Local Authorities: the realities of No Overall Control

The fact is that No Overall Control give third parties with just a few representatives enormous decision making capabilities. They only need to swing from one side to another as they see fit, supporting either the rulling party or the main opposition party, to extract whatever they want.

As an example, Labour had total control of both Lambeth and Southwark. Not anymore. All Greens have a majority in both Lambeth and Southwark, the Greens do not have an absolute majority. This means that the Liberal Democrats, by supporting, opposing or amending any initiative can control the flow of events.

Monday´s extraordinary session at Lambeth Borough Council was a clear example of things to come, There was amendment after amendment and the Liberal Democrats got away with it. Not only that. The number of representatives in each committee went from 6 to 7.

Labour MPs were sitting as part of the audience, witnessing something that would have been unthinkable just weeks ago and that now has become a reality. How will recent electoral changes affect the London Assembly Elections and the next General Election?

Notwithstanding what is happening at local level, all eyes are now focused on the coming by-election in Makerfield where a potential challenger of the Labour Primer Minister Keir Starmer will be seeking a possible return to Westminster.

Conservative Party: When a company goes into administration, we know the final chapter

 

The banner does not reflect reality. In fact, recent decisions made by Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister point in exactly the opposite direction.

There are no long-term decisions. In fact, you cannot trust that what is announced as a long-term decision will last long enough. In terms of a brighter future, all the promises about a brighter future cannot balance what is a disastrous present.

The country is pawned to the hilt and we worry about the day when investors will stop buying bonds if the rates paid for bonds are not dramatically raised, thus making public borrowing practically unpayable.

In fact, every indicator signals impending doom. Can you trust the promises made by what is a de-facto caretaker unelected Prime Minister? At this point in time, Rishi Sunak shares with the Liberal Democrats one fundamental characteristic. He can promise anything because he will not be around to deliver whatever he promises. In the present state of affairs, May 2024 seems - painfully - to be a long way away. His Chancellor of the Exchequer - Jeremy Hunt MP - will no longer be around either since he himself has said that he will not be standing in 2024. Investors will surely take notice of what is happening in British politics since a change of managers will surely mean a change of management style.

Britain needs clarity. Britain needs to know where it stands. Rather late, the Prime Minister is now talking about implementing the same kind of tax measures that he rejected when he was competing with now former Prime Minister Liz Truss. One could see that there were two Party Conferences. One was the official Party Conference and the other was the Fringe Party Conference. Some did not bother to attend either of them. Such is the state of disarray. 

In more than one way, seeking some kind of relevance in geopolitics has been a diversion. Foreign powers - friends and foes - who follow very closely what is happening in the United Kingdom know better. Whatever is agreed today accounts for very little. Long-term decisions? The UK political cycle is pretty short and makes practically impossible to have long term policies since the next Parliament can choose at will not to implement what the previous Parliament approved or supported.

The UK goverment that he presides spoke about foreign deals with huge markets and promised a brilliant future for the British economy. It is like writing on water. There are no guarantees whatsoever that colourful and impressive speeches will be followed by real achievements. May 2024, an important month on the British political calendar. If what happened in a series of by-elections is translated into a real General Election, not even a space in Madame Tussauds could be guaranteed.

The Conservative Party has broken a new record. A bit more than a decade in power and at least 5 Prime Ministers.     

Migration: Doing nothing, as Labour suggests, is not a valid option

Migration is a ticking bomb and, if no solution is found, it could destabilize Britain as a whole. There are all kinds of issues involved including internal order and National Security. In many areas, the situation is already unmanageable. The word invasion is not an exaggeration. It is an everyday reality that many communities across Britain have to deal with. Do we need to wait until it turns into widespread violence?

Before, the country was going through severe social problems, and uncontrolled migration has made things much worse. Unfortunately, we are entering a new stage in which social disintegration is leading to confrontation. Frustration is leading to widespread anger.

Hotels full. Barges? Tents? Transforming Britain into a gigantic illegal migration camp is not the answer, but the gateway to massive security and social problems. Britons are patient, but don't keep pushing them because they will react and when they react they will keep going.

Most politicians are not listening and they are not listening at their own peril. Ideological stances that are against British interests are going to collide with angry local populations that feel that they are being taken for a ride. More than 7 million Pound a day the illegal migration crisis is costing British taxpapers, but this is only one aspect of the real bill being paid. If National Security and Social Unrest are taken into consideration, the cost of illegal migration is a lot higher.

A Prime Minister must have the power of his/her convictions and strength of character

Worrying sings appear when we see Prime Ministers and potential Prime Ministers falter and hesitate very publicly because it generates uncertainty and this is especially dangerous in difficult times. Britain is not any country. Britain is constantly at the centre of very difficult circumstances that can lead to international disasters.

We have enormous obstacles to overcome both nationally and internationally. A Prime Minister must inspire respect and confidence. Financially, politically and militarily, Britain is in the eye of the storm. The world looks at who is the British Prime Minister, almost in the same manner the world looks at who is the President of the USA.

More than ever before we need reassurance and the biggest problem for all concerned is that at the moment no British Prime Minister and no potential British Prime Minister inspires confidence and respect. Short-termism, hesitation, no sense of direction with decisions made today replaced the following day with decisions that go in exactly the opposite direction does not inspire confidence. Ordinary people are asking what those who represent them and those who stand to represent actually stand for and we don't get any credible information about the state of the parties.

It is usually said that we get what we vote for, but at this point in time we not even know what we are voting for. When you ask all the logical questions and either you don't get answers or get soundbites or fabrications instead of proper answers, when you are given a description that is totally at odds with reality, you have every reason to be concerned.

For more than a year we have heard talk about all kinds of very serious potential confrontations but when we look at the state of preparedness to deal with the said confrontations, what do we see? Total British military manpower: 73,000. There is talk of reducing the British Armed Forces by ten percent. How can anybody trust that what we are told is the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth? In plain language, we cannot trust and we instinctively know that speeches and reality do not fit in. You cannot expect any serious participation in any military conflict given the size of British Armed Forces. We are not fit to fight in any external conflict and we are not even fit to defend the realm. When you are forced to use big ships to patrol British coastal waters and you are failing to keep Britain safe, you are not fit to fight any kind of war. Protecting borders is a sine qua non requirement for any country and Britain is failing to protect its own borders.

Thousands upon thousands of undocumented men in fighting age are entering Britain every year and what do the powers that are do about it? In fact, the numbers of those entering the country illegally vastly surpass the total numbers of the British Armed Forces that for many years have been suffering recruitment difficulties. When you look at recent announcement in terms of working conditions for members of the Armed Forces with the smallest salary adjustments when compared to other branches of the adminstration and of the private sector, you can immediately understand that this leads to widespread demolization. To start with, you can only have accommodation as long as you are a serving member of the Armed Forces, accommodation that you will no longer have once your leave the British Armed Forces. Then you will have to procure your own accommodation at market prices and you will not be able to save enough to do so because a private, for example, earns less than half the monies earned by a bus driver. When leaving the Armed Forces you will be poorer and force to leave in much worse conditions.

Neither the government nor the Opposition seem to care about the state of the British Armed Forces. Ben Wallace MP, the now leaving Secretary State of Defense, talks about quality being more important than quantity as justification for a ten per cent reduction of manpower. Well, in an international conflict you will need both quality and quantity and the British Armed Forces are getting neither.

Three by-elections: wasted opportunities for the Opposition

When you are trying to make a major political impact, you must ensure that candidates that are certain to win the election are heavyweight candidates. For whatever reason both Labour and Liberal Democrats play their cards wrongly. 

The Liberal Democrats chose a totally inexperienced 25 year-old and Labour chose a woman who can only perform well with soft interviewers. As soon as she was press for answers, she faltered. 

ULEZ was a major disaster for Labour in area in the outskirts of London where there are major difficulties for public transport and people are forced to use cards for their day to day activities and businesses. As it was expected, voters rejected Labour's ULEZ zone and gave the victory to the Conservative Party that maintained a strategic Parliamentary seat that was the now former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's seat. Labour wanted to make a good impression and failed miserably, courtesy of the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan that persists with his plan to include areas like Uxbridge as part of the ULEZ plan.

When you look at the leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, he has the odds stuck against him. In an area where people are religious and traditionalists, the present himself as the man that thinks that women have penises. In an area where people unavoidably need vehicles to move around and to survive, Keir Starmer presents himself as the 'anti-car' candidate. Ordinary people who earn a meagre living don't need any more taxes, but Labour insists in creating new taxes at local level. Labour talks about parking permits to be paid for by local residents. ULEZ to be paid by local residents. Labour talks about company permits that will make local services a lot more expensive. In its elan to 'save the planet', Labour is sacrificing ordinary Britons. 

If finding jobs is difficult and especially for those with fewer skills, Labour wants to import more illegal immigrants. If finding accommodation is expensive and sometimes impossible to find, Labour wants more foreigners to take over the jobs done by local residents and more foreigners to take whatever accommodation is available leaving local residents with nowhere to live in. Labour supports cranky individuals that go around causing disturbance and preventing access to hospitals, to name a few of the things that a minute bunch of crackpots have been involved in.

When it comes to defend democracy, Labour is nowhere to be seen. Does Labour support closing bank accounts for political reasons? Well, Keir Starmer has kept quiet on this subject and this leads people to believe that he is very much in favour of political repression. As somebody stated, Keir Starmer keeps quiet because he has nothing to say.

An inconvenient truth: you can’t sell the green revolution to people who can’t afford it - Gaby Hinsliff

Even in the Labour Party some people are starting to realize the foolishness of Net Zero. As Gaby Hinsliff writes on The Guardian, 'an inconvenient truth: you can't sell the green revolution to people who can't afford it.'

The reality is that transport links in the United Kingdom are very poor. If you go out of the main urban areas, or even inside urban areas, the provision of public transpor is notoriously insufficient. Therefore, penalizing people for using cars or preventing people from using cars is madness.

Local authorities are using so called green policies to extract money that is in effect an increase in Council Tax. If you have to pay Congestion Charge and ULEZ, pay for parking and parking permits, you are in effect paying additional Council Tax because of the proceedings will end up in the hands of local authorities. 

Nobody has even calculated the impact of such taxes on the local economy in ways that will affect more those who have less. This wave of taxations has been promoted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and by all the do-gooders that want to make good with somebody else's money. And what would will be done when local economies collapse under the burden of taxation and people are forced out of work?

You can't sell the green revolutoin to people who can't afford it. This is something that Keir Starmer and all other proponents of Net Zero and the upper class weirdoes that go around making a nuisance of themselves should be thinking about.

Enforcing migration laws reinforces rights and security

Enforcing migration laws protects rights and security. People traffickers must not be allowed to continue their illegal and potentially murderous business. Porous borders are also a gigantic national security risk and especially in the times we are going through. Who can guarantee that plotters and saboteurs will not enter the country disguised as illegal migrants? 

Britain is on the brink of all-out war. It would be fairly easy to enter and blow up military installations, carry out assassinations, damage vital infra-structure and engage in all other kinds of actions that will be critically damaging. We don't allow people to enter the country via an airport or a harbour without proper documentation. Why should thousands of people be allowed to enter the country by simply landing on the coasts without any documentation?

Rishi Sunak is on the right path to ensure both that rights are respected and British borders are secure but, as usual, Opposition politicians and political activists will be in favour of criminality as long as it suits their political agenda. 

France is a safe country and there are British diplomatic and consular agencies in France. Why not approaching a British agency in France to ask for permission to enter Britain? It is self-evident that those entering Britain illegally have no intention and never had the intention to procede legally. They are not coming for war zones. They are coming via the European Union and therefore they hiave the legal means to apply for permission if they so wanted.

Having said that, the debate is ruined by things that have little or nothing to do with the real need to control British borders and the misery created by the chaotic state of migration will go and on and everything is deemed to be placed before the altar of political correctness, criminal organisations will prosper while law abiding communities will be sacrificed.

Keir Starmer: Keeping your eye on the ball

 

While you can be critical or supportive of what happens in terms of governance of the United Kingdom, you cannot fail to pay attention to what happening in the Opposition that very much affects developments in the United Kingdom.

Keir Starmer is literally struggling to keep the Labour Party together and by many account he is not succeding. The expressions anti-Semitim and Islmophobia should ring a bell. 

In spite of the fact that Keir Starmer was the man the Labour Party chose to deal with the crisis generated concerning accusations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and the fact that as a direct consequence of the crisis the previous leader was deposed and is no longer a Labour Party member, a series of reshuffles following electoral defeats tell you that all is not well in the Labour Party. 

What is more, there is a new acquired fear in the Labour Party that is affecting Labour Party policies and relationships between its members as Muslims are increasingly discontent with the stances of the Labour Party regarding Palestine, Labour Party officials are running around in fear that any criticism of the Labour Party regarding what is happening in Palestine might be seen as anti-Semitism.

Any reshuffle in the present circumstances increases discontent and lowers the popularity ratings of the leader both internally and externally. Some polls indicate that Keir Starmer's popularity ratings are pretty low so he himself would not be an asset should there be an General Election.

We are hours away from a by-election in Batley and Spen and people inside and outside the Labour Party await the outcome of the election that could strengthen existing doubts about the leadership of the Labour Party. But there is more. There have been incidents during the campaign for the by-election that are extremely worrying. A well-known Muslim female Labour Party politician was seen laughing when the standing candidate Kim Leadbeater was accosted by a group of angry Muslims who were questioning Kim Leadbeater about her stances on LGBT issues. To what extent can the Labour Party trust its Muslim members and supporters? If what happened regarding Jewish voters happens again but this time involving Muslim voters there are areas and not just Batley and Spen but somewhere else in the country where the Labour vote could collapse. 

We then see that added to already existing ideological differences between Labour politicians and Labour Party voters we have two new divides regarding issues that happen outside the country that can seriously undermine the Labour Party. Palestine and the debate about anti-Semitism and Islmamophobia are key issues for the present Labour Party. 

A regional official in the UK's Labour Party has prevented local party members from debating a motion on Thursday calling for sanctions on Israel over human rights violations against Palestinians saying it would trigger 'anti-Semitic behaviour'. 

Kim Bolton - chair of Hove and Portslade Constituency Labour Party in southern England - ordered that members are prohibited from discussing the motion calling for Israel to 'end its violations of the human rights of Palestinians'.

The motion had urged the UK to 'impose legal sanctions on Israel', such as a ban of arms sales and trade with illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Bolton reportedly acted on advice from Scott Horner, the south east regional officer for Labour. Horner is said to have cautioned her that the discussions 'would undermine the party's ability to provide a safe and welcoming place for all members, in particular Jewish members'.

Bolton said she supported that view and believed that a debate on sanctions against Israel, key demand of the non-violent BDS movement backed by large swathes of Labour Party members, could 'stir up internal conflict'.

What are the alternatives for the Labour Party after July 1st, 2021, day of the by-election in Batley and Spen? If the Labour vote is divided and Labour loses the by-election, will this be the last straw for Keir Starmer's leadership. What will he do? Will he carry out yet another reshuffle as it happend after events in Hartlepool and event in Chesham and Amersham? If the Labour Party is in favour of another leadership challenge, who is there to replace Keir Starmer?

Because of the pandemic, the Labour Party has been desperately trying to capitalize on any criticism made concerning the governing party, whether it is about Dominic Cummings or the actions of Matt Hancock or the fabricated loss of documents pertaining to the Ministry of Defense. But this cannot make up for the general lack of direction and ineffectiveness of the Labour Party.

Keir Starmer very well knows that there are two fundamental divisions in the Labour Party - apart from other divisions - the Parliamentary Labour Party and the grass roots of the Labour Party - never mind the University warriors on social media that do not represent the real Labour Party.

Hartlepool was lost because many Labour supporters chose to abstain. In Chesham and Amersham, Labour barely managed to gather a few hundred votes coming after the Green Party. Somebody talked about tactical votes that gave the Liberal Democrats a win in Chesham and Amersham. What if this wasn't a tactical vote, but something more permanent? The Liberal Democrats seem to believe that the outcome was due to a lot more than just a tactical vote. 

We await the outcome in Batley and Spen. Let's see if the Muslim vote for Labour holds or if George Galloway manages to attract both Muslim voters discontent with the stances of the present Labour Party on Palestine and/or Jeremy Corbyn's supporters in general and/or any disaffected Labour voter that does not agree with Keir Starmer's leadership.

 

Huawei and fears about economic warfare

Huawei and fear of economic warfare

Real fears about Huawei have nothing to do with National Security or espionage. Fears about Huawei are about economics and the fact that now Chinese companies like Huawei can outbid any Western company at international level when bidding for contracts.

Nokia and Ericsson could hardly compete with Huawei in terms of getting things better at a lower price and at a time when even countries like UK are having to look very carefully at the monies they spend, Huawei will undoubtedly have the upper hand. While the EU and others have to deal with regulations regarding competition and subsidies, Chinese companies don't have to worry about lack of subsidies. The biggest foreign debt is the US Foreign Debt and China is one of its main creditors - if not the biggest creditor of the USA. If China were to mobilize the monies the USA owes to China, there would enough capital to over-run and outpace any Western company. Therefore, the issue is not about espionage. The issue is about economic warfare. China can buy whatever it wants to buy, but the West cannot afford to sell strategic assets to China. This is why the USA and other Western countries are claiming that there are issues of National Security. They cannot openly say that this is merely about economic warfare. They try and implement higher tariffs against Chinese exports, but if China buys into the USA and into the said countries the said investments would not be exports but national and local investments that will not be affected by tariffs on exports.

Today, it is about who controls the telecommunications industries. Tomorrow, it will be about heavy industries or food production. Why using any other means when you can buy countries directly? In a world of services, communications have crucial importance. Whoever controls the communications market has the upper hand when it comes to the rest of the economy. 

For the USA, repatriating jobs is not the same as allowing foreign companies to buy the USA. Awarding contracts to Ericsson looks like a safer bet than awarding the same conttracts to Huawei. This is not about National Security. This is about - once again - about economic warfare. Using the words of President Clinton, 'it's the economy, stupid.' 

The Conservative Party promised in its manifesto that it would develop communications networks in the UK to provide services to even the most remote community in the United Kingdom. It will be a costly exercise. They know that the prices demanded by Western companies will be much higher that the prices asked for by Huawei. Money makes the world go around. If you can pay less for better services, you can then have more monies for others projects including Trident and HS2. You can have more monies to provide advantages to Labour voters that chose to vote Conservative in the 2019 General Election. Behind the decision made by Prime Minister Boris Johnson there is a lot of strategic thinking. If he can get Huawei to deliver faster and cheaper what he promised in the 2019 Manifesto, those who can access new and faster services at a fraction of the cost will think more about having affordable and reliable services. 

Brexit: The man that never met the IRA

Brexit: The man that never met the IRA

Brexit: General Election and what afterwards?

Brexit: General Election and what afterwards?

December 13 is the day but what will be the political landscape then? There are all kinds of assumptions but what will be the real picture? After the events of the last three years, nothing is guaranteed.

Whether we are dealing with national politics or geopolitics, the outcome is uncertain.  Both main political parties have been fractured by a more than three-years-struggle and this is not just about internal politics. The whole country has been affected and this includes the Supreme Court. Disappointment has been replaced with cynical attitudes. 

The first question to ask is: what will be the turnout in this General Election? The weather is the least of all concerns. Electoral margins will be an issue and the political platforms of candidates standing will be another issue because of divided allegiances that could alter the outcome of the General Election.

What was the thinking behind the votes of Members of Parliament that perfectly knew that a General Election could mean the loss of their seats? What was the thinking behind the votes of Members of Parliament that not necessarily agree with the political agendas of their own political parties? What was the thinking behind the votes of Members of Parliament for whom the chances of returning to the House of Commons are remote? Yesterday, the last interventions of Members of Parliament like Anna Soubry and Michael Gapes show the level of dispair after the realization that their political futures could effectively be coming to and. At the last minute, 10 out of 21 Conservative MPs that lost the whip were returned to the fold.

This General Election is being fought inside and outside political parties.

 

    

Brexit: Parliament is playing a very dangerous game, an expensive game

Brexit: Parliament is playing a very dangerous game, an expensive game

When Anna Soubry rose in the House of Commons the game was self-evident. Why not a General Election? For the same reasons that the Labour Party doesn't want a General Election. Plagued by internal conflicts and divisions, scandals, it remains to be seen if the Labour Party is not actually the big loser in the skirmishes linked to Brexit.

Jeremy Corbyn knows that this could well be the end of his political career. After all that is happening in the Labour Party, losing a General Election means goodbye to the Leadership of the Labour Party and a reshuffle that will be the end of the road for John McDonnell and others that will be blamed for the context in which many Labour MPs left to become Independents and even joined the Liberal Democrats. For some Labour MPs, all the threats will mean very little either because their majorities look unassailable or simply because after decades in politics they are heading for retirement. For other Labour MPs, the risk of their careers being ended by a General Election is very real and therefore they will drag their feet for as long as it is possible to do so. Other Labour MPs see the defeat of the Labour Party and in particular of Jeremy Corbyn as the best opportunity they have to rebuild the Labour Party. Losing an election would be for them a price worth paying 

For the Liberal Democrats, it is the kind of opportunity that they have been looking for for a vary long time. They jumped at the chance of being in government and this is why they were eager to join the Conservative Party in a coalition under the Leadership of David Cameron. In fact, some Labour MPs asked the Liberal Democrats today if they were willing to join the Conservatives in a coalition if the outcome of a General Election is once again a hung Parliament. There is the suspicion that this is exactly what the Leadership of the Liberal Democrats is looking for as several of them - including its present Leader - were in government with the Conservatives. The main difficulty is that the present Liberal Democratic Party was joined by Labour MPs and Conservative MPs and they would be in a very awkward situation.

For those like Chuka Umunna, former Labour MP for Streatham, to leave the Labour Party was a jump into the unknown. Then came the option of joining another political grouping with former Labour MPs and former Conservative MPs called Change UK. But after a dramatic failure in the European Parliament Elections, Chuka Umunna instinctively knew that the only alternative was to join the Liberal Democrats to stand a chance to try to save his political career. In a General Election, he wouldn't stand in Streatham and therefore he would be standing in the City. He secured his position as Liberal Democrat Speaker on Economic Affairs but, would he be willing to be part of a coalition with the Conservatives? For Conservatives who left the Conservative Party and joined the Liberal Democratic Party to see themselves as part of a coalition with the Conservatives would be a paradox and a very uncomfortable position to be in.

But before we can assume that Labour MPs and Conservative MPs who joined the Liberal Democrats would be re-elected but this time as Liberal Democrat MPs, we need to look at what is happening right now. The European Union suggested that they would agree to an extension - that they called a flexible extension - to allow the UK to finalize all legislative processses including the approval of the Withdrawal Agreement agreed with Prime Minister Boris Johnson but the agreement for a flexible extension comes with conditions attached and they are waiting for the House of Commons to make a decision that the House of Commons is not willing to make. The House of Commons hasn't approved the Deal, the House of Commons doesn't want a second Referendum and the House of Commons doesn't want a General Election. What would then be the point of granting an extension - or even a flexible extension? 

Will the EU deny the United Kingdom an extension at the last minute because the House of Commons cannot agree the way forward? It has been reported that tomorrow, a new motion will be put forward that would make possible to have a General Election despite the Fixed Term Parliament Act that requires a two-third majority of all 650 seats of the House of Commons including the seats that have not been occupied by Sinn Fein/IRA. The Speaker and other officials despite being MPs don't vote. For this reason, in order to have the required number of votes - according to the Fixed Term Parliament Act - a vast number of Labour MPs would have to support the motion. Tomorrow, would be decision time in the House of Commons. Would this be the end of the stalemate?

 

Brexit: Jeremy Corbyn's only alternative to prevent the disintegration of the Labour Party is a Referendum

Brexit: Jeremy Corbyn's only alternative to prevent the disintegration of the Labour Party is a Referendum

Jeremy Corbyn has rejected a General Election three times while asking for a General Election more than 50 times. Why? It doesn't escape public attention the flow of Labour MPs leaving the Labour Party because of anti-Semitism, harassment and the risk of deselection. 

On the same day of the start of the Labour Party Conference in Brighton, there was an attempt to get rid of Labour's Deputy Leader Tom Watson. Later on, there were dramatic changes at Labour Central Office with Jeremy Corbyn's supporters being replaced with John McDonnell's supporters. Not only that. Just a few day, key members of the cabinet spoke for Remain while Jeremy Corbyn was nowhere to be seen.

He announced a three-line whip and 19 Labour MPs supported the Deal proposed by the Conservative government. Now, it is reported that faced with possibility of a motion for General Election on Monday, Jeremy Corbyn is asking Labour MPs not to support it. There deselection processes south of the border and north of the border. And the issue of anti-Semitism has not gone away. Some of his key MPs even joined the Liberal Democrats. 

Jeremy Corbyn and others like to talk about chaos in the Conservative Party but looking at what has been going on in the Labour Party I would say that they situation is a lot worse in the Labour Party.

The great benefitiaries are the Conservative Party as party for Leave and the Liberal Democrats as party for Remain. They are the only two parties that stand to be net winners in a General Election. The Labour Party performed badly in the European Elections and there is the danger that Labour could become the third party in a General Election.

Vince Cable spoke about the creation of a centrist political party. The fact that Conservative MPs and Labour MPs have joined the Liberal Democrats would be a step in what Vince Cable called a new alternative. The creation of a non-Marxist alternative in British politics could be the sign of things to come.

When you go down to local level, Labour grassroots have been turning against local authorities controlled by the Labour Party accussing them of being the drivers of gentrification and ethnic cleansing. The next stage would be a challenge to Labour hegemony at local authority level. If there is a General Election in December, what will happen in the London Election? Siobhan Benita - former independent Mayoral Candidate will be standing for the Liberal Democrats. Shaun Bailey will be standing for the Conservatives. Will Sadiq Khan survive? At constituency level, with processes of deselection of local MPs, the outcome for the Labour Party is less than certain.

  

Brexit: When you change one part of a deal you create a different deal.

Brexit: When you change one part of a deal you create a different deal

John McDonnell can talk about Customs Union as much as he wants but the fact remains that when you change one part of a deal that has already been agreed you change the deal and therefore have to return to the negotiations table and this menas yet another delay. What does another delay mean for the European Union? It means a delay in the proceeding, blocking the European Commission, leaving the European Parliament in the dark about who is and who isn't a Member of the European Parliament. The amount of time spent by EU authorities in negotiation after negotiation is time that the EU has not spent in other more fundamental issues for the European Union. John McDonnell, as other Labour MPs, is doing this not because of Brexit but because he has a political agenda to throw a spanner in the works with the belief that this would put him and his party in a better position come a General Election.

The SNP has a very public agenda. For the SNP, Britain is not what matters. For the SNP what matters is Scottish Independence to be achieved regardless of whatever happens to the United Kingdom. What hasn't enter the SNP's minds is that should Scotland become independent Scots will be foreigners in what remains in the United Kingdom and therefore a border will have to be erected across the border with England that will prevent freedom of movement of Scottish citizens. They will. have to have Scottish passports and apply for a visa to enter England or any other part of the United Kingdom. They will have to have their own currency supported by their own Scottish bank. They will have to have their own Armed Forces and they will lose all contracts and benefits they have at the moment as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

For the Liberal. Democrats, everything is about winning and elusive General Election. They became the fourth political party after the SNP and they are now rejoicing because rogue members of other political parties decided to join them. The question is: how long will happiness last? When a General Election comes those who chose to joined the Liberal Democrats might find themselves out of Parliament.

For the DUP, there is a very clear threat. If there was a General Election today in Northern Ireland, there is no guarantees that they will keep or increase the number of DUP MP in Westminster. In the wilderness, the DUP will have little say in Westminster and no say at all in Northern Ireland because the Northern Ireland Assembly has been paralized for the last three years when Sinn Fein IRA in violation of the Good Friday Agreement decided to leave the Northern Ireland Assembly. Sinn Fein IRA doesn't want Northern Ireland to exist. They want to annex Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. For the DUP, there is a double wammy effect. The DUP doesn't like Abortion and doesn't like Same Sex Marriages. Because there isn't a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly, the Westminster Parliament in what constitutes de-facto Direct Rule imposed in Northern Ireland Abortion and Same Sex Marriages because there is no Northern Ireland Assembly that could oppose Abortion and Same Sex Marriages.

Rebel Conservative MPs are just playing into the hands of the Labour Party, a Labour Party that is divided and of which many Labour MPs don't want Jeremy Corbyn as Leader because of the danger of him becoming Prime Minister.

The only deal that could be put to the vote in a Referendum is the original deal that has the approval of both EU and UK and, even so, the European Union Parliament will only consider the deal that has been agreed by both EU and UK. As stated at the beginning, if you change one part of a deal you change the entire deal and this would lead to a new process of negotiations. Further delays for the United Kingdom and further delays for the EU that in the meantime will have no budget and will be facing UK Veto in the European Commission. 

  

Brexit: I have a plan, a plan that cannot possibly fail

Brexit: I have a plan, a plan that cannot possibly fail

L'Inspecteur May de la Sûreté Conservative

Plan B, as it followed, was Plan A under another letter mmm... name. You cannot have a Customs Union and be members of the Common Market without Freedom of Movement that incidentally was explicitly rejected. If you had Freedom of Movement it would amount to ignoring the outcome of the Referendum on EU Membership.

The SNP doesn't want Brexit. SNP wants to get out of the United Kingdom to then join the EU. Now, this amounts to selling out Scottish Independence. The Scottish Parliament would then surrender Scottish fisheries to the EU and would also surrender many of the powers given to the Scottish Parliament by the Devolution Act. Scottish Independence to then become an EU province? 

For all the talk about the Good Friday Agreement as a great achievement, the Northern Ireland Assembly has not been working for more than two years because the Sinn Fein/IRA walked away from it and asked for conditions that they perfectly know the Protestant Community will never accept. It the Sinn Fein/IRA's way of ensuring that there couldn't be proper Home Rule in Northern Ireland. They did the same in Westminster by getting elected MPs but never taking their seats in the House of Commons. The difference is that without them there still is a working Parliament of the United Kingdom as a whole while in Northern Ireland Devolution has been frozen.

This means that the Catholic Community of Northern Ireland, because of Sinn Fein/IRA, has no representation in Westminster and has no representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Good Friday Agreement was violated by Sinn Fein/IRA and is no longer valid.

Most of the trade of Northern Ireland is not with the Republic of Ireland. Most of the trade of Northern Ireland is with the rest of the United Kingdom and with the rest of the World and the ports of the Republic of Ireland are merely transit ways. Even for the Republic of Ireland the United Kingdom is a major partner.

 

 

Brexit, Theresa May and Votes of No Confidence

Brexit, Theresa May and Votes of No Confidence

If the 2017 General Election and threats of deselection in the Labour Party tell us that even if there is  Leadership Challenge in the Conservative Party or No Confidence vote in the House of Commons the outcome of such events is by no means certain.

Given the rules of the Conservative Party, if the 48 signatures needed are gathered there will have to be enough Conservative MPs willing to support the challenge against Theresa May. Another calculation that needs to be made is if there are suitable replacements. Is there one Conservative MP willing to stand up with enough support from all factions of a very divided Conservative Party? If the number of MPs ready and willing to support the challenge is not found, Theresa May will be confirmed as Leader and a year will have to pass before there can be another challenge.

After the experiences of what happened in the 2017 General Election, many Conservative MPs will think twice or thrice before challenging the present status quo for fear of losing their seats and opening the door to a Jeremy Corbyn government.

In the Labour Party, the threat of deselection of Labour MPs is very real. Will those Labour MPs standing against Jeremy Corbyn want to take the risk of opening the door to a Jeremy Corbyn government and lose their seats in the process? They might also choose to maintain the status quo for fear of losing their seats and of seeing very unpopular policies implemented by a government led by Jeremy Corbyn. Many Labour MPs feel more secure in their seats having a Conservative government and have more in common with certain factions of the Conservative Party than with their own colleagues of the Labour Party.

The SNP and the Liberal Democrats tried to push Jeremy Corbyn asking him to put forward a Vote of No Confidence. Because he knows that despite the fact that many Labour MPs are against Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn knows that a vast number of Labour voters support Brexit. So for the moment, there is no enthusiasm for a Vote of No Confidence. Moreover, the Labour Party has no credible alternative and is very much stuck and unable to offer a solution. All they have been able to do is to attack the Conservative Party to try and hide divisions and lack of alternatives within the Labour Party.

The Labour Party can say that they are very much in favour of General Election but in reality many Labour MPs fear that the prospect of a General Election could lead to a purge of the Parliamentarian Labour Party. To avert the danger of deselection some prominent MPs have said that they would stand as Independent Labour Candidates, trusting that voters would give them the support that they don't have from their own Labour branches.

Simon Hughes is openly bisexual but Tim Farron constantly struggles with sexual issues

Tim Farron constantly struggles when asked about issues regarding sexuality.

Once again the Liberal Democrats struggles to give a straight answer. He struggled before when asked about homosexuality. Now, he struggles when asked about abortion.

Simon Hughes publicly stated that he is bisexual. I would like to have Tim Farron and Simon Hughes together, in front of television cameras, and ask a whole range of questions about sexuality.

This man has serious issues to answer for. As Liberal Democrats Leader he should be able to give straight answers about sexuality as his inability to provide straight answers on this issues increasingly looks like a very serious personality flaw.

Other political leaders have been very clear about where they stand on the said issues and have prominent representatives that are openly homosexual or bisexual that had stood in the House of Commons. Tim Farron is letting himself down and is letting his political party down by not providing clear cut answers.

Tactical Voting Liberal Democrats attack UKIP saying that UKIP is promoting Tactical Voting

Tactical Voting Liberal Democrats accuse UKIP of promoting Tactical Voting

You couldn't make it up. Tim Farron said that he's relaxed about the idea of tactical voting. Well, the Liberal Democrats printed a leaflet accused UKIP of promoting Tactical Voting.

A very hypocritical Liberal Democratic Party who constantly talks of support for Tactical Voting distributed a leaflet attacking UKIP of supporting Tactical Voting.

In 2005 General Election, the Liberal Democrats headed by Nick Clegg and with Tim Farron as member and candidate talking about abolishing University Tuition Fees. Something they forgot about it completely when the formed a government together with the Conservative Party. Now, they talk about Tactical Voting but criticise other political parties accusing them of promoting Tactical Voting. If Tim Farron himself doesn't see the error of his ways a few weeks before a General Election then somebody inside the Liberal Democratic Party should think very carefully about the content of the leaflets that they are printing and delivering, most probably a few of the only things they can deliver.

At the end of the 2015-2017, this was the distribution of seats per political party represented.

Liberal Democrats in fourth place: Conservatives 330, Labour 229, Scottish National Party 54 and Liberal Democrats 9. A miracle will have to occur for the Liberal Democrats to reach Third Place because when Parliament was disolved for the 2017 General Election, Liberal Democrats were in Fourth Place. Luckily they won one seat in a by-election because otherwise they would be in Fourth Place together with Democratic Unionists.

This was the state of the parties at the end of the 2015-2017 Parliament and they have a few mountains to climb to have the slightest chance of delivering anything more than an explanation of why they lost. If they lose, they cannot blame Brexit.

Labour Manifesto: a lot to worry about and not just about economics

Labour Manifesto: a lot to worry about and not just about economics

For those of us who take the time to read party political Manifestos, the Labour Party Manifesto for the 2017 General Election contains some worrying inexactitudes. I say "contains some worrying inexactitudes" not to say 'incredible lies".

The Manifesto of more than a 100 pages with more than 24,000 words and divided in 12 chapters deals with a number of issues and some very frightening ideas.

We cannot deal with everything in one single article. Therefore I will focus on Chapter 2 - Negotiating Brexit.

On Chapter 2, the Manifesto says that Labour will scrap the Conservatives' Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Now standing by what many high ranking EU representatives including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Jean Claude Junker, Martin Schultz and Wolfgang Schäuble, Brexit means no Single Market and no Customs Union. There could be trade agreements but Britain will not be part of the Single Market or of the Customs Union.

This leads us to the point that the Labour Party is in denial of the nature of Brexit and wants Britain to remain in the EU, going against the will of the British people expressed in a Referendum on June 23 2016 and supported by the House of Commons that acknowledge the will of the British people and gave Prime Minister Theresa May the authority to trigger Article 50.

What follows next is yet another lie. The Manifesto says "A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. Eu nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips."

"It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU."

Another two lies: One - Britain is not using EU nationals as bargaining chips and Two - Prime Minister Theresa May tried unsuccessfully to get Angela Merkel and other high ranking EU representatives to deal with the issue of EU and UK citizens' rights before Article 50 was triggered.

The EU response was that there would no negotiations whatsoever until after Article 50 was triggered and formal negotiations started. The Labour Party is lying to voters misrepresenting what has been Britain official position on this issue.

The Labour Party explicitly says that "We will drop the Conservatives' Great Repeat Bill, replacing with an EU Rights and Protections Bill". What this means is that the Labour Party will seek to maintain the status in which EU rules will take precedence over British rules.

On the one hand the Labour Party is portraying itself as respecting the will of the Electorate expressed on June 23 2016 and on the other the Labour Party is refusing to accept the will of the people by maintaining the status quo that the Electorate expressly rejected.

A concoction of false promises and lies are not a good start for a Manifesto that seeks to persuade the Electorate to support the Labour Party in a General Election.

David Ward: Liberal Democrats are neither Democratic nor Liberal

Whatever your views on Palestine and about what is happening in Palestine, it is inconceivable that a Prospective Member of Parliament could have been deselected and put on a trial because he has strong views on Palestine. A few days ago, Tim Farron who is reportedly a staunch Christian struggled to give a straight answer about homosexuality. This is called hypocrisy. Later on, put against the wall, he came up with an answer or what I call 'a political answer' because we cannot trust that the answer he gave reflects what Tim Farron actually believes in. David Ward committed the crime of having strong views on Palestine and in the United Kingdom anybody who has strong views on Palestine risks being called Nazi, Anti-Semite and Jew hater. Never mind if many Jews across the world - including in Israel - are highly critical of what is happening in Palestine and they themselves disagree with what is being done in Palestine. But whatever your views on Palestine, we have a fundamental right to agree or disagree, a right that has been discarded by the Liberal Democratic Party.   I hope you don't mind me getting in touch with you again. I believe I previously had contact when you signed my petition demanding that Isreal stopped persecuting the Palestinian people. You may have heard that I have been suspended from the Liberal Democrats just before nominations were due in for candidates in the General Election on 8th June 2017. Someone has made a complaint that my views are not consistent with the Lib Dems. I was properly approved and selected to stand in 2015 and again and for the expected General Election in 2020. My appeal against the complaint cannot be heard until after the 8th June. I believe this has been done to stop me standing as a candidate in the General election. The Lib Dems have imposed a candidate on the local party of volunteers who have been publicly criticised for selecting me. People have a right not to vote for me but what I will not accept is being prevented from standing as someone who has been outspoken against a foreign country which has numerous UN Resolutions condemning it for the way it behaves. Standing up to my detractors and trying to become an independent MP is at a huge personal and financial cost. I had already raised the cost of fighting the election as a Lib Dem but that cannot now be used. I have got one week to raise the £12,800 pounds it costs to be a candidate in a British General Election. Please, can you help me?  Please send whatever you can afford.   Best wishes David Ward Independent Candidate for Bradford East Donate to My Campaign Printed [hosted] by Mailchimp. Promoted and Published by David Ward (Independant Candidate for Bradford East) on behalf of David Ward. 8 Greenfield Lane, Idle Bradford, BD10 8PT Copyright © 2017 David Ward, All rights reserved. Your Email has been added to this list because you have contacted David Ward in the past regarding the plight of Palestinian people. Our mailing address is: David Ward 8 Greenfield Lane Idle Bradford, West Yorkshire BD10 8PT United Kingdom Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list