Conservative Complacency and Incompetence in the General Election

By 

John Strafford

On 1^st May 2017 I wrote an article for the ConservativeHome web site warning the Conservative Party not to be complacent about the coming General Election.   At the time the press were forecasting a 200 seat majority.   Opinion polls were showing the Conservative Party on 50%.   What I had not factored into my warning was incompetence. The result in the election was disastrous for the Party.   So what went wrong?

I warned in my article that the Boundaries Commission proposals were not yet law, thus giving the Labour Party a twenty seat advantage.   The Election result showed that the Conservatives lost thirteen seats.   If they had waited they would have had a majority!

I warned that the Labour Party had a financial war chest so couldn’t be outspent by the Conservatives.   It would appear that Labour spent their money more wisely.   The Tories poured a million pounds into advertisements attacking Jeremy Corbyn on Facebook, whereas for a fraction of the money Labour persuaded their members to share positive messages about Labour.   Negative campaigning harms not only the victims but also harms those perpetrating it.

I warned that the opinion polls would move in Labour’s favour and Labour would then claim momentum.  Exactly that happened.

I warned that at some point there would be some bad news and the Conservatives would get terrible publicity.   I didn’t expect the bad news would come as a result of the launch of the Conservative manifesto.   It was an appalling document with hardly any positive points in it and the presentation was abysmal.   Instead of saying Winter Fuel Allowance was to be mean tested why didn’t it just say that it would be taxed in the same way the Old Age Pension is taxed.   The poor would get it in full and the rich would lose some of it. That is fair.   The case on Social Care went by default because instead of saying how much we had increased the amount people would be able to keep we did not include a cap on how much people would have to pay.   A Free Vote on fox hunting was promised which we know a large number of people oppose.   Why antagonise them by putting it in our manifesto?   These stupid errors would not have occurred if there had been a wide involvement in drawing up the manifesto.   In the past, the Cabinet, Back Benchers and even some members of the voluntary party have been involved.   It is the wisdom of the crowd.

The General Election was announced on the 18^th April.   Two days later the following announcements were made by Conservative Central Office to parliamentary candidates:

We will not be advertising seats, due to time constraints.  Each Conservative-held seat and opposition-held Target seat that is selecting will be given a shortlist of three candidates to put to a General Meeting of the Association. There will be consultation between the Candidates team and the Officers of the Association in drawing up the list.

In the case of the remaining seats that are not targets, the Chairman of the Party and Chairman of the National Conservative Convention will be appointing candidates after consultation with local officers.

This was totally contrary to the rules for selecting candidates and was only pushed through using the clause in the Party’s Constitution which gives the Party Board the power to do anything in the interests of the Conservative Party. This is a clear abuse of power and it was totally unnecessary.   With seven weeks to the General Election due process could and should have happened.   There was much complaint as the candidates list had been culled after the 2015 General Election and new candidates were barred.   Effectively only candidates chosen when David Cameron was Leader were allowed to take part.   This caused great resentment in a number of constituencies, which wanted a local candidate or a member of the European Parliament on their short list.   It is not a very good idea to upset your volunteers at the start of an election campaign.

            The campaign started as a very personal campaign with the emphasis on “Theresa May – strong and stable” and vicious personal attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.   The electorate does not like personal attacks.   I had an official communication from my MP, Dominic Grieve, which did not mention the Conservative Party once.   If you are going to make the campaign personal, it was a mistake for Theresa May to refuse to debate with Jeremy Corbyn on television.   This gave the impression of being afraid.  It highlighted the problem with a personal campaign.   There was no hope in the Conservative manifesto - nothing for people to look forward to.   No vision of the future.   Yet Labour’s manifesto contained a lot of hope and promises which the Conservatives failed to counter attack.   Our manifesto was the most miserable manifesto in my memory.

            In the week before Election Day the Prime Minister visited Slough.   I went to the meeting which was held in a large industrial unit which was “To Let”.   Only Party members were invited and about 400 turned up.   We had to wait in the rain for half an hour to get into the building.   The Party’s coach turned up and drove into the building and became the back drop for the speeches.   The Prime Minister walked in with Boris Johnson.   Boris took the platform and gave a five minute introduction to Theresa May.   All written down – no ad-lib.   Then Theresa May gave a speech of about 10-15 minutes all about “strong and stable”.   No questions. They both then departed leaving me thinking “What was that all about?”   Any Leader knows that on an occasion like this you wander round the crowd shaking hands, motivating the troops and giving them hope for the battle to come. 

            My constituency of Beaconsfield – one of the strongest constituencies in the country was asked to help in Slough (a Labour held seat with a 7,000 majority) and Harrow West (a Labour held seat with a 2,000 majority).   In 1979 I took 110 members from one branch of Beaconsfield to help in Watford.    This election the whole constituency struggled to get 25 members to help in Harrow West

            After leafleting in my own constituency I decided to go to Slough to help there.   When I was Constituency Chairman of Beaconsfield we paid for a full time Agent in Slough, gave other financial support, manned several committee rooms and polling stations on Election Day after carrying out a full canvas of the constituency.   We won the seat in 1987 and in 1992.   Unfortunately in 1997 Central Office wrote off Slough and we were sent elsewhere - big mistake!   It has deteriorated ever since and now has less than 100 members.

            I looked for the address of their committee room on their web site.   It was not there.   Eventually I got the address which was on a rundown industrial estate with hardly any parking. I arrived at approx. 6.30 pm and when I said I would bring the canvassing returns back to the office the two volunteers told me that the office was about to close and that the industrial estate locked its gates at 7pm.   I arranged to return the canvass sheets the next day.   The canvass sheets were provided by Central Office and included questions where you marked the answers out of ten.  Each elector had a sheet.   They would take at least ten minutes on each doorstep.   Great if you have 500 helpers in a by-election but totally impractical if you can number your helpers on one or at best two hands.   I asked how much of the constituency had been canvassed and was told 20%.   There was no way that canvassing would be completed by Election Day.   Feeling concerned at this I asked where the committee room would be on Election Day.   They did not know.   I then asked if the polling stations were being manned on Election Day. They didn’t know.   Next I asked if they had a list of helpers.   No they hadn't.   Tearing my hair out I then asked who was in charge – I was told it was a woman from Central Office based in Southampton.   We did our canvassing and returned the sheets the next day at 3.30pm.  The office was locked so we pushed them through the letter box.   The result in Slough was an increased Labour majority of 17,000.   I gave up.

            The day before the General Election I went to Harrow West arriving at 7pm. Once again the address was not on its web site.   On arrival I was told that the Harrow West committee room was closed but they were sharing a building with Harrow East which was open so I delivered leaflets for the Conservative MP Bob Blackman who got in with a majority of 2,000.

             On Election Day I returned to Harrow West to help in knocking up.   The knocking up sheet was excellent with lots of useful information, except it did not show the address of the polling station.   To my surprise I came across several strong Labour supporters, and then I noticed that in some cases the last contact with them was in 2012!    We not only were knocking up Conservatives but also Undecideds.   The Labour majority went up from 2,000 to 13,000.

            It seems all these constituencies were following Central Office instructions.   I am afraid to say that the clever clots in CCO have never fought a General Election on the ground.   The result was a disaster.   On Election Day party members were being directed to constituencies like Slough where there was no chance of us winning whereas constituencies which we lost were starved of people.  It is quite clear that Central Office did not have a clue as to what was happening.   At the same time Labour were pouring supporters into constituencies boosted by their membership of 550,000, (it has now increased to 700,000 since the election.)   Approximately one third of Labour canvassers had never canvassed before so were part of the huge increase in new members.

In my ConservativeHome article I warned about the dangers of only being capable of fighting marginal seats.   I said “So what and where are the marginal seats?   Some “guess work” will be required to decide where to put our resources but it is “guess work” and it could go horribly wrong.”   It did go horribly wrong.

Party organisation should be the responsibility of the Party Chairman.   He or she should control the campaign.   All consultants, special advisers etc. should report to the Chairman and he or she should be answerable to Party members at an Annual General Meeting.    The Leader determines policy and priorities. He or she must take responsibility for the political aspects of the campaign.

Without radical change the Conservative Party will cease to exist as a membership organisation and if that happens, oblivion awaits the Party.   The Leader of the Party has to take radical action to change the structures of the Party to ensure this debacle does not happen again and if she doesn’t then we will have to get a Leader who will!

Party Reform -Time for Action Now!

Today I sent the following letter to Graham Brady (Chairman 1922 Committee) and Rob Semple (Chairman National Convention).   I hope all Party members will support these proposals.   They are essential to get the revival of the Party going.

Re: Party Reform

            The disappointing result of the General Election has demonstrated beyond doubt that urgent changes are needed in the structure of the Conservative Party.   I have never known such a badly organised campaign.   It showed the danger of too much power being held in too few hands and the ground campaign highlighted the severe deficiencies in our membership.

           

The main changes needed are:

• Replacing the National Convention with an Annual General Meeting to which all members are invited.
• Party Chairman, One Deputy Chairman, Party Treasurer, Chairman of the Candidates Committee and the Chairman of the Conservative Policy Forum to be elected.
• Changing the way in which the Party’s Constitution can be altered.

            We must now start to reform the Party to make it more inclusive and for those running the organisation to be accountable.   I attach hereto some alterations to the Party Constitution to start this process, which I hope the 1922 Committee will endorse.   I am sending a copy of these proposals to Rob Semple (Chairman of the National Convention).

Detailed changes shown below:

Constitution of the Conservative Party – alterations

Page 3 Delete: PART V

                        THE NATIONAL CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION

            Insert: PART V

                        ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Page 3                         Delete: Schedule 3

                        THE NATIONAL CONSERVATIVE CONVENTION

                        Insert: Schedule 3

                        ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Page 6 12.1     Delete: “appointed by the Leader”

                        Insert: “elected at the Annual General Meeting”

Page 6 12.2.1 Delete: “Chairman of the National Conservative Convention”

                       Insert: “ elected at the Annual General Meeting”

Page 6  12.3    Delete: “National Conservative Convention (in addition to the Chairman of the  National Conservative Convention)”

                        Insert: “Annual General Meeting”

Page 6 12.9     Delete: “appointed by the Leader”

                        Insert: “elected at the Annual General Meeting”

Page 6 15        Delete “and shall be Secretary of the National Convention.”

Page 7 17.11   Delete: National Conservative Convention”

                        Insert: “Annual General Meeting”

Page 8 PART V

                        Delete: The whole of “PART V”

                        Insert: PART V

                                                THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

20 The Annual General Meeting of the Party shall be held before the end of

March each year, being within three months of the Party’s financial year, for

the following purposes:

20.1 To receive and adopt the audited accounts of the Party;

20.2 To receive and adopt the Party Report prepared by the Chairman of the Party

20.3 To receive and adopt the Report by the Chairman of the Candidates   Committee.

20.4 To receive and adopt the Report by the Chairman of the Conservative Policy Forum.

21 The Annual General Meeting shall elect in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 the following officers: President, Party Chairman, One Deputy Chairman, Party Treasurer, Chairman of the Candidates Committee, Chairman of the Conservative Policy Forum.

22 The Annual General Meeting will also elect four further members to the Party Board in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3

23 The Leader of the Party shall be invited to attend the Annual General Meeting.

Page 11 44 Delete “National Conservative Convention and on”

Page 13 63 Delete “National Conservative Convention”

                   Insert “Party Board”      

Page 14 66.1 Delete “appointed by the Leader”

                      Insert “elected at the Annual General Meeting”

Page 15 80.2 Delete “National Conservative Convention”

                      Insert “Party”

Page 16 80.3 Delete “the President for the time being of the National Conservative Convention”

                      Insert “the President of the Party”

Page 17 90    Delete

              91.1 Delete “Constitutional College voting”

                      Insert “Party in attendance and voting in General Meeting”

              91.2 Delete “Constitutional College eligible to vote”

                      Insert “Party in attendance and eligible to vote in General Meeting”

              92    Delete  

Page 20/21    Delete the whole of Schedule 3

                     Insert   Schedule 3

Annual General Meeting

1        A meeting of the Party shall take place annually, arrangements for such meetings     shall be organised and administered by the Party Board.

2        Not less than 56 days prior to the Annual Meeting, the Secretary of the Party Board shall communicate with all Party members by e-mail and by notice on the Party’s official web site.

2.1                      Giving notice of the date of the Annual Meeting

2.2                      Inviting nominations from the Party members for election of the President, Chairman, One Deputy Chairman, Party Treasurer, Chairman of the Candidates Committee, Chairman of the Conservative Policy Forum and four members of the Party Board.

2.3                      Stating the date by which nominations must be returned, being not less than 28 clear days from the date of the notice, nor more than 21 clear days from the date of the Annual Meeting

2.4                      Stating the address to which the nominations must be returned.

3        Only those members of the Party that are fully paid up not less than 28 days prior to the Annual Meeting shall be entitled to vote.

4        Any nomination for any such office or post referred to in Paragraph 2.2 herein must be submitted  on Official Nomination papers signed by not less than twelve members of the Party together with a signed letter from the nominee accepting nomination.

5        Any nominee for any such office or post referred to in Paragraph 2.2 herein shall have been a Member of the Party for not less than two years.

6        Any nominee for the office of President shall have been an elected member of the Board for one year.

7        No member of the Party may hold office

7.1                      as one of the elected representatives of the Board (other than as President or    Chairman) for more than five consecutive years;

7.2                      as Chairman of the Party for more than five consecutive years;

7.3                      as President for more than one year.

8        At the Party’s Annual Meeting the members shall receive, prior to elections reports from the elected Officers referred to in Paragraph 2.2 herein, such Area Management Executives and Recognised Organisations as the Meeting shall determine.   The Meeting shall also consider any proposed changes to this Constitution in accordance with such procedure as the Meeting shall determine.

9        The Secretary of the Party Board shall act as Chief Returning Officer in any election at any Annual Meeting of the Party.

10    An Officer of the Party who is not standing for re-election shall assume the chairmanship of the Meeting during the election of Officers.   If all the Officers are standing for re-election, then the Secretary of the Party Board shall assume the chair.

11    Elections shall take place at the Annual Meeting of the Party and shall be held by secret ballot. Provision may be made at the discretion of the Party Board for voting to take place prior to the meeting.

12    Upon a petition signed by not less than sixty Constituency Chairmen to the Secretary of the Party Board the Chairman of the Party shall call an Extraordinary Meeting of the Party.

13    The Secretary of the Party Board shall give not less than 28 clear days notice of the Extraordinary Meeting by email to Party members and by notice on the Party’s web site together with an Agenda for the meeting.

14    Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the Board shall be advised of the rules governing the conduct of General Meetings and rules of Procedure to be adopted at the Meetings.

Page 22  1   Delete “ National Convention”

                     Insert “Party”

              5    Delete “National Convention”

                     Insert “Party”

              6.1 Delete “National Convention”

                     Insert  “Party”

              6.2 Delete

              6.3 Delete

              6.4 Delete     

Page 69 1.2 Delete “National Conservative Convention”

                     Insert “Annual Meeting of the Party”

              1.5 Delete

Page 71 1.1 Delete

              1.2 Delete “10,000”

                     Insert “1,000”

              2   Delete

              3   Delete

              4   Delete

  

Think North Conference 1st July

For all Conservatives this should be a great conference. Do attend

The Conservative Party has a Problem!

The following article was published on the Conservativehome web site on 1st May 2017

 Conservatives must not let the polls lull them into complacency

By

John Strafford

In recent days the following stories have all appeared in the press: that the Conservatives have hit 50 per cent in the polls; predictions of a 200-seat majority for Theresa May; that the Tories may be the largest party in Wales and take up to 12 seats off the SNP; and that UKIP is a busted flush.

Given that, it’s not hard to see why Party strategists might be tempted to get complacent. But it would be very foolish to do so – for beneath the good headlines the Conservatives face serious challenges – not least of which is that, due to the Boundaries Commission proposals not yet being in law, the Conservative Party starts this campaign with a 20 seat disadvantage.

As for the polls, as the campaign develops our buoyant scores will drift downwards from time to time – and seem to have done so in recent days – with increases in Labour’s share of the vote allowing the Opposition to claim that they have got momentum. At some point the Conservative Party will have some bad news, most likely when the decision is announced about whether there will be prosecutions regarding election expenses, regardless of what the decision is.

The Labour Party also has a financial war chest greater than the maximum amount it will be allowed to spend, due to a vast increase in membership subscriptions, so in this general election it is unlikely to be outspent by the Conservatives, unlike in the last election.

Membership could be a serious handicap. Just consider the numbers for the main parties contesting this election:

·         Labour: 520,000

·         Liberal Democrats: 100,000

·         Scottish Nationalists: 120,000

·         Conservatives: 150,000?

With activists of about 10 per cent of membership, Labour is the only Party capable of mounting a ground campaign across the nation. But our other two opponents don’t have to: the Liberal Democrats will concentrate their forces on the seats they lost in the last election, and the Scottish Nationalists only fight the 59 seats in Scotland.

The Conservative Party does not have sufficient members to fight a ground campaign across the United Kingdom. To compete at the same level as the Scottish Nationalists do in Scotland, but on a national basis, the Conservatives would need a million members.

So how do the Conservative overcome this discrepancy? In the last General Election they targeted the 40 most marginal seats held by the opposition (mainly Liberal Democrat seats) and supported the 40 most vulnerable seats held by the Conservatives. The problem in this election is that not only do we have multi-party politics but tactical voting alliances intervening in the constituencies.

I do not need to remind you that in addition to the parties already mentioned we have UKIP, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party, plus the Democratic Unionists and sundry other parties in Northern Ireland, whilst organisations such as Gina Miller’s Anti-Brexit group ‘Best for Britain’ and Open Britain will also be intervening.

Given this confused picture, what and where are the marginal seats? Some “guess work” will be required to decide where to put our resources – but it is “guess work” and it could go horribly wrong.

The chickens are coming home to roost for the Conservative Party. For too long the membership has been neglected, and to prevent such a situation like this happening again radical action will need to be taken after the general election. More effort will be required in the use of social media and modern electioneering technology, but that can only do so much at the crunch to get out the vote on election day.

I have been a member of the Conservative Party for over fifty years, and I do not recall during that time a more important general election than this. The only Party with the ability and the power to take to take us through the Brexit negotiations is the Conservative Party and we have been fortunate at this critical time to have in Theresa May, as our Prime Minister, someone capable of doing it.

This election is about taking back our sovereignty, regaining the ability for our Parliament to decide our laws and thus the right of the British people to elect – and eject – those who rule over them. It’s about bringing the interpretation of those laws back to our own judiciary, schooled in the British legal tradition, and restoring our ability to conclude treaties and trade with the world.

Compared to the usual election fare these are existential questions, and the Conservative Party cannot and must not lose this election by default.  Every member must stretch themselves to the maximum to overcome the obstacles in our way.

But before that can happen we need to recognise that these obstacles exist, and high poll numbers alone won’t lift us over them.

From the Grass Roots

(The following article is written by a member of COPOV but does not necessarily reflect the views of COPOV’S Management Committee nor its members)

       ‘THE PAST. IT IS ANOTHER COUNTRY. THEY DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY THERE”

In a week or so I shall celebrate my 70^th birthday but not for me a joyous occasion but simply a time to reflect on the past and in particular life as it was in my formative years during the late nineteen fifties and the decade of the nineteen sixties. The views, attitudes and opinions I held then have remained with me to this day. But the United Kingdom I knew then has changed beyond all recognition and in my view, biased as it is, not always for the better. In 1968 the Shadow Defence Secretary in an emotive speech for which got sacked from the Shadow Cabinet spoke in lurid language about the dangers of mass immigration and membership of a European super state. Yet I would be branded a fascist and racist were I to say in public that what he predicted has in fact come about. For this I blame the hard left whose intolerance of anybody’s view other than its own is shown in demonstrations, shouting, bullying and flag waving in many of our cities. How ironic it is that the German fascism of the nineteen twenties, thirties and early and mid forties contained the word ‘socialism’. Some years ago an eminent person (I forget who it was) gleefully stated: ‘We are now living in a post Christian era’.  At the time I was astonished at what he (or she) said but, judging by the events of the last fifteen or so years, I am beginning to think that person was right. Certainly Christian teaching in our schools has become marginalised. Understandable, I suppose, in a country that seemingly now believes multiculturalism is the norm. A country where the Heir to the throne wants to be regarded as the defender of faiths not The Faith i.e. Christianity and who, disregarding the tenets of the Church of which he will supposedly become Head, seems intent on making his divorced wife Queen. And this may well eventually happen because as the writer understands it the wife of the King automatically becomes Queen. Most intelligent people realise that this Princess Consort nonsense is exactly that: Nonsense. It has no constitutional significance at all.

The writer it has to be admitted is very pessimistic about the future of the United Kingdom. The seeds of disunity were sown nearly twenty years ago by the Blair government’s devolution programme. But then the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Conceived at a time when the Labour Party was riding high in Scotland with over fifty Westminster Members of Parliament it made the false assumption that setting up a Scottish Parliament would settle matters once and for all and that things could go on as normal with Labour relying on its Scottish fiefdom to deliver Labour governments at Westminster. But look at what has happened. At the 2015 General Election Labour was reduced to one (yes ONE) Westminster seat. In Holyrood the S N P reigns supreme with Nicola Sturgeon threatening to take Scotland out of the UK as a result of Brexit and making demands for a second referendum on the future of the union. Nationalism in Wales is not quite as strong a force as in Scotland and is most prevalent in the rural Welsh speaking parts of West and North Wales. There has been some success in the old mining valleys of South Wales but these have been few and far between and seats particularly at local elections switch between Labour and Plaid Cymru depending on whether you want British or Welsh socialism. At the last Assembly elections in 2016 Labour continues in government with 29 out of 60 seats and relies for its majority on keeping the sole Liberal Democrat member sweet. Proportional representation has meant that Labour continues to govern Wales indefinitely with about 38% of the vote. In the mining valleys many former Labour voters supported UKIP, the party thanks to the proportional system now having seven seats. Its leader would you believe is the disgraced former Conservative MP Neil Hamilton. The Conservatives will never win in Wales and although we can poll between 25% and 30% nationally this will never be enough as the three left wing parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru) will always combine to ensure this is so.

The writer’s pessimism is reinforced by what has happened in the recent elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Sinn Finn are now within one seat of the Democratic Unionist Party. So it is now only a matter of time before the Republicans/Nationalists obtain a majority. When this happens Westminster will be forced to concede a referendum on the future of the province and cessation will inevitably follow because as all Westminster governments have said in the past: Attachment to the United Kingdom is retained only as long as a majority wish it.

The writer has lived for forty two years under Conservative governments at Westminster and for 28 under Labour governments. Born at a time of rationing and the setting up of the welfare state under the post war Labour government (and in 1948 the establishment of the National Health Service) the writer contends that the social democratic model established then still remains largely intact today and that Conservative governments have in the main been willing participants. We spend billions and billions of taxpayer’s money on public services (and remember the government only has the money it raises from its citizens) and still it is not enough. The National Health Service, the Prisons, the Police, The Education Establishment, etc. all claim they are underfunded. From what the writer has seen there seems to be very little accountability for what is actually spent. And successive governments fail to tell the truth namely that for many understandable reasons only a certain percentage of the population pays tax to fund these public services and of those who do pay many feel they are paying too much or are not getting value for what they do pay. Labour’s solution is as it has always been: Pour a lot more money in and tax the rich. With a leader and shadow Chancellor who worship at the shrine of Marx how else could it be so?  The writer contends that if the Health Service is failing (and admittedly he has not had to wait eight hours on a hospital trolley until a bed is found and has not seen these failings first hand) it is because of costly unnecessary administrative reorganisations over the last seventy years and an inability to consider finance from any source other than out of general taxation. If other European countries have a better health record than ours it is because in most cases patients have some kind of insurance cover in addition.

Last year’s referendum on our future in the E U was bound to be divisive and with the result so close it is not surprising that the losers are pressing for a second referendum once the final terms have been agreed. The writer was on the losing side but having had time to reflect thinks it was probably the right decision. That said the writer has never been a fan of referendums as they only seem to reinforce entrenched positions.  Some fanatics were adopting the absurd position that because of all the English regions London was the only one to have voted ‘stay in’ the capital city could unilaterally declare its independence from the rest of the country. On the Conservative side the writer finds it astonishing that remainers like Kenneth Clarke, Michael Heseltine and John Major cannot seem to appreciate the concerns of those who wanted to leave and why : the eventual aim of total political and monetary union, the complete lack of accountability by the European Commission, the ‘fudging’ of entry terms for the poorer countries, the fact that European Law over rules British Law, the free movement of labour (which in effect means peoples) between countries whether desirable or otherwise, mass immigration and the continual and seemingly nonsensical directives from Brussels. ‘Why’ the writer wonders ‘should there be a United States of Europe?’ There is not a United States of Asia, a United States of Africa, a United States of South America. Even the United States of America is a Confederation of States with each individual state setting its own laws on things like sales taxes, voting rights and capital punishment. And while Donald Trump lost the popular vote in the recent U S A Presidential election he carried more states that Hillary Clinton and thus won in the Electoral College. And incidentally even though the population of the USA has probably increased by nearly 100 million in the last fifty years there are still only 435 Representatives in the House (unchanged for over fifty years) and two Senators for each state irrespective of population.

The writer began this article by regretting the demise of Christianity in this country and the clear moral principles as set out in the Bible. Islam with its teachings from the Koran is now the major religion in many of our English cities, both large and small. Many in this country are fearful for the future because Islam, as practised by the Jahid, is certainly not a peaceful religion. Yet there are many good, kind Moslems and the writer has witnessed this first hand. Forty five years ago when he was training as an accountant he had two young men of the Moslem faith working with him and you could not meet two nicer people. Terrorism, from whatever source, is a real threat in Europe and for the United Kingdom to have foiled thirteen possible such attacks in recent years is both alarming and disturbing.

The writer is concluding this article on Easter Sunday, the day which has for centuries and still  is today a day of joy for all Christians who continue to believe in the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ and the hope that one day He will come again in glory. Yet the world He supposedly came to save continues to be in turmoil. The Editorial in today’s Sunday Telegraph concluding with the words ‘We wish our readers and their families a very happy Easter’ seems far removed from reality when the front page headline reads :’Fears Kim has missile that could hit America’ and on page 12 ‘Scores of Syrian evacuees blown up in their buses by suicide van driver’.  Nearer to home there are still people in authority who are in denial about the EU referendum result last June and who will do their best either to derail the process or to ensure that any deal the Prime Minister might negotiate would be totally unacceptable so as to maintain the status quo. The writer just remembers the United Kingdom’s original application to join the EEC or Common Market as it was then called in 1961 to 1963. For Harold Macmillan Prime Minister at the time it was the last throw of the dice; Britain had been humiliated by the Suez fiasco and the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) never got off the ground. At the time the Labour Party was totalled opposed (although the 1966-1970 Labour government did reapply) as were some thirty Conservative MP s with another fifty to seventy having serious doubts. When the French President General Charles de Gaulle vetoed the original application in 1963 he was not convinced that the United Kingdom with its past ties to Empire and its historical links with the USA  would be suitable member. Looking back fifty or so years later the conclusion must surely be that the President was probably right.

The writer accepts that ever since the ending of the Second World War in 1945 the world has not been a happy place but we seemed to know which side we were on: The U S A with its NATO allies against the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies with most of the other countries classing themselves as ‘nonaligned’.  These days it seems things are much more fluid and moving in different directions.

We were guided by our parents and teachers, our parents giving us the stable family unit which is lacking in so many cases today. Our moral principles were based on biblical teaching. Society is more secular a situation which many on the left actively encourage. Many pride themselves on being atheists or agnostics.  The writer truly believes that the western Judeo Christian civilisation which has underpinned our society over the last two thousand years is in grave danger of collapse and eventual extinction so yes for him

                             The past was another country.  We did do things differently there.

1^st April 2017