’s disastrous Brexit fudge which hemorrhaged support in the northern heartlands.

Meanwhile the Corbyn-continuity candidate, Rebecca Long Bailey, will no doubt press on with the far left economic programme and giveaways of “free stuff” that were resoundingly rejected by voters.

Talent is very thin on the ground among Labour MPs - how else can you explain Leeds East MP Richard Burgon being talked up as a deputy leader? But my picks from the possibles are Wigan MP Lisa Nandy and Barnsley Central’s Dan Jarvis, but I doubt Labour is in any condition to make such a sensible choice.

Trump challenge

The other big political event of 2020 is the US Presidential election in November when Donald Trump is seeking a second term.

Given the controversies surrounding Trump, his poor poll ratings and the fact he became only the third president in history to be impeached earlier this month, you would think his chances are small, despite a robust economy.

But I can’t help thinking the Democrats are making exactly the same mistakes that led Labour to the rocks in the UK - flirtation with extreme left economic policies, an obsession with ‘woke’ identity politics at the expense of bread and butter issues that matter to voters and above all the absolutely fatal error of thinking Twitter and other social media is representative of society as a whole.

Democrats begin choosing their candidate in the spring and much depends on whether they choose someone of the left such as Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren who will be easy targets for the Trump machine.

One thing for sure if Trump is re-elected it is sure to upset all the right people.

Whatever happens in the months to come may I wish readers of this column a healthy and prosperous New Year.

Conservatives smash Labour's red wall

2020-01-07T15:21:00.001+00:00

In the end Bojo’s blue bulldozer didn’t just crack Labour’s “Red Wall” in the north and Midlands - it smashed it to smithereens.

The Conservative strategy of targeting previously safe Labour, but Leave-voting, seats stretching in a ribbon from north Wales, through Lancashire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire and up into Geordie-land, was a brilliantly executed masterstroke.

I must admit I had my doubts. I understood the level of white-hot anger in these areas at a political establishment that was intent on thwarting the results of the 2016 Referendum.

That was crystal clear to any sane person – although it appears to have come as a total surprise to the London-centric Labour and Lib Dem leaderships trapped as they are in their Westminster bubble.

But I thought that once in the privacy of the polling booth, the old tribal loyalties would kick in, and people would vote Labour because “granddad always voted Labour”.

I was wrong. They didn’t and once again in our history this country owes a massive debt to the working classes who have not only saved us from terror-supporting, anti-Semitic extremists, but have also prevented the hell of a second referendum that would have caused even more bitterness and division and which could have put our very democracy at risk.

Warning

But the Conservatives should be on a warning – these votes have been loaned, not given unconditionally. For the Tories to become the true party of the working class they have to deliver on their promises to help the “left-behind” areas of our nation become more prosperous and productive.

That will entail large-scale investment – most significantly on transport improvements, but also in education and training and housing – to unleash the potential of the north.

One of the most heartening aspects of the election is that Labour’s patronising policy of handing out lots of “free stuff” in return for votes was rejected emphatically.

People in the north are not interested in mythical “free stuff”, just a more level playing field with decently paid jobs, a good school for your children, an effective health service and a train that will get you to work on time.

If the Tories deliver on that they could be in power for a generation. If not those borrowed votes will eventually drift away to other parties. The good news is that Johnson and his team seem to understand that and are approaching the task with energy and determination.

Defeat

As for Labour they are fighting like ferrets in a sack, but there is little sign they have learned the lessons of this humiliating and historic defeat.

So far they have blamed the weather, the Russians, Facebook, the BBC, Laura Kuenssberg, the Guardian, Israel and the “Zionists” (there’s a depressing inevitability about the last two).

Most of all though, according to lefty Remainers, it is all your fault. Yes, you, the idiot voters. For three years they have screeching at you that you are all stupid, racist scumbags – and still you won’t vote for them!

Perhaps heaping vile insults on your potential supporters isn’t such a clever election strategy after all? Now who could have predicted that?

Definitely not to blame, according to deluded Corbynistas, is the party leadership that was solely responsible for this disastrous campaign. Jeremy Corbyn even made the utterly ludicrous claim that despite the worst election performance since 1935, Labour had somehow “won the argument”.

With comic talents such as this surely a season in panto can’t be far behind for the Magic Grandpa – perhaps alongside John “Orderrrr!” Bercow as Widow Twanky?

Victory

This was an important election – possibly the most important in my lifetime - for two reasons. First it was necessary to defeat the left wing extremists who would have brought economic ruin that would have hurt the most vulnerable in our society.

But equally important was that ordinary voters routed an attempt by elite Remainers to subvert our entire democratic system simply because they didn’t like the result of a legitimate referendum vote.

It was in short a famous and era-defining victory for democracy.

Now both dangers have been averted perhaps our divided country can come together to forge a bright new future as a free, independent, self-governing democracy once again.

Politics is broken because losers refused to accept the result of a democratic vote

2019-12-12T13:05:00.001+00:00

Has there ever been a nastier or more divisive election campaign in recent history?

I have experienced a fair few vicious toe-to-toe battles over the years but I am struggling to recall one that has been so relentlessly unpleasant and dispiriting.

The election of December 2019 has been characterised by deliberate misinformation – aka downright lies – aggression, insults and even death threats.

Dead rats have been sent to candidates through the post, canvassers have been physically assaulted on the doorstep and social media has been even more a cesspit of abuse than usual.

Now the campaign’s finally over it is right to ask the question – why have our politics reached such a low ebb?

Accept the result

The answer I am afraid is glaringly obvious. Quite simply our political system only works properly if the losers of a democratic vote are prepared to accept the result.

If the losers refuse to abide by that fundamental, decades old principle - simply because they happen to disagree with the result - then faith in our democratic institutions begins to fray and the whole thing comes apart at the seams. That is precisely what is happening now.

Our political forefathers understood that, and the importance of maintaining our democracy despite personal disappointments, and that’s the way it has been for as long as I can remember.

For example, despite bitter ideological differences, supporters of Edward Heath accepted defeat by Harold Wilson in 1974; Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock took it on the chin when they were bested by Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and 1987; and three successive Conservative party leaders gracefully took defeat at the hands of the electoral machine that was Tony Blair.

Indeed, when the British public voted to stay in what was then known as the Common Market in a referendum in 1975, the losers accepted the result.

But that long and noble tradition came to a catastrophic end in 2016 - and all our present troubles, and the dreadful tenor of this campaign, stems directly from that mistake.

And if you think this campaign has been bad just imagine what horrors a second referendum would inflict on us – it would be 100 times worse!

Broken promises

The truth is the political class has hardly covered itself in glory over the last three and a half years.

First of all they voted overwhelmingly to hand over to the people the decision on whether to remain in the EU or leave, with the government making the solemn pledge on a leaflet delivered to every household in the country: “This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.”

But because the ordinary people had the audacity to vote the “wrong” way, our political elites turned on a sixpence and have spent years trying to ignore or nullify the vote and smearing Leave voters as thick, ignorant racists.

Even as late as the 2017 general election, the two main parties were promising -hand on hearts - to honour the result of the referendum, a stance which helped them attract the support of around 84% of voters.

But again once the election was over they broke those promises and instead spent months trying to thwart the will of the people using every underhand legal and parliamentary trick in the book.

The result has been bitterness, division, paralysis at the top of the government and disillusionment with politics on a scale we have not seen before. Regardless of today’s result it will take many months or years to repair the damage.

There will be a lot written about the “cut-through” moment of the campaign. Was it the little boy in LGI lying on the floor with an oxygen mask? Or perhaps the tape of shadow health secretary John Ashcroft admitting Jeremy Corbyn is a threat to national security?

For me it was undoubtedly the leaked files from Labour whistle-blowers revealing the truly shocking depth of anti-Jewish racism in the party and the leadership’s lamentable failure to deal with it properly.

One Labour member called for the “complete extermination of every Jew on the planet”, but it was 10 months before he was expelled.

No wonder our Jewish friends and colleagues were so concerned about the prospects of a far-left Corbyn government.

The fact that millions of Britons have been prepared to vote for an institutionally racist party, under investigation let’s not forget by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, should shame us all.

ends

Don't underestimate Nato's importance

2019-12-12T13:01:00.001+00:00

For an organisation that has maintained peace in Europe for 70 years Nato’s birthday celebrations this week were curiously muted.

Considering the wars, bloodshed and human rights atrocities that characterised Europe in the years before the transatlantic alliance was founded in 1949, Nato has proved to be a stupendous success and we should be hanging up the bunting and throwing street parties in celebration.

Instead all we got was a bad tempered summit in the insalubrious surroundings of Watford, characterised by squabbles about money and Turkey’s military action in northern Syria.

No doubt the low point was when the Canadian premier Justin Trudeau, Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johnson were overheard giggling and gossiping about Donald Trump like a gaggle of overgrown schoolboys.

These people are supposed to be in charge of our security! Heaven help us! The architects behind the original Nato treaty – deeply serious thinkers such as US President Harry Truman and Clement Attlee’s Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin - must be spinning in their graves at the shallowness of modern politicians.

The US President, never one to take a personal slight lightly, reacted to the insult by calling off a press conference and departing in something of a huff, pausing only to call Trudeau “two-faced”, which, to be fair, seems entirely justified.

Silliness

Despite the silliness of some of our current leaders, Nato’s contribution to peace and prosperity in Europe cannot be overstated. From the l8th Century onwards the continent’s history was characterised by short periods of uneasy peace punctuated by destructive wars and revolutions, culminating in the catastrophic conflicts of 1914 and 1939.

Nato, the most successful military and diplomatic alliance in history, has changed that dismal history and it has done so from a position of strength. Some Euro-fanatics like to pretend that the EU is responsible for peace in Europe, but this is fanciful.

To put it bluntly Joe Stalin and his successors would not be discouraged from aggression by a stiff letter of complaint from the likes of Jean-Claude Juncker or Donald Tusk.

No, the only language the Soviet Union and Russia have ever understood is the power of brute force. What stopped their tanks rolling westwards across Europe was the threat of immediate retaliation from Nato’s conventional and nuclear forces, and in particular the military might of the United States.

We should thank Nato not just for keeping the people of Western Europe safe, but also for its role in liberating millions of Eastern Europeans from the poverty and oppression of despotic socialism after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

That is just one reason of many why the thought of Jeremy Corbyn entering Downing Street is so terrifying. Current Labour policy is lukewarm support for Nato, but the Labour leader has previously described the alliance as a “danger to world peace” and he has called for it to be disbanded.

One thing’s for sure, Vladimir Putin will be cracking open the vodka if Labour wins the election next week.

Fair share

Of course our peace and security has to be paid for – and that is where the trouble lies.

Most European countries have been happy to prosper under Nato’s security umbrella, but have refused to pay their fair share for it, leaving it mostly to American taxpayers to foot the bill.

Only nine of Nato’s 29 member countries, including the UK and the US, have hit the target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence. For example comparatively rich countries such as France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Canada have all fallen woefully behind.

This has been a source of contention for Trump ever since his 2016 election – and he has a point. Why should a US taxpayer in New Mexico pay for the security of rich German living 20 miles from the eastern border?

At least Trump’s numerous complaints appear to have had some beneficial results. According to Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg this week, £100bn has been added to defence budgets of Nato member countries since 2016 and a further £337bn is expected by 2024.

This is good news because we should never take our safety for granted. Perhaps 70 years of peace has lulled the current generation into a false sense of security. But in fact, with the world rapidly changing and new threats emerging constantly, we need Nato more than ever.

Corbyn takes Duke's 'car crash' crown

2019-12-12T12:57:00.000+00:00

Prince Andrew looked the odds on favourite to win the Most Disastrous TV Interview of 2019 Award until Jeremy Corbyn dramatically snatched the trophy from his hands this week.

OK Andrew Neil is the BBC’s most ferocious and well-briefed interviewer and the Labour leader isn’t the first politician, and won’t be the last, to disintegrate under his relentless forensic examination.

But this was a humdinger. I watched most of it through my fingers, ready to shut my eyes at the really scary bits, as though I was watching a gory horror movie. I’m no Corbyn fan, but by the end I began to feel sorry for the poor old dodderer.

It has been called a “car crash” interview, but that doesn’t begin to do it justice. This was a jumbo jet hurtling into a nuclear power station before bouncing off and erupting in a ball of flames on a packed motorway.

Most notable of all was Corbyn’s blank refusal – on at least four occasions – to apologise for the hurt and distress caused to the Jewish community by his party’s descent into the cesspit of anti-Semitism.

What would such an apology cost him? Nothing, but he is so insufferably arrogant he believes he has done nothing wrong and all the fault lies with those courageous anti-racists trying to counter Labour’s poisonous message.

Pension bribe

Then there was an excruciating passage when Neil repeatedly pressed Corbyn on where he was going to find the £58 billion election bribe to the Waspi women who have missed out on the state pension.

After trying unsuccessfully to dodge the question Corbyn was finally forced to admit it would be funded by yet further borrowing, thereby driving a coach and horses through Labour’s “unbreakable” fiscal rules made only days before.

Neil went on to shred Labour’s claim that only the rich would pay higher taxes and he then skewered Corbyn over his absurd Brexit stance, whereby Labour’s leader will negotiate a new exit deal but then remain neutral in a subsequent referendum.

As each of Labour’s manifesto pledges was taken apart and dismantled, Corbyn turned increasing tetchy and defensive. The mask slipped and what was revealed was more a snarling Albert Steptoe than an avuncular Magic Grandpa.

You know things have gone badly for Labour when the Corbyn outriders are mobilised to flood social media with messages of support in the hope to drowning out coverage of the Neil interview. It didn’t work.

Dodgy dossier

If that wasn’t bad enough a day later another Labour strategy blew up their faces. Corbyn claimed to have uncovered a secret dossier that proved there was a sinister conspiracy to privatise the NHS.

The Labour leader claimed that patients would be charged a five-figure sum for cancer treatment and face charges for giving birth and seeing a GP for a check-up.

It was a game-changing bombshell if true – the only problem was it wasn’t. The dossier, which has been publically available for some time, covers technical talks between the US and UK on a trade deal. The NHS is hardly mentioned at all and there is absolutely no evidence to support Corbyn’s scaremongering.

According to Channel 4’s respected Factcheck website: “There is nothing in the documents that proves there is a secret plot by the government to privatise the NHS, sell parts of it off or dramatically increase the health services’ drug bill.”

To be fair the Conservatives have also been found playing fast and loose with the facts this week. Last weekend Boris Johnson claimed a new Tory government would deliver 50,000 more nurses and provide grants for nursing students of £5,000 and £8,000 a year.

It quickly emerged the pledge was not what it seemed. Around 19,000 of this figure would be “retained” – in other words nurses currently employed by the NHS who would otherwise have left but have been persuaded, by means unspecified, to stay.

So there you have it – porkies to the left, porkies to the right, and here we are stuck in the middle wandering whom to believe.

And they wonder why public trust in politicians is so diminished?

It isn’t at all clear whether any of these controversies cut through to the majority of the public and will have any impact on the eventual election result.

We’ll find out soon enough. Less than two weeks to go. Expect the opinion polls to tighten and few more twists and turns along the way.

Beware of politicians bearing 'free' stuff

2019-12-12T12:52:00.001+00:00

There comes a point in every general election when politicians begin to promise all kinds of “free” stuff for voters.

The more desperate they are for your votes, the more “free” stuff they will offer.

Call me an old cynic but I have experienced many general elections and I cannot recall a single occasion when any of this “free” stuff ever actually materialised.

And even if it did it would not be in any sense “free”, because someone, somewhere will be paying for it, usually the poor taxpayer - that is you!

“Free” stuff is a mythical beast that no one has ever seen because it doesn’t exist in reality.

But that hasn’t stopped all the political parties in the current campaign offering oodles of “free” stuff.

They are all guilty of this preposterous deception - from the Conservatives, to Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens and even the Brexit Party.

Each of them are desperately trying to outdo one another by promising massive increases in spending on health, education, the police, housing, the environment and virtually everything else.

Money tree

And none of this will cost you a single penny apparently. Just a quick shake of the magic money tree and all our problems will be over. Seriously if you believe that you sadly deserve everything that’s coming to you.

Probably the most eye-catching pledge so far is Labour’s threat to part nationalise BT in order to provide “free” - there’s that word again - high-speed broadband to every household in the land.

Labour is stuffed full of extremist fanatics who have driven Jewish MPs out of their party with a campaign of vile bullying. Do you really want these bigots controlling your access to the internet? I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Labour say broadband should be “free” to all because it is an essential of modern life.

OK, but food is another essential. Why not nationalise Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsbury and force them to provide “free” food for everyone?

I think we all know where this kind of confiscatory socialism invariably ends up because it has happened every single time it has been tried. Economic collapse, vicious political repression, empty shelves in the shops and starving families eating their pets to survive. Just ask the people in the socialist paradise that is Venezuela.

Fat cats

Labour say ordinary workers won’t need to pay any extra tax for this insane spending spree because the filthy rich and the big corporations will be forced to cough up instead.

OK, let’s set aside for a moment the fact that the rich already pay a hugely disproportionate share of income taxes. The top five per cent of earners pay around 50 per cent of all income taxes collected by the Treasury. Our public services, including the NHS, would collapse in short order without their contribution.

But these rich fat cats are also the most mobile population on the planet - they can shift their assets to a friendlier tax jurisdiction at the click of a mouse.

I suppose there is a vanishingly small chance they will stay put under a Labour government and meekly hand over all their money to John McDonnell. But if they do decide to do the rational thing and scarper, taking all their tax payments with them, who do you think will be required to make up the massive shortfall in government revenues?

If you want an answer to that question I suggest you take a look in a mirror.

Labour is the most extreme in its spending pledges, but all the parties are irresponsible to some degree. The simple truth is that public finances have never fully recovered from the economic collapse of 2008.

We still have not eliminated the deficit, despite repeated promises from the Conservatives. That means we are still spending more than we earn and borrowing to make up the difference, adding every day to the total debt. In effect stealing money from our own grandchildren.

When - not if - interest rates rise from their current historic lows, we could be in big trouble.

Oh for an honest political party that bluntly told voters the truth - if you want better public services you are going to have to pay more for them.

Meanwhile, later today the leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP gather in Sheffield for a special Question Time debate.

My advice - if they promise a gold-plated Lamborghini for every voter, take along a bucket-full of salt because it isn’t going to happen.

'Cut through' moments that decide elections

2019-12-12T12:49:00.001+00:00

The first and toughest lesson to learn about politics is that most people have little interest in politics.

Sure, if their taxes go up or they have to wait ten days to see their GP they will become engaged and perhaps angry.

But most of the time – even during significant election campaigns such as this one – the thought rarely troubles them.

This isn’t because they are stupid or they don’t care, but because they have other priorities they consider more important – putting food on the table, helping the children with homework, buying Christmas presents and watching Coronation Street. Normal people getting on with their lives.

So if – like me – you are one of those freaks carefully checking the latest opinion polls and assessing the daily ups and downs of the rival campaigns, you have to accept you are probably in a minority.

The truth is most of it doesn’t matter and will in all likelihood make little difference to the result next month.

Bidding war

Take for example the ridiculous, and frankly irresponsible, bidding war over the NHS this week. The rival parties shouting over who will spend the most tend to cancel each other out and become background noise that sceptical voters can tune out with a shrug of the shoulders.

That is why party leaders keep repeating the same slogans and sound bites over and over until those of us who do take an interest are screaming with boredom.

Doorstep canvassers say that when eventually a voter finally repeats a party slogan back at them – “Let’s get Brexit done!” or “For the many and not the few!” perhaps – they finally know the message is resonating with the public.

But in every election there are those “cut through” moments – brief instances of searing clarity that emerge through the fog of battle.

Sometimes these events seem insignificant at the time but they somehow illustrate a deeper truth about the character of the politicians asking for our votes.

Think, for example, of Gordon Brown’s unguarded “bigoted woman” comment that took a wrecking ball to Labour’s 2010 campaign.

Have there been any this time around? Perhaps the withering put down of the Prime Minister – “You took your time Boris” delivered by an angry householder in flood-hit South Yorkshire?

Or maybe Jeremy Corbyn being ushered away surrounded by minders after a man in Glasgow charged him with being a “terrorist sympathiser” adding “aye, he’s running away” as the Labour leader scuttled off.

When the voter stands in the polling booth, stubby pencil in hand, it is these “cut through” moments that bob to the surface of the memory and help decide where the cross is placed on the ballot paper.

Time will tell what gains traction with the public and it is often things you least expect.

Campaign skewed

Another factor in this election is the way social media is skewing the campaign in some bizarre ways. Take for example the almighty row this week when the Conservatives were caught doctoring a breakfast TV clip to make it seem that Labour’s Keir Starmer was stumped at the end of an interview on Brexit.

This was widely seen as a terrible gaffe, but I understand the Conservatives were secretly delighted.

Why? Well firstly because the clip was seen over a million times, largely because it was shared on social media by Labour supporters who thereby unwittingly reinforced one of the Tory’s key campaign messages.

What the video shows, doctored or not, is one of Labour’s better media performers failing completely to present a coherent approach to the EU.

The overall impression of the video is not of Conservative duplicity, but of how utterly clueless Labour are when it comes to Brexit.

The lesson here is that the social media gurus don’t care whether you agree with the content or not, as long as you keep clicking that all-important share button.

The key to this election appears to be whether Boris’s blue wave can breach Labour’s red wall – the Leave-leaning, Labour-held constituencies in the north and Midlands.

I have some doubts. Yes, party loyalties have loosened over recent years, but the default for many in these areas is still: “I always vote Labour, because my family have always voted Labour.”

It is going to take something pretty seismic to make them change their minds.

Hoyle a breath of fresh air as Bercow departs

2019-12-12T12:44:00.000+00:00

Funniest story of the week was John Bercow announcing in his usual self-aggrandising manner that because he was no longer Speaker of the House of Commons he had no need to remain impartial.

Bercow? Impartial? Surely I am not the only person who snorted tea down my nose at the breakfast table when I read that little gem. Pull the other one chum!

Bercow went onto to reveal the world’s worst kept secret – he was an ardent Remainer all along and thinks Brexit is a bad idea. Honestly, who would ever have guessed?

In truth Bercow is a poisonous narcissist who has trampled over our constitution and trashed the reputation of Parliament with his blatant partisanship.

It will take a long time for the House of Commons to regain some trust from the public, but the good news is that the election of a new Speaker – Labour’s Lindsay Hoyle – is a step in the right direction.

Contrast

The contrast between the two men couldn’t be starker – Hoyle’s modest, down to earth pragmatism against Bercow’s tedious exhibitionism and constant need to be the centre of attention.

Take for example the debate on Boris Johnson’s new Brexit deal when Hoyle took the chair. He listened to the advice of the clerks – experts in constitutional law – and then made a ruling on which amendments to accept without fuss or favour.

There was none of Bercow’s orotund verbosity from the chair, no look-at-me grandstanding, and none of the snarling rudeness to MPs he doesn’t like.

Instead with Hoyle we were treated to a refreshing dose of northern good sense as he quietly and efficiently got on with the job.

Respectful

This comes as no surprise to me as I have a slight personal connection with the MP for Chorley. When he was cutting his teeth as a young Labour councillor in the 1980s I was a cub reporter for the local newspaper and could often be found on the press bench of the council chamber.

At that time he was chiefly known as the son of a more famous father – Labour MP Doug Hoyle – but he quickly made his mark on local politics.

He was a solid working class Labour leftie in a way that seems very old fashioned today. Local politics can get very heated at times and Chorley was no exception, but I don’t recall Hoyle ever being anything other than respectful to his political opponents.

Certainly, I never witnessed from Hoyle any of the ugly sectarianism and bilious ranting that characterises the Labour left today.

He is very much in the same Labour tradition as another MP in the news this week – the member for Dudley North, Ian Austin, who dropped a bombshell on the election campaign this week when he said Jeremy Corbyn was unfit to be Prime Minister and urged “decent, traditional, patriotic” Labour supporters to vote for Boris Johnson.

Hoyle would never be so indiscrete. He has never even revealed which way he voted in the 2016 EU referendum. But he doesn’t lack courage and he clashed with Tony Blair over Gibraltar and tuition fees when many in the party were fawning over the then Prime Minister.

That probably explains why he never held ministerial office before becoming deputy speaker almost ten years ago.

'Woke' conversion

Such constancy would seem strange to Bercow who started his political career as a right wing Conservative with some very salty views before he underwent some bizarre “woke” conversion, and he now trumpets every trendy cause going.

His new persona as a social justice warrior didn’t stop him being accused of bullying – allegations which he denies – or being identified in Dame Laura Cox’s report on bullying and sexual harassment in Parliament as being an obstacle to much needed reform.

With Hoyle in the chair the chances of dealing with the often-toxic culture of bullying of junior staff in Parliament is much enhanced.

In his final appearance in the Commons Bercow typically made it all about himself, lapping up the treacle poured over his head by his more sycophantic supporters.

In contrast Hoyle’s first speech as Speaker was all about other people who have supported him, most notably his family, and he made particular mention of his daughter Natalie who died two years ago aged 28 after being involved in a “toxic relationship”.

Hoyle is clearly a decent, caring man who is determined to be fair to all sides. Things are looking up already.

Farewell Zombie Parliament - let the people speak

2019-12-12T12:37:00.001+00:00

Farewell then to the Zombie Parliament and I suspect I am not alone when I say I certainly won’t miss it.

Although the prospect of an election in the run up to Christmas chills the bones more the current cold snap, I am afraid it simply had to be done – the current Remainer parliament had damaged our democracy to such an extent it couldn’t stagger on any more.

It is worth remembering that back in 2015 MPs voted by a massive majority – including Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem members – to hand over the decision on whether we should Leave or Remain in the EU to the people in a referendum.

They solemnly pledged to honour the result and the government of the day made a cast-iron guarantee to implement whatever the people decided.

But of course the vote didn’t go the way they wanted or expected. And since then we have had more than three years of broken pledges, dishonourable tricks and pointless game playing all designed to thwart the will of the people, simply because they disagreed with the result.

Now they have reached the end of the road and voters can finally give their verdict on MPs who think they can play childish games with our country’s future. It is going to be interesting to watch, and it will be marvellous if some of these irresponsible chancers get their just deserts.

Patronising

As for the campaign itself the policy wonks at the think-tank Onward reckon we should pay attention to something called “Workington Man” after the Cumbrian coastal town.

You may remember in the past we’ve had the Thatcherite Essex Man, the Blairite Mondeo Man and Worcester Woman and now attention has turned to the north of England.

Workington Man is typified by normally Labour supporting, but Leave voting, older, white men, without university degrees and a passion for rugby league.

Sounds a bit patronising to me, but expect a fair amount of attention to the “rugby league corridor” along the M62, as Conservatives attempt to wrestle Leave voting working class constituencies out of Labour control.

I know from my own experience that many in these communities are furious with their sitting Labour MPs who have broken their promises to honour Brexit, but whether this turns into support for Conservatives in these tribal areas is far less certain.

Boris Johnson needs to make gains here if he has any chance of making up for probable losses to the Lib Dems in the Remain voting areas in the Home Counties and South West, and to the SNP in Scotland.

If he succeeds we could be witnessing a significant realignment of political loyalties, with the Conservatives hoovering up working class voters who feel abandoned by Labour who have instead courted younger, more woke, middle class, city dwellers.

Loyalties

One big complicating factor is the influence of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, which could easily split the Leave vote and let in Labour and the Lib Dems. In short the Brexit Party could destroy Brexit and allow Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. Let that sink in.

What we are seeing currently is a further fracturing of the two-party system, the erosion of traditional tribal loyalties and a massive increase in tactical voting – all ingredients of a very volatile brew that makes this election incredibly difficult to predict.

I am hoping for a decisive result – only then can we hope to be finally rid of this never ending Brexit nightmare and turn attention to other policy areas in desperate need of attention such as transport, crime, housing, health and education.

It is going to be a long, long six weeks but the prize at the end of it – an independent, self-governing democracy once again – is well worth it.

Image courtesy of Graham Robson.

The Bishop's hypocrisy

2019-12-12T12:29:00.001+00:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has accused the Prime Minister of pouring petrol on the flames of our country’s divisions by using inflammatory language, citing words such as “fascist” and “traitor”, although I can’t recall Boris Johnson using either.

Could this possibly be the same Archbishop of Canterbury who a couple of years ago claimed that Brexit voters were in the “fascist tradition”?

I am reminded of St Matthew’s Gospel: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye”.

Time for Remainers to admit defeat and back Boris's compromise deal

2019-10-24T12:43:00.002+01:00

They said the EU would never agree to re-open the withdrawal agreement.

They said the EU would never agree to ditch the Northern Ireland backstop.

They said Boris Johnson would never reach a new Brexit agreement with the EU.

They said the Prime Minister didn’t want a deal and was secretly plotting to crash out without a deal.

They said that even if he came up with a deal the House of Commons would never vote for it.

So that’s wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Even considering their past record of miserable failure, I think it is fair to say it hasn’t been the best of weeks for fanatical Remainers.

Of course no sooner had the Prime Minister achieved some concrete progress and injected a sense of hope and optimism throughout the country, than this Zombie Parliament ruined it all by wrecking the parliamentary timetable required to turn the deal into law.

Watching MPs making frankly pathetic excuses for their mindless sabotage this week, I couldn’t help wondering if they have the faintest conception of how this pointless vandalism is playing out in the country.

Do they ever venture beyond the Westminster bubble? If they did they would very quickly find out the mood of the people is hovering somewhere between boiling rage and spitting fury.

They will find out soon enough, when we have a general election. The Labour party can’t keep running scared forever. And when that day of reckoning arrives I think it will come as a terrible shock to those MPs who think they can play childish games with our country’s future.

Abuse

In fact I think the truth is already beginning to dawn on some politicians, as shown by the 19 Labour MPs who defied the party leadership to vote for the government’s new Brexit deal.

Their reward was a tsunami of threats and absolutely disgusting abuse from far left thugs and Remainer extremists.

Their only crime, it should be noted, is to stick to Labour’s 2017 manifesto promises to honour the result of the 2016 Referendum – a solemn pledge that has been unceremoniously ditched by Corbyn and Co.

Dark threat

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell warned darkly that the rebel 19 would face “consequences”. This is a man, let us never forget, who said we should honour the “bombs and the bullets” of the IRA and who joked about kneecapping his political opponents.

It takes true courage to stand up against such sinister characters and the Labour rebels should be commended for their bravery. Tony Benn and other past giants of the democratic left would be immensely proud of their principled stand.

Their defiant attitude was exemplified by the words of Don Valley MP Caroline Flint who said: “I wasn’t elected to parliament to bow to threats and intimidation. I won’t now.” Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Optimism

There are grounds for cautious optimism amid this mess. The polls show that support for Johnson’s sensible compromise deal is growing. Voters can see that it respects the democratic result of the Referendum while maintaining close links with the EU that should satisfy all but the most fanatical Remainers.

The endless whingeing and hysterical shrieking of the Remain camp is not making the slightest bit of difference. With every cry of “It’s all a fascist coup!” and “Johnson is a dictator”, the Prime Minister’s approval ratings improve and the Conservatives stretch their lead over the other parties.

The momentum is all one way. The longer MPs delay progress with their silly manoeuvrings, the further the Conservatives and Johnson will pull ahead. Brexit is going to happen either before or after a general election.

Isn’t it time Remainers opened their eyes to this reality and accepted defeat? The sore loser act has gone on for more than three years and we are all thoroughly sick of it.

MPs should stop messing about and get behind Johnson’s compromise Brexit deal. If it is good enough for Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Michel Barnier, it should be good enough for most sensible Remainers in the UK.

Then perhaps we can repair our democracy, come together as a newly independent country and begin to tackle the many other issues – crime, housing, transport, education and health - that need our urgent attention.

Far right thrives in the discriminatory European Union

2019-10-24T12:37:00.001+01:00

After many days of entirely bogus allegations of fascism we finally caught a glimpse of the real thing this week – and it wasn’t a pretty sight.

It happened during an international football match in the Bulgarian capital Sofia when a section of the home crowd started giving Nazi salutes and chanting obnoxious racial abuse aimed at black English players.

To those naïve enough to believe the European Union is the fount of all that is good in the world this must have come as a terrible shock.

But to anyone with even a passing interest in European politics it was no surprise at all, because racism and overt fascism are commonplace in many EU countries.

And we are talking about real fascism here, not the “Anyone who disagrees with me is worse than Hitler” sort that we hear constantly from the woke left.

No, these guys strut around giving straight-arm salutes and wearing swastikas and other Nazi insignia.

They venerate Hitler, Mussolini and Franco and espouse the sort of vile anti-Semitism that has become so fashionable in the British Labour party.

Shameful history

And they are hardly fringe elements. The Hungarian neo-fascist party Jobbik gained 19% of the vote in 2018 elections, and in Greece the similarly aligned Golden Dawn was at one point the third largest party in the country, although it has declined more recently.

The truth is the continent has a long and shameful history of popular support for fascism that, in Germany for example, has sometimes ended in disaster for its people.

And as recently as the 1970s Spain, Portugal and Greece were ruled by military dictatorships. The veneer of democracy is exceedingly thin in places.

The contrast with the UK couldn’t be starker. From Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in the 1930s to the present day, extreme far right parties have found little political traction and have attracted a vanishingly small degree of popular support.

And surveys have found the British to be among the most tolerant and least racist people in the EU.

Discrimination

It is worth noting that many in the British Asian communities see the EU as institutionally racist. This is because the freedom of movement rules discriminate against people from countries populated mainly by black and Asian people, in favour of people from countries populated mainly by whites.

So, for example, the EU decrees that the orthopaedic surgeon from Kenya and the software engineer from India have no automatic right of entry to the EU, but the unemployed Bulgarian fascist can go where he pleases.

Indeed, any of those Nazi thugs we saw on our television screens this week could stroll into Britain spreading their poison and we are obliged to welcome them with open arms.

Wouldn’t it be better and much fairer if we based our immigration policies on talent and qualifications and sought to attract the brightest and best from across the globe, regardless of skin colour?

Of course we can only do that once we have cut ourselves free from the European Empire to become an independent, self-governing nation once again, as Boris Johnson is trying to do with the deal announced yesterday.

Rioting

Meanwhile elsewhere in the wonderfully tolerant EU, a Spanish court handed down jail sentences of between nine and 13 years to nine activists. Their crime? Demonstrating peacefully for Catalan independence.

The EU, which some deluded people in this country think is a guarantor of civil rights, has washed its hands of the controversy saying merely that it “fully respects” the Spanish court’s decision.

The result has been several nights of rioting in the Catalan capital, Barcelona. If you stop people from getting what they want through democratic means you are asking for trouble. The UK should take note.

Back in Bulgaria the England team had the prefect response to the abuse they received – they thrashed the home team six goals to nil, with black players among the goal scorers.

They conducted themselves with dignity and professionalism despite the extreme provocation they were subjected to. Their behaviour was exemplary and we should be immensely proud of every last one of them.

As we do in football, we should do in politics. We should be allowed to pick our own team without interference from anybody else and we should compete against other nations in a spirit of friendly rivalry.

We should no more allow our laws to be decided by an unaccountable and unelected bureaucracy in Brussels than to allow Jean-Claude Juncker to pick our national football team.

ends

Remain MPs playing a dangerous game

2019-10-24T12:32:00.000+01:00

There were unusual scenes in Westminster this week as MPs managed to conduct themselves for five minutes without having a screaming meltdown like a group of over-tired toddlers denied a lollipop.

The occasion was the prorogation – or suspension – of Parliament and it all went off perfectly calmly, in stark contrast to the last prorogation a few weeks back that sparked scenes of mass hysteria.

This time there were no red-faced shrieking matches, no foot-stomping tantrums and not a single shout of: “It’s all a fascist coup!”

A few weeks back prorogation was a constitutional outrage that threatened our democracy. This week exactly the same thing is a perfectly normal parliamentary procedure that has happened hundreds of times over many decades.

What’s the difference? Haven’t a clue. Ask your MP.

Pointless

MPs demanded the right to reconvene in order to defend democracy from that “tin pot dictator” Boris Johnson.

So what have they achieved since the Supreme Court gave them the right to resume sitting in the Commons?

Precisely nothing is the answer. They held just one vote – and that was on a motion for Parliament to have a three-day party conference recess.

So after all the screaming and shouting and grandiose boasting about defending democracy, all they decided was whether to go into recess or not! And now Parliament is suspended again anyway so the whole thing was absolutely pointless. It would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

I for one cannot wait for the chance to sweep this bunch of clowns from office in a general election. The people’s wrath when it comes will be mighty, and all the delays and procrastination won’t put off the inevitable reckoning.

Plotting

Although there is a distinct lack of anything constructive from Parliament, there is plenty of behind the scenes plotting.

The risibly named “Remain Alliance” – Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens, old uncle Tom Cobley and all – is hatching a plan to depose Johnson and replace him with “unity” Prime Minister. Now that sounds like an actual “coup”.

Of course they are terrified of letting the people decide who should rule us in a general election, because they know they would lose.

The trouble is they can’t unify to decide who their unity candidate should be, and they are falling out in lumps. Should it be Jeremy Corbyn, whose party is so anti-Semitic, it is under official investigation by the equality watchdog, the EHRC?

Or perhaps a less divisive candidate such as…er..John Bercow or Dominic Grieve? The infighting is just as vicious as you might imagine.

If they can’t organise a simple student union-style plot, how on earth do they think they could run the country?

Dangerous game

Meanwhile, Remainers such as the Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson are shuttling to and from their political masters in Brussels, urging them to reject the Prime Minister’s latest offer of a deal.

This is a dangerous game. There is a feeling in Europe, fostered by Remainers in the UK, that the British people have “changed their mind” and are desperate to remain in the EU.

All the EU has to do is keep rejecting any compromise and eventually the British will be brought to heel. We will meekly vote in a second referendum or a general election to remain a colony in the new European Empire.

This is a foolish delusion. As former Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned this week there is a danger of a disastrous miscalculation that could lead to a no-deal Brexit by mistake if the EU maintains its current obstinacy.

Let us never forget why we are in the current mess. Democracy only works if the losers in a democratic vote accept the result.

If they refuse to accept the result just because they disagree with it – as has happened over the last three years – then the democratic fabric of our society starts to come apart at the seams. That is precisely what is happening now.

The only way to heal our damaged country is for that vote – the biggest vote for anything in British history – to be respected, and for the UK to leave the EU, deal or no deal.

Only then can we forge a bright future as a newly independent and free nation.

Evidence shows tougher jail terms do reduce crime

2019-10-08T15:37:00.001+01:00

If you wanted to devise a sentencing system pretty much guaranteed to destroy people’s faith in justice, you couldn’t do much better than the current arrangements.

Whoever dreamt up the “early release scheme” for example, under which most convicted criminals are automatically released from prison half way through their sentences, must have been some kind of evil genius.

If an experienced judge, after hearing all the evidence and the mitigating factors presented by the defence, decides the appropriate sentence to protect the public is eight years in jail, why on earth does the criminal only serve four?

Of course once released early from prison convicted criminals are still technically serving their sentences and are subject to conditions and can be returned to jail if they break them.

But crucially – certainly as far as the victims of crime are concerned – they are at large to commit further offences. And that is precisely what many of them do - the recidivism rates are sky high.

Confusion

As for the legal farce known as “life sentences” they have done little other than confuse members of the public.

In a corruption of language, a “life sentence” rarely means that – unless you are talking about the average longevity of a pet dog. Instead a murderer is likely to serve a “life sentence” of around 15 years, and some serve less than that.

In fact the courts have had to invent a whole new term – the “whole life order” – for prisoners who will never be released from prison, such as Peter Sutcliffe, Rosemary West and Levi Bellfield.

Wouldn’t it be far simpler, and easier for the public to understand, if prisoners actually served the jail sentence handed down by the courts and “life sentences” were reserved for those who will spend the rest of their lives behind bars?

Tougher sentences

At least Justice Secretary Robert Buckland made a start at addressing this issue during the Conservative Party Conference this week when he pledged to “fix the sentencing system” by making sure serious criminals would face tougher jail terms.

Mr Buckland said the government would scrap the early release of violent or sexual offenders half way through their sentences and require them to serve two-thirds of their sentence behind bars.

There is circularity to this argument about whether prison works. Crime rates in the UK rose relentlessly from the 1950s, even during periods of economic growth, until the then Home Secretary Michael Howard introduced tough new sentencing guidelines in 1993.

In the following years the prison population doubled while the crime rate tumbled by about 45%. Howard concluded that “prison works”.

Increased crime

Once the crime rate has been reduced more liberal politicians in the style of Kenneth Clarke, Theresa May and David Gauke, decide that prison doesn’t work at all and we must stop locking people away and use community-based sentences instead.

This is typically followed by rocketing crime rates as has happened recently, including big increases in murder, sexual offences, knife crime, robbery and theft.

Perhaps it is a coincidence – but when we lock more of the bad people up, crime goes down, and when we let more bad people off prison, crime goes up. Baffling, isn’t it? Well it is if you work for the Home Office.

Evidence

Luckily for Mr Buckland there is hard evidence to suggest that tough sentencing does work and forcing prisoners to serve more of their sentences has a dramatic impact on cutting crime, quite simply because offenders are behind bars for longer.

A study, carried out by academics at Birmingham University for the think tank Civitas, looked at sentencing data from 43 forces in England and Wales between 1993 and 2008.

It concluded that if prisoners served two thirds, rather than half of their sentences, it would result in 21,000 fewer burglaries and 11,000 fewer frauds.

The researchers found that even small increases in sentences would have a beneficial impact on crime rates. Increasing sentences by just one month – from 15.4 to 16.4 months – would result in 4,800 few burglaries in the following year.

A key point to remember here is that according to Ministry of Justice figures around half of all crimes are committed by just 10 per cent of “super prolific offenders”.

If we target them and make sure they are locked away where they can’t do any more damage, our homes and streets will be safer places.

Image courtesy of John Darch.

After months of hysterical ranting MPs suddenly want to tone down the rhetoric?

2019-10-08T15:25:00.000+01:00

So MPs who for three years have smeared Leave voters as thick, racist criminals and who have been hysterically screeching about a “fascist coup” for the last month have suddenly decided now is the time to dial down on the rhetoric?

Apparently it is perfectly fine to call Boris Johnson a liar and a “tin pot dictator”, but if the Prime Minister responds with words such as “humbug” and “surrender bill” that is completely beyond the pale.

Look, I am all for debating in a calm and respectful manner, and perhaps all sides could reign in the inflammatory language a bit, but spare me the confected outrage.

Labour MPs, whose leader and shadow chancellor cheered on IRA terrorists when they were murdering children on British streets, are now clutching their pearls over the robust use of language? Oh do me a favour!

MPs got what they wanted this week when the Supreme Court ruled the government’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful.

Mistake

For what it is worth I believe the Supreme Court’s decision to rip up decades of precedent and involve itself in purely political matters is a big mistake that will do untold damage to our constitutional settlement and the judiciary itself.

But although I disagree with the decision I accept it entirely – as indeed does the government. That’s the only way democracy works – we accept a decision, even if it goes against us. Perhaps Remainers could apply precisely the same principle to the 2016 Referendum result? Don’t hold your breath.

MPs thundered about being “silenced” and demanded the right to sit in Parliament. Now that they have that opportunity what will they do with it? Not a fat lot is the answer.

Posturing

Sure, there’s been lots of red-faced shouting, assorted hysterics, plenty of empty posturing, and, judging by the behaviour of some “honourable” members, the taxpayer subsidised bars must have taken a real hammering. But in terms of actually doing anything they have achieved precisely nothing.

It doesn’t have to be like this. The Supreme Court judges seemed to think that Parliament had been left powerless by an overweening executive, but that is far from the case.

In fact opposition parties have immense power, particularly so as the present government cannot command a majority in the House. They could, for example, simply bring down the government by tabling a vote of no confidence. But they refuse to do so.

Labour and the Lib Dems say Johnson is unfit to govern, but they refuse to do anything to remove him from power.

Bizarre

MPs could also trigger a general election and allow the people to give their verdict on the current government. If Johnson is doing such a terrible job as they claim, then the opposition parties have absolutely nothing to from fear from the verdict of the voters, do they?

But curiously they refuse to call an election either. In fact one of the most bizarre aspects of the current turmoil is that Johnson is only still in Number 10 because Labour and Lib Dem MPs voted to keep him there.

Why the reluctance to give the people their say? Why are MPs squatting in Parliament, hiding from their voters, achieving nothing except to foment more division and bitterness?

Well an answer arrived this week in the shape of a rip-snorting speech by the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, in one of the best Commons performances in recent years.

He pointed out that MPs were hanging on purely to prevent the UK from leaving the EU, and thereby blocking the wishes of 17.4 million people in the biggest democratic vote in this country’s history.

He added: “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 are too cowardly.”

Too cowardly indeed! But they can’t run scared forever and one day, I hope quite soon, they will have to answer to the people at the ballot box. And when that happens even the Supreme Court won’t be able to save them.

As Mr Cox vividly put it: “The time is coming when even these turkeys won’t be able to prevent Christmas.”

Don't fall for the EU's dream of a new European Empire

2019-09-23T15:53:00.000+01:00

As the Brexit finishing line comes into view the EU mask is beginning to slip to reveal the true unpleasant nature of the Euro fanatics.

First up was the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Xavier Bettel, a man I’ve never heard of before this week and would be perfectly happy never to hear of again.

Incidentally, Luxembourg is a very curious country. Despite being one of the richest nations in Europe it still manages to be a net recipient of EU funds, which are supposed to be funnelled to poorer countries in the south and east.

And under a previous Prime Minster – one Jean-Claude Juncker – Luxembourg turned itself into a safe refuge for rich and corrupt tax dodgers. So nothing at all suspicious to worry about there!

Begging bowl

Anyway, Mr Bettel put away his begging bowl for long enough to deliver a calculated snub to the British people by deliberately insulting our Prime Minister.

He set up a joint press conference with Boris Johnson in front of a baying anti-British mob. When the British delegation asked if it could be moved to somewhere quieter Bettel refused and instead delivered an unhinged tirade against the UK next to the empty podium where our Prime Minister was supposed to stand.

But as I watched this foam flecked rant, something struck me quite forcibly. It wasn’t anger in his eyes, but fear and panic. It is gradually dawning on the EU elite that the British are serious about regaining our liberty and as a result their cosy little gravy train is about to crash into the buffers. Oh dear, how sad, never mindhfff!

I suppose if you are the leader of a country so insignificant as Luxembourg you have to grab your only chance of five minutes of fame, but Mr Bettel can now slink off to a life of well-deserved obscurity.

Imperialistic ambitions

A second speech this week – this time from the Belgian MEP and federalist zealot Guy Verhofstadt at the Liberal Democratic conference - was even more revealing.

Mr Verhofstadt made it crystal clear that the EU has ambitions to become a European Empire that will be in perpetual conflict with other world “empires” such as the United States, China and India.

I was reminded of George Orwell’s book 1984, where the people are kept docile and obedient by a perpetual war engineered between Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia.

And perhaps someone could inform Mr Verhofstadt that the last time the Belgians tried to run an empire it resulted in the murder, torture and mutilation of millions of innocent people in the Congo. Positively the last thing we need is a return to the Age of Empires.

But the new imperialists of the Liberal Democratic party certainly liked the idea and they almost wet themselves in adulation of Verhofstadt as they cheered him to the rafters.

At least the choice is becoming clearer. We can either be compliant subjects in a colonial outpost of a protectionist European Empire that promotes conflict around the world, or we can choose to be active citizens of a newly independent and free country that seeks friendly relations and trade across the globe.

The Lib Dems are not known for their consistency. Infamously, they were in favour of scrapping student tuition fees before promptly tripling them. They were in favour of an in-out EU referendum, until the vote went against them, when they decided it was a terrible idea.

Then they wanted a second referendum, but their leader Jo Swinson made it clear they would not accept the result if it went against them. Now she plans to deny voters any say at all and wants MPs to simply cancel Brexit, as though the biggest vote in our history had never really happened. Fat chance!

Comedy Labour

Meanwhile over at the comedy turn that used to be the British Labour Party things have reached new heights of hilarity. Jeremy Corbyn now says as Prime Minister he would negotiate a new Brexit deal with the EU, but he can’t decide whether to recommend this to the British people, so will remain neutral.

Isn’t it strange that Corbyn has no problem taking sides with the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah, but when it comes to a key decision on the future of our country he just can’t quite make up his mind?

One day the people will have their say. They can’t deny us a general election forever. I for one can’t wait.

Remainer antics are pushing us towards a no deal Brexit

2019-09-23T15:47:00.003+01:00

Labour and Lib Dem MPs voted – three times - against Theresa May’s compromise deal with the EU because they calculated they could take advantage of the resulting political chaos.

Well, well done fellers, chaos is what you wanted and chaos is what you have got. How do you like it?

The consequent damage to our democratic system is incalculable and far more important than the relatively trivial issue of whether we remain a member of the EU.

It will take decades to heal the wounds that have opened up in our society and the MPs responsible for this stupid and reckless vandalism should never be forgiven.

We have now reached a dangerous impasse with a staunchly Remainer parliament that for three years has refused to implement the clear result of the 2016 Referendum – the biggest exercise in representative democracy this country has ever seen.

Even worse, now the Remainers are refusing to allow the people a say in a general election and are demanding their political opponents be thrown in jail – all the while hysterically denouncing anyone who disagrees with them as a “fascist” and a “dictator”. Honestly, you couldn’t make it up.

'Evil despot'

If Boris Johnson is an “evil despot” as they claim, why not hold a democratic vote and allow the people the choice to get rid of him? Once the Remainers can form a government they can stop “no deal” Brexit – or more likely Brexit altogether. Of course they don’t want to do that because ordinary people can’t be trusted to vote the way the political elite tells them to.

The establishment is in full cry in its bid to stop Brexit and not a day goes by without a fresh attempt to thwart the will of the people – whether it be rich Remainers using the courts to block the suspension of parliament in readiness for next month’s Queen’s Speech, or MPs making unprecedented demands to see private messages between ministers and their advisors.

Meanwhile, Labour’s Brexit policy has worsened from three years of dithering indecision to total and laughable incoherence. The plan, apparently, is to win a general election – at some point in the future when they have plucked up enough courage to allow one to take place.

They will then return to Brussels to renegotiate the withdrawal deal – while making it clear they want to remain in the in the EU. Having miraculously gained an improved deal, probably including a customs union and single market, and navigated the resulting bill through parliament, they will hold a referendum in which – and I am not making this up - they will campaign against the deal they have just negotiated.

I am sorry but a monkey randomly hitting a computer keyboard for ten minutes could come up with a more cogent plan than this.

Lib Dem extremists

The Lib Dem stance is even more extreme. After campaigning for months for a second referendum to allow people another democratic choice, their Leader, Jo Swinson, recently let slip that she wouldn’t accept the result if the vote went against her.

Their latest plan is for MPs to simply revoke Article 50 – without the involvement of those pesky voters in either a second referendum or a general election. Proof, if any were needed, that they are neither “liberal” nor “democrats”.

This week opposition parties demanded that Parliament be recalled in the light of the worst-case no-deal scenarios revealed in Operation Yellowhammer. But seriously, if they continue to run scared from a general election what is the point?

Time for no deal?

I consider myself a moderate Brexiteer. I voted leave on the basis that the political leaders who make laws we have to obey and impose taxes we have to pay should be chosen by ourselves at the ballot box. The unaccountable and unelected EU breaches these fundamental democratic principles.

I would have accepted May’s deal, an imperfect compromise between Remainers and Leavers that at least got the job done.

But now having witnessed the despicable behaviour of Remainers and the damage they have done to our democracy, I would happy to see a no-deal clean break with the EU.

It is time to drain the swamp with a general election and allow the people their say. There is a danger, of course, of another hung parliament and we would be back where we are now. But what choice do we have?

Prepare for an autumn election – the people versus parliament. Bring it on!