Immigration? "Multiculturalism"? Stretching deep into the nineteenth century, since my father was born in 1922, all 16 of my great-great-grandparents were born on what was then British territory, at least 15 were born on what is still British territory (even one Irishman can complicate matters), nine were born in the United Kingdom as then constituted, and at least eight were born within its present borders.
The figures for birth in what is still the Empire and for birth in what is still the Union are respectively eight and four for my great-grandparents, four and two for my grandparents, two and one for my parents, and four and two for the children of my parents' marriage. We would have to go back to unnamed Huguenots, slaves, indentured labourers, and coolies, to find any ancestor who would even have been eligible for anything other than British nationality or that of one of the Three Kingdoms, much less have held it. Even my Saint Helenian mother's maiden name was as Scots as her married name. Your move.
Keir Starmer has tried to change his tune, or at least his tone, on the cutting off of the food and water supplies to one million children while white phosphorus was dropped on them. He is trying to rescue a Muslim vote that has already sunk without trace. Victories at Tamworth and at Mid Bedfordshire need to be set against that among other wider realities. But Starmer did originally endorse those war crimes, thereby aiding and abetting them, and thus rendering himself a war criminal. Crispin Blunt's notice to prosecute him, David Lammy and Emily Thornberry ought still to be acted upon.
Blunt will be standing down at the next General Election. If reports tonight are correct and so will his fellow Surrey MP Jeremy Hunt, then whither the next Conservative Leadership Election? Beyond even Labour's rule change to make it everything short of mathematically impossible for more than one candidate to stand for Leader, the Conservative threshold is whatever the Executive of the 1922 Committee feels like setting at the time. A year ago, that was 40 per cent of the party's MPs, in order to ensure that Rishi Sunak would be the only candidate. Next time, it will be at least that, if not 50 per cent, or, if no one reached that bar, then whoever had the most nominations. So, Sunak again if he wanted it, or Hunt if he did not. Or so we had assumed. The Right will be kept off the ballot paper. But by whom?
And in what context? When I tell you that there is going to be a hung Parliament, then you can take that to the bank. I spent the 2005 Parliament saying that it was psephologically impossible for the Heir to Blair's Conservative Party to win an overall majority. I predicted a hung Parliament on the day that the 2017 General Election was called, and I stuck to that, entirely alone, all the way up to the publication of the exit poll eight long weeks later. And on the day that Sunak became Prime Minister, I predicted that a General Election between him and Starmer would result in a hung Parliament.
To strengthen families and communities by securing economic equality and international peace through the democratic political control of the means to those ends, including national and parliamentary sovereignty, we need to hold the balance of power. Owing nothing to either main party, we must be open to the better offer. There does, however, need to be a better offer. Not a lesser evil, which in any case the Labour Party is not.
If they don't go back to the 1882 May Laws, they are more recent than that. Immigration and multiculturalism are their choice of ground but they can't hold it.
ReplyDeletePrecisely. We would not have chosen this ground. But they have.
Delete