Posts Tagged ‘Conservative Party’
There Will Be No More Misinformation on Cannabis from Conservative Police and Crime Commissioners
Conservative Party Conference 2022, left to right: PCC Mark Shelford, Professor Neil McKeganey, PCC David Sidwick, Unknown, Unknown
For the past nine months I have been engaged in series of formal complaints against Conservative PCCs concerning their seriously misleading anti-cannabis campaign. I am pleased that they have now stopped their silly scaremongering. If they try to go down this road again, they will be back into a costly and time-consuming process which they can never win because nothing they have claimed can be supported by evidence.
None of my complaints have been upheld despite exhausting all routes of appeal but this is no surprise to me. Such complaints procedures are not designed to hold officials to account as you might hope. Their real purpose is to find excuses for misconduct. However, by any measure, I have defeated every absurd claim they have made by adducing published, peer-reviewed evidence.
This all started with the ridiculous proposal that cannabis should be made a class A drug, announced at the Conservative Party Conference 2022 in Birmingham. Inevitably, all the tabloid newspapers loved this and when home secretary Suella Braverman endorsed the idea, well, it was a wet dream for the Daily Mail and every hack who believes the role of the press is to sensationalise rather than inform.
The leader of the campaign was David Sidwick, PCC for Dorset. He advanced all the old chestnuts of addiction, psychosis and the ‘gateway theory’ but went much, much further:
“the pernicious influence of cannabis on our society”
“nothing soft about this drug. Its impact can be brutal — damaging lives and promoting crime”
“make no mistake, this stuff does the same harm as crack and heroin”
“a factor in numerous random acts of violence”
Such was the content of Sidwick’s article in the Daily Mail, a platform the newspaper gave him to coincide with his event at the Conservative Party Conference which was titled ‘Cannabis: Just a bit of weed or a Class A drug?’
Sidwick also claimed that his experience in the pharmaceutical industry gave him a special understanding of the health harms of cannabis and during the complaints process he implied he had some sort of medical expertise. In reality, he was a pharmaceutical salesmen and this attempt to blag some extra credibility for his claims speaks volumes.
To be fair, Sidwick has been taken in by the work of Professor Stuart Reece, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Western Australia. Reece is ‘reefer madness’ personifed. His claims and theories are as extreme as they come and have made him a laughing stock amongst his professional peers. See here for more details.
Sidwick claimed that Professor Reece’s work amounted to “a wealth of new data on the drug’s effects which merited a re-evaluation”.
The basis of my complaint was that under the Nolan Principles of Public Life, with which all PCCs are obliged to comply, they must
“act with integity and diligence and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias” and “act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner”.
It is self-evident that Sidwick’s claims could not pass this test, so I submitted a complaint against him and also Alison Hernandez, PCC for Devon and Cornwall; and Mark Shelford, PCC for Avon and Somerset. These were his principle accomplices. Hernandez has a particularly poor record with a quite ridiculous attitude to all aspects of drugs policy. Matthew Barber, PCC for Thames Valley, was also in my sights but to be fair to him, he readily engaged with me. We debated the issue on a radio programme and had a lengthy discussion on a Zoom call. While we didn’t come to any agreement, he listened and took on board what I had to say.
Sidwick and his office did make an attempt to respond properly to my complaint but what they offered as evidence was almost exclusively just Sidwick’s opinions. Hernandez was, as I might have expected, high handed and arrogant. She made no attempt at all to deal with the substance and just dismissed my complaint, claiming in effect that she was entitled to say whatever she wanted. Shelford also failed to deal with the issues, saying he was entitled to express his opinion and had “drawn from a large number of sources to inform his views” – without saying what those sources were!
Of course, they are perfectly entitled to hold any opinion they want but in their role as PCC they must comply with the Nolan Principles which they have all clearly failed to do. Their campaign did not use “best evidence” and neither were they “open and transparent” about their claims.
So that’s it. A great deal of work was involved on my part but more importantly it required a great deal of work from the PCCs and their staff. I’m confident they won’t want to go down this road again. Of course they’re perfectly entitled to be anti-cannabis and uphold the law as it currently stands but they won’t be spreading misinformation and ridiculous propaganda anymore.
For the record, this is how I responded to Sidwick’s claims.
CLAIM THAT CANNABIS IS A ‘GATEWAY DRUG’
I accept Sidwick’s ‘real-world definition as meaning an increased desire for taking Class A drugs’. I do not accept that cannabis is a ‘gateway drug’ ‘meaning an increased opportunity for taking Class A drugs’. As now widely accepted by experts, the real ‘gateway’ is the illegal status of cannabis meaning that anyone purchasing cannabis will be in contact with an illegal supplier who is likely to offer other drugs including Class As.
In 2008, the government’s expert advisors on drugs, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), investigated the gateway theory and concluded:
8.14 The “gateway theory” is the term that describes the possibility that use of cannabis leads to use of more dangerous drugs such as opiates and cocaine. It arises from the observation that users of the most harmful (Class A) drugs have generally used cannabis first. The interpretation of these studies is extraordinarily difficult because of the confounding effects of alcohol, tobacco, solvents, stimulants and psychedelic drugs, whose use frequently precedes that of Class A drugs. Moreover, although there is no evidence that there are physiological mechanisms leading to more harmful drugs, the social milieu of drug use may result in some users trying them. The shared market for cannabis and other drugs would increase the potential for escalation.
8.15 In 2002, the Council concluded that it was not possible to state, with certainty, whether or not cannabis use predisposes users to dependency on Class A drugs. Nevertheless, it considered the risks to be small and certainly less that those associated with the use of alcohol and tobacco. No further convincing evidence has been identified by the Council to alter this conclusion.
The ACMD comprises the most senior, highly qualified, experienced drugs experts. I particularly draw your attention to the unequivocal statement “there is no evidence that there are physiological mechanisms leading to more harmful drugs”.
Sidwick’s ‘alcohol argument’ is simply an expression of opinion. It is not evidence.
Sidwick’s reference to ‘tolerance’ is an opinion that developing tolerance in cannabis leads to Class A drugs. This is just more opinion, re-stating his belief in the ‘gateway theory’ and is not evidence.
Sidwick’s ‘business model’ is yet more opinion and is comprehensively dealt with by the ACMD’s conclusions above. Dame Carol Black’s report supports the ACMD’s conclusion that it is the “social milieu of drug use” and “shared market for cannabis and other drugs” that is the gateway, not cannabis.
Sidwick’s ‘neurophysiology argument’ is his opinion and interpretation of evidence. It is not evidence.
Sidwick interprets data on hospitalisations during the ‘Lambeth experiment’ to show that Class A use increased. This is not what the data show, nor is it what the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ paper shows. All they show is an increase in hospital admissions which correlates with the depenalisation of cannabis. No causal relationship is shown. Once again, this is not evidence of cannabis being a ‘gateway drug’, it is simply Sidwick’s opinion.
Sidwick’s ‘multi-drug use argument’ is presented as ‘intuitive’, so is merely opinion, it is not evidence.
None of the arguments advanced by Sidwick amount to evidence that cannabis is a gateway drug. They are all just expressions of his opinion.
By contrast I adduce the following evidence:
1.The ACMD’s report as above, Cannabis Classification and Public Health, 2008 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/119174/acmd-cannabis-report-2008.pdf “There is no evidence that there are physiological mechanisms leading to more harmful drugs.”
2. The Gateway Hypothesis, Common Liability to Addictions or the Route of Administration Model. A Modelling Process Linking the Three Theories, 2016 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26431216/ “The ‘gateway’ sequence, tobacco to cannabis to other illicit drugs was not associated with substance use propensity more than alternative sequences.”
3. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: the current state of evidence and recommendations for research, 2017. “Most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, “harder” drugs.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK423845/
4. Is Cannabis a Gateway Drug? Key Findings and Literature Review, 2018 https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/252950.pdf I note that Sidwick himself cited this report. He clearly missed the main conclusion: “No causal link between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs can be claimed at this time.”
5. Reductions in alcohol use following medical cannabis initiation: results from a large cross-sectional survey of medical cannabis patients in Canada, 2020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395920303017 “44% reported drinking less frequently on a monthly basis. Moreover, results showed that patients also reduced their use of prescription opioids, tobacco and illicit substances when they consumed medical cannabis.”
6. Is marijuana really a gateway drug? A nationally representative test of the marijuana gateway hypothesis using a propensity score matching design, 2021 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-021-09464-z “Results from this study indicate that marijuana use is not a reliable gateway cause of illicit drug use. As such, prohibition policies are unlikely to reduce illicit drug use.”
7. Trends in Alcohol, Cigarette, E-Cigarette, and Nonprescribed Pain Reliever Use Among Young Adults in Washington State After Legalization of Nonmedical Cannabis, 2022 https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(22)00374-3/fulltext “Contrary to concerns about spillover effects, implementation of legalized nonmedical cannabis coincided with decreases in alcohol and cigarette use and pain reliever misuse.”
8. Recreational cannabis legalization has had limited effects on a wide range of adult psychiatric and psychosocial outcomes, 2023 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/recreational-cannabis-legalization-has-had-limited-effects-on-a-wide-range-of-adult-psychiatric-and-psychosocial-outcomes/D4AB5EB78D588473A054877E05D45F16 “We assessed a broad range of outcomes, including other substance use, substance dependence…and found no detrimental nor protective effects for the majority of these domains, nor did we identify any increased vulnerability conferred by established risk factors.”
Thus I have shown that Sidwick’s claim is not supported by evidence, let alone ‘the best evidence’, nor has he taken any note of the overwhelming weight of evidence which opposes his position. Clearly his assertion that ‘cannabis is a gateway drug’ is unsupportable opinion and he is in breach of Nolan principle 1.3.
CLAIM THAT CANNABIS CAUSES SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH DISORDERS
There is no dispute that there is an association between the use of psychoactive substance and mental health disorders. The issue is whether there is evidence that shows a causal effect from cannabis.
1.Assessing evidence for a causal link between cannabis and psychosis: a review of cohort studies, 2009 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19783132/ “Whether cannabis use can cause serious psychotic disorders that would not otherwise have occurred cannot be answered from the existing data.”
2. Cannabis and psychosis: Neurobiology, 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3927252/ “The ‘transition-to-psychosis’ due to cannabis, despite it being a strong risk factor, remains uncertain based upon neurobiological changes. It appears that multiple other factors might be involved.”
3. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) of lifetime cannabis use reveals a causal effect of schizophrenia liability, 2018 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-018-0206-1 “Largest study yet of genes and predisposition to schizophrenia and cannabis use looked at anonymised data from 180,000 people. Cannabis is more likely to be taken by schizophrenics trying to self-medicate than to cause the disorder.”
4. High-potency cannabis and incident psychosis: correcting the causal assumption, 2019 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30174-9/fulltext “We found little evidence for any causal effect of cannabis use on schizophrenia risk.”
5. Adolescent cannabis use and adult psychoticism: A longitudinal co-twin control analysis using data from two cohorts, 2021 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34553951/ “Cannabis exposure during adolescence is not independently associated with either adult-onset psychosis or signs of schizophrenia.”
6.. Cannabis and Psychosis: Recent Epidemiological Findings Continuing the “Causality Debate”, 2022 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21111126 “While cannabis use may increase the risk for psychosis, its exposure is neither necessary nor sufficient for psychosis, suggesting that it is one of multiple causal components.”
7. Influence of cannabis use on incidence of psychosis in people at clinical high risk, 2023 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37070555/ “There was no significant association between any measure of cannabis use at baseline and either transition to psychosis, the persistence of symptoms, or functional outcome.”
8. State Cannabis Legalization and Psychosis-Related Health Care Utilization, 2023 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2800728 “The findings of this study do not support an association between state policies legalizing cannabis and psychosis-related outcomes.”
Thus I have shown that Sidwick’s claim is not supported by evidence. He has distorted the evidence to claim that cannabis causes psychosis when in fact it shows is that it may or may not be one of multiple causal components. This misleading treatment of evidence based on a strong personal opinion is clearly in breach of Nolan principle 1.3. The consensus of expert opinion is that the risk of cannabis as a possible component cause of psychosis is best managed through a legally regulated system where age limits and potency can be controlled, rather than leaving the market under the control of criminal gangs.
CLAIM THAT CANNABIS CAUSES AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER, ASPERGER’S SYNDROME AND ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD)
You have already acknowledged that Sidwick misrepresented the single study he adduces to support this claim when he gave oral evidence at the Home Affairs Committee Drugs Inquiry in 2022. You suggest “it is likely that the PCC misspoke”. This does not explain why he has subsequently repeated this claim on multiple occasions in media interviews.
This single study is by Dr. Stuart Reece who is an outlier at the very edge of professional credibility. The study has not been peer-reviewed, cites only other studies by Reece in support of his conclusions and there is no independent evidence supporting his conclusions.
By contrast, there is considerable evidence supporting the therapeutic use of cannabis in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) which include Asperger’s Syndrome; and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
1.Cannabidiol-Rich Cannabis in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Severe Behavioral Problems, 2019 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30382443/ “Following the cannabis treatment, behavioral outbreaks were much improved or very much improved in 61% of patients.”.
2. Real life Experience of Medical Cannabis Treatment in Autism: Analysis of Safety and Efficacy, 2019 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30655581/ “Cannabis in ASD patients appears to be well tolerated, safe and effective option to relieve symptoms associated with ASD.”
3. Cannabis and cannabinoid use in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review, 2022 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34043900/ “Cannabis and cannabinoids may have promising effects in the treatment of symptoms related to ASD, and can be used as a therapeutic alternative in the relief of those symptoms.”
4. Cannabis for the Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, 2022 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/521370 “This report adds to the literature by providing detailed personal accounts from patients and objective evidence of improvement on validated measures for ADHD symptoms.”
Thus I have shown that Sidwick’s claim is not supported by evidence and, in fact, is contradicted by evidence. He seriously misrepresented the only evidence he adduces at the Home Affairs Committee Drugs Inquiry and has continued to misrepresent it in subsequent media interviews. His conduct is clearly in breach of Nolan principle 1.3
OTHER CLAIMS
You have acknowledged that Sidwick’s other claims on issues such as birth defects, cancer, etc are based on single sources of information and the same authors. Clearly this does not meet the test of Nolan principle 1.3 “to act…using the best evidence and without…bias.”
SUMMARY
On all matters relating to cannabis, you have acknowledged that Sidwick relies on a limited amount of research from a limited range of sources. I have shown that the overwhelming weight of evidence does not support his claims and in many instances directly contradicts them.
Clearly, he has allowed his strong personal opinion on cannabis to distort his communications on many occasions to a very large public audience. Since he first took office his conduct on this issue has been consistently in breach of Nolan principle 1.3.
I note that Sidwick states he has a “pharmaceutical understanding of the science” but his past employment in the pharmaceutical industry is in sales and marketing, so any claim of scientific or clinical expertise cannot be sustained.
I submit it is clear that Mr David Sidwick, the PCC, has acted in this matter without integrity, diligence, transparency and objectivity. With respect, your claim that he has not is incredible and unsustainable.
I consider that in view of his personal responsibility for the misinformation that he has repeatedly and widely communicated, he should resign from office. As a minimum, the Police and Crime Panel should issue a public statement of retraction and apology for these false claims. My overriding concern is that Sidwick has used his office to try and increase the criminal penalties for cannabis by campaigning for it to be made a Class A drug on the basis of false evidence. This supports the criminal market in cannabis and all the harm it causes for which he must be held to account.
Football Bores Me Silly and Until This Week, So Did Gary Lineker
Good for him. His principled and dignified stance totally defeated the disgraceful attacks on him by hard right, authoritarian Conservative MPs and a weak, bullied BBC management compromised by the corrupt Conservative crony, Richard Sharp.
Of course, his tweets were factually accurate. The disgusting language of several Conservative ministers is an exact match for words used by German politicians in the 1930s. Several prominent Holocaust survivors have said the same thing.
The reaction of the increasingly extreme British press is predictable but no less reprehensible. I have voted Conservative for 45 years but the lurch to the hard right and the total incompetence over Brexit has made the party a danger to Britain. It has to go and if it wants to survive it needs to rid itself of the self-serving, bickering fools who are, yes really, letting it descend towards fascism.
I’ll go further than the comparison Lineker made. This useful table shows just how deep into the gutter the Conservative Party has sunk.
Which Conservative Leadership Candidate Has The Intelligence And Courage To Legalise Cannabis?
There are a host of strong, evidence-based reasons why legalising cannabis is a very good idea. It’s also an idea that fits perfectly with Tory principles of free enterprise, small government and fighting crime. In private, most politicians now realise this and that the present policy on cannabis causes far more harm than it prevents. But do any of the Conservative Leadership candidates have the vision to make this policy their own? It would be a massive vote winner at the next General Election and could rescue the party from its terminal decline into old age.
Dominic Raab. He probably understands the evidence well but may feel this is just too controversial a policy to help him overcome concerns about his relative youth and lack of experience. It would do wonders for his brand though and, on a good day, he probably does have the courage.
Esther McVey. Not a chance. If ever there was an anodyne, squeaky-clean, don’t rock the boat candidate for the twin set and pearls ladies at the local Conservative association, it’s Esther. Her candidacy simply isn’t strong enough to sustain such a radical policy.
Rory Stewart. With his background, no one should understand better the counterproductive nature of the war on drugs. He may have tried opium in Iran and he must have come across some the world’s finest hashish in Afghanistan. He has the knowledge and the vision but does he have the courage? His exciting campaign has the energy to take on this policy and make it his own.
Boris Johnson. Famously describing the idea that he had never taken drugs as “an outrageous slur”, Boris has confirmed that he has smoked “quite a few spliffs” and that “it was jolly nice”. But for all the bluster and bravado, he probably lacks the courage and this is a policy that requires diligent and patient explanation, so probably not something he’s well suited to.
Sajid Javid. Credit is due to the home secretary who finally moved on access to cannabis as medicine but this was probably more to do with asserting his new role in the cabinet. It is remarkable though that he achieved this while Theresa May was PM. Not only is she as regressive as they come on drugs policy, she also has a vested interest in keeping cannabis illegal due to her husband’s financial interest in GW Pharmaceuticals. Sadly though, Sajid is more likely to appeal to ‘hang ’em and flog ’em’ Tories rather than those with intelligence and courage.
Andrea Leadsom. Mrs Leadsom is notable as one of the few Tories who treated the late Paul Flynn and his cannabis campaigning with respect rather than contempt and ridicule but she’s unlikely to be the sort of leader who would take forward such a bold policy. Please prove us wrong Andrea!
Matt Hancock. Forever to be defined by his dishonest testimony on the Leveson Inquiry whilst culture secretary, Hancock doesn’t have the balls for anything radical. He’s already punching above his weight at the Department of Health and his loyalty to the Fleet Street barons is unlikely to persuade him to challenge one of their favourite topics for sensationalism.
Michael Gove. Although strong on intellect and fully capable of radical policy, Gove is in serious deficit on sincerity and integrity. With Mrs Gove (Sarah Vine) as a rampaging Daily Mail hack, probably writing about a cannabis crazed axe murderer right now, this is probably a step too far for him and his natural constituency is older people, certainly in attitude if not in years.
Jeremy Hunt. Definitely the choice for conservative Conservatives, Mr Hunt probably understands the arguments but sees this as a policy for the next generation. Undoubtedly a decent man, a one nation Tory, made of stronger stuff than first appears but unlikely to want to put his name to such a controversial policy.
Kit Malthouse. One would have hoped that Malthouse’s previous role as London Deputy Mayor for Policing would have given him an insight into drugs policy but it’s a subject he seems strangely silent on. He apparently has no record of any comment on the subject at all. So he may be a dark horse but almost certainly one that won’t be anywhere near the finishing line.
Mark Harper. As an ex-Home Office minister it’s unlikely that Harper is progressive on drugs policy and it certainly isn’t a subject that he has any record on. He’s unlikely to be in favour of cannabis law reform but also unlikely to get anywhere in the leadership race. Hardly a reformer, more of a classic Tory stuffed shirt.
James Cleverly. Clever by name but not too clever in practice, James has confessed to smoking weed in his youth but of course it was all a ‘dreadful mistake’. He showed a terrible lack of understanding as one of the MPs to eagerly jump on the bandwagon of ‘middle class cocaine users being responsible for knife crime’. Not much hope of any insight, intelligence or courage here.
An Outlaw Parliament Against The People. Time To Bring Our Corrupt MPs Down.
It starts at the top and it includes all but a handful of the 650 overpaid, self-serving, complacent, corrupt and useless Members of Parliament. They are, without doubt, subverters of our democracy who arrogate to themselves the right to continue in office when they have manifestly failed to follow the law they themselves created.
Under our constitution Parliament is supreme and it answers only to the electorate. In 2016, by a law which it passed, it delegated the decision of remaining in or leaving the EU to the electorate and we delivered a very clear verdict. Every MP who since then has worked to undermine that decision, delay or even reverse it, is acting beyond their lawful authority. They are nothing less than traitors and while I don’t expect to see them hanged, drawn and quartered, they are unfit to continue in office and they should be removed, by force if necessary.
Yet they have the nerve to complain and whine and whimper about the criticism they are subject to. They have the most privileged position. They are protected by armed guards, cocooned in taxpayer-subsidised luxury with generous expenses and total autonomy over the way they behave. They don’t have to work if they don’t want to and if they fancy a ‘fact finding trip’ overseas there is a queue offering them thinly-disguised bribes for their personal pleasure, entertainment, education and any experience they fancy. If they have an opinion about anything, however ignorant or ill-informed it is, they are gifted time on radio and television, space in newspapers and a willing audience of sycophants in the media. If they get a bit of abuse on the internet the police act, whereas for you and me the police have no time.
They truly are some of the most worthless and wasteful people in the country, contributing virtually nothing of any value and yet it continues year after year, decade after decade and all the time they are reinforcing the system in their interest. They are almost totally unaccountable and their main focus is always preserving their position.
In truth, the joke that is ‘British democracy’ is no better than Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela or any tin-pot, third-world dictatorship. We are oppressed and subjugated by people who care only for themselves. Hundreds of thousands of our children live in food poverty, our old people are neglected, our public services are starved of funds while incompetent ministers fritter away billions on vanity projects. We lock up more people in jail than any other Western nation apart from the USA. They implement polices that are clearly against the public will, yet they decide they know better.
There is no government in Britain and no real politics of the people. There is instead a mafia controlled by the Conservative and Labour parties in league with the media moguls and the big business, mega conglomerates that suck up the wealth we create and use it only for their own ends.
It’s taken nearly 62 years of life for the scales to fall from my eyes so that I see the dystopia in which we live. Time for a revolution and if it requires overthrow of the system, so be it. This is a fight for our liberty, as vital as any in our history.
I Have Joined The Labour Party. #AndImATory
For some months now I have called myself a ‘Corbynista’. I am proud to back a man who demonstrates more integrity, courage, decency amd honour than almost every other Member of Parliament put together. Today, in the face of the ever-escalating smear campaign, the completely ludicrous and false allegations of antisemitism, the vile abuse of the BBC and the despicable right wing press, I have signed up to become a member of the Labour Party.
I remain a Tory because I believe in fundamental principles of individual liberty, individual responsibility, small goverment and free markets. I am not and never will be a socialist. I do not believe it is is right that the state should own the means of production and supply because this inevitably leads to complacency and inefficiency. Competition is a healthy motivation and inline with human nature. Socialism, in my view, is a delusion. It has never worked, anywhere in the world and it never will. However, I do consider that there are certain industries that are best owned by the state, those that are natural monopolies such as energy, water, the railways, the road system, the basic health service and basic communications and internet infrastructure. So I would support re-nationalisation of these industries.
I am unlikely to remain a member of the Labour Party forever. My reason for joining in the short term is to support Corbyn as the only decent leader in our country and because the overriding priority now is to bring down this corrupt, self-serving Conservative government. The Conservative Party is unfit for government. It has trashed the huge opportunity that Brexit offered by appalling, irresponsible infighting. It would be best if it simply disintegrated. It has brought shame on our nation and many, perhaps most, of its MPs simply disgust me with their venal and selfish behaviour. Mind you, I feel the same way about the treacherous, Blairite Labour MPs who have repeatedly stabbed Corbyn in the back. Chuka Ummuna, Chris Bryant, Margaret Hodge, Luciana Berger, Yvette Cooper, Harriet Harman and others – I put them in the same category as most Tory MPs – worthless.
It’s true, in the past five years I have belonged to the Liberal Democrat, Conservative and now Labour parties. I very much hope for the establishment of a new, centre-right, liberal and progressive party and I would join it in a flash. Some may find this difficult to understand but I am not a tribalist. I think tribalism is probably the most destructive force in politics. What drives me is principles first and policies second. Once we have got rid of the Conservatives, I shall become concerned with policies again and those will be in line with my fundamental Tory principles. I remain a true Tory, not the corrupt, self-serving, authoritarian example set by the diabolical Mrs May.
For now I am a member of the Labour Party and I will do all I can to see Jeremy Corbyn become our next prime minister.
The BBC’s Treatment Of Sir Cliff Richard Must Have Severe Consequences For The Individuals Responsible.
Fran Unsworth, BBC Director of News and Current Affairs
Dan Johnson, BBC Reporter
There simply is no other option, Fran Unsworth and Dan Johnson must be sacked.
I could have been persuaded to let them resign but not since they have both supported the idea of an appeal, compounding the abuse of Sir Cliff.
This has been in inexcusable episode which has brought shame on the BBC. It would have disgraced the News of the World if it was still with us but for this editorial decision to have been forced, repeatedly, and defended by the BBC at huge cost, really is a national scandal.
Sack them both now and apologise unreservedly. Anything less and the BBC will forever be diminished beyond any possibility of redemption – and think what that means to all the sincere, honourable, decent people who have worked there.
The brazen attempts to justify this abuse have damaged the BBC even further. The public is sick of media abuse and of weak governments that repeatedly fail to stand up to powerful organisations. The second part of the Leveson Inquiry was supposed to investigate collusion between the media and the police. Only a few weeks ago, the then Culture Secretary, Matt Hancock MP, cancelled it. There can be no doubt that this was designed only to appease the press barons in the interests of the Conservative Party. Just days later, Murdoch’s takeover of Sky was approved as well. As in so many other instances, this government and its ministers are demonstrated to be corrupt and shameless with it.
If the BBC wants to be regarded in the same category as Murdoch, Dacre and the Barclay Brothers, by all means keep Unswortth and Johnson on staff. The British public will never forgive you.
The Conservative Party Is Destroying Britain. It Must Be Stopped. #AndImATory
Theresa May is in charge and her party is causing immense, possibly irrepairable damage to Britain. She must be called to account and her party must be stopped. This is a grave national emergency which in some countries would provoke a military coup. Who can say that in the interests of our nation this is not justified? I’d trust one of our senior military officers to act more responsibly than any member of the cabinet, any day.
Sadly, I cannot see a heavily armed band of brothers seizing Downing Street and carting Mrs May off to HMP Belmarsh but something close to such drama is urgently needed. If there is anyone left in the Conservative Party who puts the national interest before their own, they need to step forward. I can see no way ahead except a general election.
That may cause an inevitable crashing out of the EU. Article 50 has been activated and we are on a predetermined timetable. If we haven’t done a deal by the next March we will exit with all future trade on WTO terms. My view is that would be a very good thing. It woud deliver what we voted for in the referendum and we would be forced to make it work.
All the bleating, hand-wringing from the treasonous Remainers would be hot air, dispersing into nothingness that it was all along. I wish that the vile, whining cabal of Chuka Ummuna, Anna Soubry, Ken Clarke, Chris Leslie and others would resign. They have campaigned relentlessly against the people’s decision, they have sabotaged our nation and they are no longer fit to be in Parliament.
But no one bears more responsibility than Theresa May. The Brexit supporting MPs are rightly insisting that Brexit must be implemented and she has deceived, cheated, procrastinated, double-crossed and betrayed. No consequence can be serious enough for her but I will be content provided she is removed from office and public life for ever.
Two Years Of Conservatives Procrastinating Over The EU At Britain’s Expense. How Much Has That Cost?
Ten billion? A hundred billion? I have no idea but I’m sure there’s some overpaid civil servant in the Treasury who can work it out. What we should then do is send an invoice to the Conservative Party. It has dithered and argued amongst itself, destroyed the huge opportunity that Brexit offered and seriously damaged the economy and our society, all for its own self-indulgence.
The government should issue the invoice, perhaps with a covering note pointing out that it and the party are two entirely separate legal entities. The government acts on behalf of the people of Britain and does not fund the Conservative Party except as laid down in statute, as is available to all parties.
If the Conservative Party isn’t prepared to pay the invoice, then the Treasury Solicitor should be instructed to issue a claim. I’m sure leading counsel, at our considerable (but relatively insignificant) expense, can find a way to make the claim stick. If it’s not settled then the Court will reach the appropriate judgment and we can then commence insolvency proceedings against the Conservative Party. That will sort out a large part of the country’s problems at a stroke.
Whatever happens in the next few years and however we get there, we will almost certainly have to endure a few years of a Labour government and faux socialism. It won’t last long and in the meantime British politics, particularly of the right, will have to rebuild itself afresh
What really matters and however we do it, we must bring down the Conservative Party, punish it severely and ensure it can never inflict its internal problems on the country again. There is no higher priority #AndImATory.
Theresa May And The Conservative Government Are Both Treasonable And Corrupt.
We have a government which is pursuing policy not in the interests of the nation but solely in the interests of the Conservative Party. This is corruption. It is no better than taking bribes. It is grubby, dishonest, self-serving and directly contradicts the purpose of our democracy and the basis upon which MPs hold office.
We have a government that by a vote in Parliament was ordered to determine our future membership of the EU by a referendum. The result was that we should leave. Now, through corrupt self-interest the leader of the Conservative Party, at enormous cost to the nation, has used her position as PM to subvert the result of the referendum. This is treasonable.
Democracy has been entirely extinguished in the UK. Your vote means nothing. We are ruled by diktat from a corrupt, self-serving elite. There is no longer any law, only the pursuit of self-interest and the forcible repression of dissent.
It is time for a revolution. The nation should take up arms and rise in justifiable revolt against the criminals in government.
Peter Reynolds 