Remainers undermining the principle of democratic consent? A letter in The Week.

The letter below, published in The Week (October 19), suggests the Remain-backing establishment risks undermining the principle of democratic consent.  In my opinion they have already very seriously damaged the principle of democratic consent, and if the vote to leave the European Union is set aside they will have destroyed it.

Referendum Confusion

To The Daily Telegraph

I am yet to hear a single advocate of another EU referendum explain why anyone would trust Parliament to implement the result.  If the first referendum was advisory and the electorate did not understand the question, why would a second referendum be binding and clear?

Moreover, since the Remain side has already been defeated by the massive margin of 1.3 million votes, the only democratic choice available on a hypothetical ballot paper would be between the Withdrawal Agreement and leaving with without a deal. 

Britain’s Remain-backing establishment risks undermining the principle of democratic consent with its determination to overturn the result of the “once in a lifetime” referendum.

Philip Duly, Haslemere, Surrey

Frederick Forsyth and the true meaning of "no-deal" Brexit. A letter in The Week.

I came across this interesting letter from best-selling author Frederick Forsyth which focuses on the meaning of words, and not what people would like or think them to mean. The letter, reproduced below, was first published in The Daily Telegraph then published in the 12th October edition of The Week.

Another Brexit casualty

To The Daily Telegraph

Among the many casualties of the litany of incompetence befalling our country, we now count our national language and the meaning of words.  We are told that “no-deal” must be swept off the table.  But “no-deal” is not a presence, it is an absence and by definition you cannot abolish an absence.

The only deals realistically before us are “no-deal” or Michel Barnier’s deal, which he has told us many times is not for variation by so much as a comma.  And that deal requires the UK to live on its knees forever.

I never cease to be surprised at the number of mediocrities in high office who seek my vote (when I am allowed to have one) to support them in this grovel.

So please let us have our general election as soon as possible so that we may, with silent votes rather than placards, usher the appeasers back to that oblivion for which nature so amply equipped them.

Frederick Forsyth, Buckinghamshire.

The Social Democratic Party, seemingly a patriotic party with a social conscience believing in a nation-state independent of the EU.

I just came across the Social Democratic Party website and had a look at their policy pages.  Among the policies listed the call for an English Parliament caught my eye.  On the same “Constitution” page was advocated the abolition of the House of Lords, proportional representation and a statement saying “No public sector employee should be paid more than the Prime Minister”.  Any English patriot should be delighted with such policies!


Reading further I was delighted to find that on animal welfare the SDP calls for a ban on non-stun slaughter “as requested by the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA”.


The SDP advocate a cap on net AND gross immigration while current arbitrary spending on Foreign Aid would be scrapped - a common sense approach to both issues.


On land the railways would be re-nationalised and funding for regional and rural bus travel would be increased.  Meanwhile at sea the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers appear to have top priority with regard to defence spending.


The Social Democratic Party seem to me to be a patriotic community-centric party with a social conscience which believes not in nationalism, but nationhood with the nation state being independent of the European Union.


I will seriously consider voting for them if given the chance, and if I was not too old I might even be tempted to join them!

The British Political Establishment - not delivering what you voted for!

I came across an interesting article from Vernon Bogdanor in The Guardian this week.  He makes the interesting point that MPs could connive to block Brexit indefinitely.  This is what he had to say:

 “. . . were Parliament to pass legislation preventing Britain leaving the EU without a deal, Brexit could be delayed forever, since the Commons would then be free to reject every deal presented to it”.

He also writes:

“ Looking at the sorry performance of the House of Commons elected in 2017, it is difficult to avoid remembering Winston Churchill’s condemnation of the parliaments of the 1930s as being “ decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent”.  Parliament has shown itself not to be the solution to Brexit but the problem.”

Here is a link to the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/29/parliament-brexit-prorogue-mps-alternative-no-deal

Meanwhile, on a similar theme, this was my favourite letter of the month taken from the August 24 edition of The Week.  It was originally published in The Sunday Times.

Getting what you voted for.

To The Sunday Times

Michael Heseltine and Betty Boothroyd get into an awful lather about the “subversion” of Parliament as they attempt to stop us leaving the EU.

They overlook the facts that MPs voted in favour of holding a referendum; that the majority of MPs were elected on manifestos that pledged to honour the result of that referendum; that MPs voted to trigger Article 50 in the knowledge that it committed us to leaving; and that it was MPs who voted down the deal that was negotiated with the EU – on three occasions. 

If the result of all this is the UK leaving on 31 October with no deal, that is the result of decisions made by Parliament.  Where is the subversion?

Eileen Haxby, Harrogate.

Recent opinion polls and local council elections results. A sign of things to come?

There was an interesting ComRes poll carried out between 15 and 17 March, the week before the Prime Minister made her latest trip to Europe to plead for more time to kick the Brexit can even farther down the road.  Its results showed that the Labour and Conservative parties were neck and neck, but could not manage 70 per cent between them!  TIG was on 7 per cent and UKIP on 6 per cent, the Liberal Democrats, longstanding opponents of Brexit, were in the doldrums on 8 per cent – presumably there was no prompt for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party.   And, don’t forget, this poll was taken before Mrs May’s foray across the English Channel to delay Brexit.

Following the ComRes poll there were some real ones last Thursday when a cluster of council by elections took place. No earthshattering upsets, but a trio of results caught my eye. 

In two wards UKIP had candidates.  In Kensington and Chelsea’s Delgano ward UKIP had 5.7 per cent of the vote, not having stood a candidate last time, and in Newcastle-under-Lyme’s Holditch and Chesterton ward their candidate increased their vote by 2.6 per cent to 12.3 per cent.

Meanwhile in Essex, Anne Marie Waters’ fledgling For Britain Movement fielded a candidate in Southend’s Milton ward and polled a respectable 5.3 per cent.

None of the aforementioned candidates came anywhere near winning, but the percentages achieved can make all the difference to other parties’ candidates winning or losing.  You don’t need to win to have influence!

Remember, these opinion polls and real polls took place while the UK Government is still supposed to be delivering the 2016 Referendum result.  If MPs overturn that result they will prove that they only believe in democracy when it suits them to do so.  They will eventually have to face the consequences of such action at the ballot box.  

Should Brexit be revoked I suspect a goodly number of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU will be looking for somewhere, if they ever bother voting again, to put their X in protest.  Gerard Batten’s UKIP, Anne Marie Waters’ For Britain Movement and Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party will be there to accommodate them.  If these insurgent parties prosper at the polling booths it will be thanks to the hypocritical manoeuvrings of the Conservatives, Labour, TIGs and Liberal Democrats.

Iain Dale, broadcaster and political commentator, insults Italian tank commanders on ConservativeHome.

Iain Dale, broadcaster and political commentator, has written an article on ConservativeHome in which he opines that the courage of some Conservative Cabinet Ministers is equivalent to that of Italian tank commanders.*

Referring to recent votes in the House of Commons dealing with Brexit  he writes:

 “Let’s start with the four Cabinet Ministers, eight junior ministers and two PPSs who failed to obey a three-line whip and abstained on the No Deal amended motion.

They deserve to be named. They are Amber Rudd, Greg Clark, David Gauke, David Mundell, Stephen Hammond, Richard Harrington, Tobias Ellwood, Robert Buckland, Alistair Burt, Margot James, Anne Milton, Claire Perry, Vicky Ford and Bim Afolami.

Two others, Sarah Newton and Paul Masterton, voted against the three-line whip. At least they had the honour and courage to resign, unlike their abstaining colleagues.”  Mr Dale goes on to say: “Some weeks ago, we were told 40 ministers would resign if they were whipped to vote for a No Deal Brexit. A couple of weeks ago we were told a dozen would do so. In the event only one did. These ministers have all the courage of an Italian tank commander with one forward gear and four reverse gears.”

In my opinion such a comparison is an outrageous insult to Italian tank commanders!

*https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2019/03/iain-dale-after-all-their-bluster-about-resigning-abstaining-ministers-took-the-cowardly-way-out.html#comments

Ernest Bevin born in the village of Winsford, Somerset on this day in 1881. A giant of British politics during war and peace.

At the present time we have a Labour Party leadership which appears unenthusiastic, and that’s putting it mildly, about Britain’s membership of NATO and the retention of nuclear weapons.  Furthermore, on March 7 an article in The Telegraph by Steven Swinford informs us that “Britain’s equality watchdog has announced a formal inquiry into the Labour Party’s handling of anti-Semitism cases amid claims that the party broke equalities law.” *

In such circumstances we should remember the contribution made by Ernest Bevin, a patriotic anti-communist who was a giant figure in the Trade Union Movement, Labour Party and British Government both in time of war and peace.  Today is the anniversary of his birth in the village of Winsford which sits within the borders of Exmoor National Park 10 miles southwest of Minehead in Somerset.

Ernest Bevin was born at Winsford on 9th March 1881.  His mother, Diana, was married to William Bevin, an agricultural worker who, by 1877, had deserted his family.  Therefore Ernest Bevin’s father is not known.  He was one of 7 children.

After his mother’s death he lived with his sister and her husband.  Bevin left school in 1892 and worked on farms until 1894 when he moved to Bristol to join his brothers, Jack and Albert.

In Bristol he worked mainly as a conductor on trams and as a van driver until becoming a paid official of the Dockers Union in 1911.  While in Bristol he attended chapel, becoming a Sunday School teacher and Baptist preacher.

By May 1920 he was Assistant General Secretary of the Dockers Union and as his trade union role was centred on London he moved there with his wife, Florence Anne Townley.

Bevin played the major role in creating the Transport and General Workers Union from the merger of 14 unions with his own Dockers Union as its core.  The new union came into being on 1 January 1922, with 300,000 members.  Bevin was elected General Secretary and by the late 1930s he was leading the largest union in the country, with 650,000 members.

He took a determined stand against communist challenges to trade union leadership and was suspicious of the egotism of intellectual socialists.

In May 1940 Bevin was top of the list of Labour figures who Churchill wanted in his War Cabinet and he agreed to become Minister of Labour and National Service in Churchill’s coalition government.  He became an MP for the first time in June 1940 being elected unopposed for Central Wandsworth.  Bevin was a staunch supporter of the war effort and believed “it is a social obligation to defend your own homestead”.

He so successfully mobilized and directed labour into essential war industries that Britain achieved a higher level of civilian mobilization than any other of the nations at war.  Bevin oversaw a great extension of collective bargaining, wage regulation, trade union membership and general transformation of working conditions.

Possibly second only to Churchill in the wartime government, Churchill himself looked upon Bevin as a possible successor should anything happen to himself.

After the war Bevin became Foreign Secretary in the Labour government and formed a close association with Prime Minister Attlee which contemporaries said was one of the most successful political partnerships in English history.  He had a deep distrust of communism and the Soviet Union, was firmly committed to the British nuclear deterrent, and played a key role in the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Failing health caused him to be replaced as Foreign Secretary in March 1951 and he died at his home in Westminster on 14 April 1951.

*https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/07/labour-faces-formal-inquiry-handling-anti-semitism-amid-claims/

Brexit delayed or betrayed? The outcome of the House of Commons overturning the EU Referendum result.

It now seems that Brexit will be delayed, even Jacob Rees-Mogg the MP for North East Somerset and leading light of the European Research Group seems to expect a short delay after March 29.  However, some reports suggest that Brexit could be put on hold until 2021, or even later.  In such circumstances it is worth reading the article by Gerald Warner which appeared in Reaction Life on February 27 entitled “Westminster’s message to Britain.  Democracy doesn’t live here anymore.”

Below is the first paragraph of the article, the rest can be read behind a paywall.  Here is a link.

https://reaction.life/westminsters-message-britain-democracy-doesnt-live-anymore/

"After innumerable false deadlines and anti-climaxes, we are finally close to the tipping point.   Sometime within the next month it seems likely the historic compact between governors and governed that have rendered the British constitution a template for parliamentary democracy will be shattered. That fracturing of our imperfect but workable system of governance by consent will truly be a watershed in history – and a deeply ominous one."

An overload of lawyers in the House of Commons. Oh for an Ernie Bevin!

I came across the letter below in the December 8th edition of The Week.  It comments on the fact that there appears to be an overload of lawyers and so called professional politicians in the House of Commons.

An overload of lawyers.

To The Times

At 15% in the Commons, and more in senior appointments, the legal profession is already over-represented in Parliament compared with other occupations.  Alongside the so-called professional politicians (Oxbridge PPE and not much else), lawyers have dominated cabinet positions disproportionately for far too long.  We need to attract a more diverse pool of talent, and boost the numbers of those who have had to concern themselves with profit and loss, investment decisions and people issues.  Perhaps with the pragmatism that comes from such experience, we could have headed off the shambles that we see in today’s politics.

Sir Christopher Coville, past chairman, Westland Helicopters.

The letter spurred me into doing a little research and I came up with the following facts.  Of the MPs elected in 2017 82% are graduates and 24% attended Oxford or Cambridge.  There were only 6 MPs whose occupations were described as “Manual”, another 6 were “Agricultural/Farmers” and only 4 were from the armed forces.*

Oh for a few patriots like Ernie Bevin!

*https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7483/CBP-7483.pdf

Margaret Bondfield first woman Cabinet Minister. Commemorated on a Blue Plaque in Chard, Somerset.

All the recent media reporting of bullying and harassment of women staff and MPs in Parliament reminded me of a Blue Plaque on a wall next to the entrance to The Guildhall in Fore Street in Chard, Somerset.  It commemorates Margaret Bondfield who was born in Chard and became the first woman cabinet minister.

The Blue Plaque next to The Guildhall in Chard commemorating Margaret Bondfield, the first woman Cabinet Minister.

Margaret Grace Bondfield was born on 17 March 1873 in Chard, Somerset.  She was the tenth of eleven children born to William Bondfield, a foreman laceworker, and his wife Anne Taylor.  She became a shop assistant working in Brighton at the age of fourteen and joined the National Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen and Clerks and progressed to hold prominent positions in the Trade Union Movement.  She was elected as MP for Northampton in 1923, after two previous attempts, to become one of the first three woman Labour MPs.  She failed to retain her seat in the 1924 General Election but returned to Parliament after winning the Wallsend by-election of 1926.

After Labour’s 1929 election victory she became Minister of Labour, the first woman cabinet minister and privy councillor, a position she held until 1931.  After losing her Wallsend seat in the 1931 General Election she never returned to Parliament, but continued to play an active role in public life including undertaking speaking tours in North America for the British Information Service between 1941 and 1943.

Feeling “no vocation for wifehood or motherhood”, she devoted her life to the Trade Union Movement and died unmarried in 1953.

The Guildhall, Fore Street in Chard, Somerset.

Margaret Bondfield must have been a remarkable woman having succeeded in public and parliamentary life long before “women-only short lists” and “gender equality” were ever thought of.  

Source:

https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/31955

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, asks if the British Political Establishment operates a Cartel. Or should that be a gerrymandering Cartel?

In a recent article on his blog Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, asks if the British Political Establishment operates as a cartel.  It may or may not do so, but the British system of electing members to the House of Commons has certainly produced some outcomes which would have raised eyebrows had they happened in third world African countries or South American banana republics.  Examining the results of the UK General Election in 2015 would have a visitor from Mars wondering what British parliamentary democracy was all about!

In that election the DUP received 184,260 votes and won 8 seats in Westminster, the Liberal Democrats also won 8 seats although they needed 2,415,916 votes to do so.  The SNP received 1,454,436 votes and won 56 seats while UKIP received well over twice that number of votes at 3,881,099 yet won only 1 seat. 

Our visitor from Mars might think some pretty heavy gerrymandering was needed to produce such outrageously unfair results.  Obviously some people’s votes are worth a lot more than others!

Incidentally, in the 2009 EU Parliamentary Election, which used a form of Proportional Representation, Plaid Cymru won 1 seat after receiving 126,702 votes, but the English Democrats had no seats at all after receiving more than twice as many votes - 279,801 to be precise - than the Welsh nationalists.

Be that as it may, below is a link to Robin Tilbrook’s article examining whether the British Political Establishment operates a Cartel.

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/is-uks-political-british-establishment.html

English Trade Union Congress calls for the abolition of the House of Lords.

Apparently the English Trade Union Congress will be in their battle bus outside the Houses of Parliament today campaigning to abolish the House of Lords.
  

Eddie Bone, Campaign Director for the English Trade Union Congress, said:

"The House of Lords no longer speaks for the people of England and it threatens to misuse its position to undermine the triggering of Article 50.  This is a provocation which shows that the self-important and unelected House of Lords should be abolished."

I entirely agree, back in August 2014, long before Brexit and the Article 50 furore, I had the following letter published in the Western Daily Press expressing my views on the House of Lords and the need for an English Parliament.

Organisations or individuals campaigning for an English Parliament are always rebuffed by the British political establishment whose members, including those from Scotland and Wales, argue that there are enough politicians already, that it would be too costly and there is no public demand for one. However, if any of those objections are made regarding the unelected and unreformed House of Lords that very same British establishment steadfastly ignores them.

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour are forever happy to find a place in the Lords for yet another group of life peers made up of retired MPs, those who have been voted out of office and various party donors and cronies. Moreover, the next batch of appointments to the burgeoning House of Lords will see its members outnumber those in the House of Commons, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly combined.

The three main parties pay only lip service to any concerns about costs, numbers and lack of public demand or democratic accountability.

Since devolution nearly two thousand politicians, more than one third of them unelected peers, operate at national level in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. This political circle is content to have seen itself expand but hypocritically conspires to prevent England from having its own dedicated parliament able to speak with a collective voice for the interests of the English people.

So, good luck and success to Eddie Bone and his fellow campaigners from the English Trade Union Congress.

Repairs to the Palace of Westminster will take up to eight years and £4.3billion. Perhaps Honourable Members and their Lordships should have a new, less costly, home?

I was astonished to learn that much-needed repairs to the Palace of Westminster will take up to eight years and cost between £3billion and £4.3billion.  Would it not be just as well to allow this famous landmark to gracefully fall into a state of picturesque ruin on the banks of the River Thames?  Let it become a monument to those long-gone politicians whose decisions created and then lost an empire on which the sun never set.

I cannot see any reason why the cost of a new home for the Houses of Parliament should not be a fraction of refurbishing the present one.

Consider some of London’s stylish new buildings: The Shard, Europe’s fourth tallest building, cost £435million; 30 St Mary Axe, The Gherkin, cost £200million; The Heron Tower cost £185million – all were completed between 2003 and 2012.  Surely our MPs and Peers could be provided with a suitable building of similar prestige and cost.

While awaiting refurbishment of the old or building of the new, Parliament will have to meet somewhere.  I suggest that, thanks to defence cuts, the spacious hangars of barely used RAF airfields in the West Country, such as Lyneham, Hullavington or even Fairford, could be modified to accommodate meetings of the Commons and the Lords together with their associated entourage.

Transport links would not be a problem with the M4 nearby and there would be the added convenience of having a runway on the doorstep.

Moreover, all that fresh West Country air might do Honourable Members and their Lordships a power of good!