the brilliantly leaping gazelle

Here we are again. This time, this ‘here’ is in Manchester. But whilst there will be many future ‘here’s’ all around the country, the claims made, the impassioned declarations and the earnest promises of the the winner will remain essentially unchanged. And here I go again, once again saddling up my hobby horse, reflecting that while it may well be grim up north, at least that was an ironic dance track. The only dancing they should be doing in Manchester right now is on the grave of democracy.

Yes, the Labour candidate in the Manchester Mayoralty election, was victorious. Addressing the count centre after being declared the new Mayor of Greater Manchester, she said: “I am honoured, I am humbled, and I stand ready to serve the three million people that live across this fantastic city region.” She could almost be a modern day Uriah Heep, she has so much to be humble about.

Yes, at first glance her victory seems impressive. 47.1% of first preference votes, later adjusted to 66.3% when the second preference votes from the disqualified candidates were added. But those percentages mean very little, not when viewed against the percentage of people who actually bothered to vote. Which was 25.1%.

Bear in mind that this was not some inconsequential election of no account that the national press had largely ignored. The election only happened because Andy Capp had triggered it by resigning as mayor so that he could be elected as an MP, prior to him becoming our fourth unelected PM this century.

So no, it wasn’t only of interests to those in the Westminster bubble, political anoraks and saddos with hobby horses. This was news. Had been for weeks. And only a quarter of the people who could vote bothered so to do. This isn’t new. The figure is shockingly low, but it highlights a growing trend in our politics, the politics of apathy. A decision taken, for whatever reason, not to participate, to have nothing to do with the whole thing.

One of my most frequent gripes following any parliamentary election is the turnout; the total amount of eligible voters who actually did so. I’m aware of the logical inconsistency of this argument, because if it means anything all, democracy means being able to choose not to take part in it. But be that as it may, it nonetheless annoys me no end that so many people choose to exercise this anti-democratic version of democracy so often, so blithely and so self-destructively. 

By self-destructively, I mean that by not voting those people that choose not to vote are effectively giving power to those that choose to. By choosing not to vote, as the electorate has done with remarkable consistency long before the Brexit betrayal ‘legitimised’ voter apathy, what was once seen as problematic has now become predictable.

I’m not going to bore you with more facts and figures of previous elections. I know what they mean and ultimately what they prove is that the Manchester turnout of 25.1% is the lowest in a series of voter turnout lowlights; until that is, an even lower lowlight claims that title.

If I break the law, I can reasonably expect that the law will take action against me. That, as I understood it, was part of the social contract; that individuals cede some of their liberties in the pursuit of the collective good. That everyone was expected to obey the law and that no-one was above it. However, it seems I was wrong. 

The very people who are charged with upholding and enforcing the law are breaking it. As reported last week, Staffordshire Police says its custody policy means “detainees may be placed in accommodation consistent with their gender identity”. One of the problems I have with this policy, apart from the obvious one of prioritising mens rights above women’s, is the fact that it is a revised one. Introduced the the wake of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling that sex in equality law refers to biological sex, which has been widely interpreted as meaning that biological men cannot use female single-sex facilities.

It wasn’t a ruling that wasn’t publicised. Anything but. The implications were widely discussed in the press both before and after the ruling. In fact, even the Courts ruling in 2017 that the then government couldn’t trigger Article 50 and set in motion the process leaving the EU wasn’t nearly as controversial. Because, in that instance the right verdict had been given, and the wrong people had been bested. However,  ruling that sex, in a legal sense, meant biological sex and thus wasn’t based on an individuals feelings wasn’t the right verdict 

This was abundantly clear in the reaction, or more accurately, lack of reaction, that followed the ruling.  Any UK entity which had policies determining how they provided services based upon accepting a persons self-identity, had long been in thrall to the nonsense that trans-women were women, and were not happy about it. For years, they’d assumed that they had garlanded moral superiority and unimpeachable virtuous probity because of their enthusiastic support for trans rights. To a greater or lesser degree, all of them believed that part of their identity was predicated upon how robustly they enforced that support. Now they were acting illegally and no matter how much they pretended to welcome the law, most were quietly working out ways to either circumvent it or ignore it all together.

The civil service, the NHS – both nationally and locally, schools, trade unions, have all defied the law and persist in believing in someones gender identity over biological reality. So is it really such a surprise that Staffordshire Police have done the same? Not really. It’s nothing more than a modern update on the ‘I was only following orders’ excuse so beloved of Nazi concentration camp guards to absolve themselves from the horror that they perpetrated. 

Because thats what ‘the correct procedures and policies were followed’, essentially means. As long as the rules were followed, it matters not how illegal those rules are, the important thing is that they are followed. Process, procedure and policy, becomes the law. The Equality Act ruling exists far away from the places where people actually work, its enforcement is dependant upon people who imagine that trans-women are women. The defence of single-sex spaces rests with people who believe that sex is a choice.

If the law becomes like a buffet, where one can choose which laws to abide by or ignore depending on personal preference, then is it really the law? If the people who are charged with enforcing it can flout it so brazenly does it cease to be applicable to everyone? Or has it become optional? Which would be weirdly appropriate, seeing as how now individual choice has now become more important than any notion of objective reality. 

I know its June but today feels like Christmas. I was pondering upon how exactly I would weave two recent news stories into the same post, when another one appeared a couple of days ago morning that did the job. It was so perfect, it could’ve almost been gift-wrapped.

The first story concerned the Reform UK’s candidate for the Manchester mayoralty. She said some things that really angered the sort of people who always angered by anything Reform UK says. ‘Greater Manchester candidate says non-Reform voters should house ‘migrant rapists’, screamed an outraged headline ‘The Guardian’. Barely able to contain its incredulity it added ‘Sian Astley doubles down on stance that ‘people who vote for open borders should house criminals and rapists who enter UK’

I mean, I know I’m brain damaged and everything but to me this makes total sense. If people really believe in the notion of  ‘migrants welcome here’ – as the hordes of virtue signallers placards loftily claim – then shouldn’t they be willing to prove the courage of their convictions? The Greens should be enthusiastic supporters of what is has been official Reform UK policy since May. Its democracy in its rawest form. Reform UK are just letting people know that price of their good-intentions will be borne by them. That a Reform UK government would prioritise placing migrant detention centres in areas where the Green party had an MP or controlled the local council. 

However, when people claim ‘migrants welcome here’ they don’t mean ‘here’ as in next door, down the road or even in their town. They mean ‘here’ in a vague sense. Unspecific but essentially, the further away from them the better. But still welcome! Proof of this hypocrisy is provided by Piddlington, a small village in Oxfordshire and its 400 residents. Furious at government plans to convert the the nearby Bicester Garrison into a camp to house 1,250 male asylum seekers, they’ve responded with a pathetically futile gesture. 

The outraged residents have decided to hold a referendum on whether to declare their ‘independence’ from the United Kingdom. Laugh? I nearly shat. It’s the equivalent of a toddler throwing her toys out of her pram. Utterly meaningless. But according to one resident ‘There is no crime at the moment, but what happens if there is crime?’. So the rapes and murders committed by asylum seekers are better committed elsewhere, is that the thinking? That housing over 1000 men, the vast majority of whom don’t speak English, and bring with them cultural practices at odds with what we accept as given, should be someone else’s problem? That someone else’s community can be affected, just so people can loudly proclaim ‘migrants welcome here’ before whispering ‘ just as long as it’s far enough away not to inconvenience me or my family in any way’

Then, with perfect timing, arrived this story in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ the other day. ’Iran smuggling agents into UK as Channel migrants’. Who saw that one coming? Who could possibly have foreseen that allowing huge numbers of undocumented migrants into this country might be used by those with ill intent? This is not theoretical. The head of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, has repeatedly warned of Iran-backed terrorist atrocities in Britain, with “more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots” foiled in just one year.

The government is only aware of the migrants who have claimed asylum but not those who have chosen to quietly slip away. Not only is there no way to know how many of them have done so, we also don’t know why they have done so. The final word goes to Sian Astley, who said, ‘If people are attacking me for being angry about that, [housing asylum seekers in places that have a Green MP] and for suggesting that – a little bit of tongue in cheek ‘well if you voted for it why don’t you have it?’ – comment, then really they’re getting angry about the wrong thing.”

Thinking about the reactions of the three main political parties to the recent donation of £5 millions to Farrago, one might be forgiven that theirs was a past wholly unsullied by such grubby goings-on. That they conducted themselves with unimpeachable moral probity at all times. And as such, were ever vigilant to avoid even the merest whiff any financial impropriety. To this end, were careful to avoid any association with anyone whose own financial affairs were not as blameless as their own.

Of course this isn’t true. Wherever there is power, there are those with the power but no money, and those with the money but no power. Power in the political sense. Power to influence legislation. To ban something, make something else harder to do or to relax and even abolish some other legislation.

There are numerous examples. So many, in fact, that to even mention a few of them would be to avoid mentioning countless others. One thing is a constant though. Which is when it is made public knowledge they that are the recipient of a large donation from a hitherto unknown business person, it’s all injured innocence. Allegations of a politically motivated smear campaign by their rivals, a trial by media, rumour and innuendo, blah, blah, blah. We’ve heard it all before and no doubt we’ll hear it all again.

The most blatant example of this is of course the one that is hardly ever seen as problematic; the money that the trade unions give to the Labour Party. Not a surprise. The Labour Party was created by the trade unions to give the working class a political voice in parliament. However when trade unions threaten to withdraw some of their funding, only for massive pay increases to be awarded by this Labour government to end strikes called by the same unions, then the £5 millions some bloke gave to Farrago seems wholly irrelevant. Teachers, junior doctors and tube drivers unions have all tried it on. Have demanded – and been given – pay deals that will only encourage them and other unions to make even more outrageous demands.

But there’s no hypocrisy at all when ‘Labour calls on Sunak to return Frank Hester’s £10m Tory donation.’ Or when the ‘Lib Dems (were) under pressure to return £2.4m donation from fraudster.’ Especially when none of the money was returned.

They’re all at it. Well they were. Not anymore. Donations to all three main parties have collapsed. In 2025 Reform got more than all of them combined.

Again, I’m no Farrago fanboy. He really did himself no favours at all when questioned about the donation, he tetchily replied, “I can spend it on Ferraris if I want. It’s entirely up to me.”

Not when his girlfriend is Laure Ferrari…

***********************************

And here we go again! There is yet another poll in ‘The Guardian’ today about Farrago, and as all like every poll that ‘The Guardian’ publishes about Farrago, this one is equally as s damming.

‘More than half of voters view Farage and Reform as ‘very sleazy’ Wow! More than half? Tell me more!

‘YouGov has published polling today suggesting that more than half of voters regard Nigel Farage as “very sleazy”. On this measure, he scores far worse than any of the other party leaders. Even 40% of Reform UK voters regard him as “sleazy”.’

Mmm. That would be the same YouGov that pays people to its surveys. People that want to surveyed and have signed up to be. People who are incentivised. And the more surveys they do, the greater the rewards. People who tend to be younger and spend more time online. Just so we’re clear.

So I saddled up my hobby-horse and rode on over to YouGov to find out more.

They handily summarise the findings, the nice ‘Guardian’ friendly ones, at the top of the page. This saves anyone bothered enough to look the trouble of scrolling further down down the page, past all of the coloured bar charts and the boring explanations as to what it all means, until they find this;

‘Additionally, 31% of Reform voters see the party they backed in 2024 as sleazy, a similar number to the 29% of Tory voters who say the same of their party’s record since the last election (although 55% brand the Conservative governments from 2019 to 2024 as sleazy). Four in ten Labour voters (42%) likewise deem the Labour government since 2024 to have been disreputable.’

Hang on! Shouldn’t that be the headline in ‘The Guardian’. ‘More than half of all Conservatives voters think that the Conservative governments since 2019 were ‘sleazy’ Or how about, ‘ Over 40% of Labour voters think Labour is ‘disreputable’

That is, after all, what the survey says. But how many people did YouGov ask? Being a sad sack I checked. Had to open another page to find out though. 2083, thats how many. Or few, depending on your point of view. ‘The Guardians’ point of view though is abundantly clear.

It’s true, inasmuch as the being factually correct. People really did say that. But not that many people were asked. But clearly, as long as they can use the poll to attack Farrago, ‘The Guardian’ doesn’t mind.

Before we get started, I just want to make it clear I’m no fan of Farrago. To me, he’s little more than a snake-oil salesman in a double-breasted jacket. He’s great at saying the things that people – now – want to hear. But for quite a while, no-one did. Fair play though, he still kept on saying them. 

The problem for me is that whilst he’s busy banging on about this and that – and while other politicians and the media are busy amplifying the ‘controversy’ they create – all of the other topics he doesn’t talk about aren’t talked about. 

He deals in soundbites – pithy, direct and spoken in ‘human’ to be sure – but soundbites nonetheless. And don’t go looking on the Reform UK website for details. There aren’t any. I’ve just checked. Imagine if Hallmark made political greetings cards. That’s essentially it.

I voted to ‘Remain’ in 2016. Only because I believed that European regulations to slow down the amount of greenhouse gasses and carbon emissions released into the atmosphere, and thus decrease the speed of global warming, would be more effective than if we left. Turns out, I was right.  

But putting all of that the one side, I can’t help but feel that Farrago has essentially called everyones bluff and they’re none too happy about it. How is the fact that neither Labour, the Conservatives or the Lib-Dems, are going to contest the by-election that his resignation as MP has triggered any different to an angry toddler throwing all her toys out of the pram? 

This is in no way related to the election of 2024, when Farrago won the seat comfortably. So comfortably, in fact, that he got almost as many votes as three main parties combined. No. It is a matter of principal for them; the principal of not wanting to be associated any democracy in which they’ll all lose. 

Perhaps then, their thinking is this. That the voters of Clacton will follow the examples of the voters of Caerphilly and of Gorton and Denton who abandoned them, preferring instead to vote for the candidate most likely to beat Reform. To me, this thinking is inherently flawed. 

If he wins the election, he can claim to have a mandate from the people of Clacton, a mandate which he can say Andy Capp doesn’t have from the people of Britain. But if he loses, he also wins. He can point to the fact that because all the main parties didn’t take part – leaving the way clear for a novelty candidate to win instead – and then allow him rage against what he’ll see as an establishment stick up. He knows his supporters will love that. They already think that shadowy forces are conspiring to thwart them at every turn. To do the all things that they imagine shadowy forces do.

So he wins either way.

Remember the good old days when the Green Party was actually the Green Party? Was made up of ex-hippies, cranks and the sort of people who were proudly on the fringes of the political mainstream. Those Greens combined the idealism of Tom and Barbara Good with the relentless optimism of a ‘Blue Peter’ charity appeal.  Wherein the foil from milk bottle tops could turned into guide dogs in Britain or drinking-water wells in Africa 

Probably not, because the Greens have betrayed most of their principles in much the same way that Labour has done. But Carolin Lucas does. ‘Focus on the environment, former Greens leader tells Polanski’, ran a headline in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ last week. It was wonderfully ironic that even when the old Greens are berating the new Greens for not being Green enough, the old Green mantra of ‘reuse and recycle’ was still be used to fight the Good fight. Not only had ‘The Telegraph’ lifted all of Lucas’s quotes from an interview she’d given to ‘Politics Home’. Its that her idea of what ‘environment’ means differs greatly from what Repulsion understands it to mean. He’s not just ‘reused or recycled’ it. He’s totally reimagined it.

His idea of ‘environment’ is a narrowly political one, as opportunistic as it is short-sighted. An environment in which disaffected Corbynista’s, transgender ideologues and anyone else that hates Israel can can call home. An environment in which him being both Jewish and gay are used as political cover.  The fact that numerous Green Councillors and parliamentary candidates have been suspended after social media posts praising the October 7 massacre, calling Jews ‘cockroaches’ were unearthed are nothing more than an internal disciplinary matter. ‘How can the we possibly be anti-Semitic, we’ve got a Jewish leader! This is simply the right-wing press attempting to smear us’ is essentially their defence. 

And the fact that he’s gay is also weaponised. ‘The notion that support for transgender rights could possibly undermine gay rights is offensive. Our leader is gay. Do you really think he’d go for that?’ Then there there is the inherent contradiction of them entering into a loose alliance with British Muslims for electoral advantage.

As Rakib Eshan observed in an article for spiked last year ‘The problem is that the two camps were never remotely aligned on other key issues. These include rights and protections for sexual minorities (such as same-sex marriage), the degree to which queer rights and queer theory should be taught in school, and the sanctity of life – both in terms of abortion and assisted dying. It is no secret that British Muslims are more conservative on these issues compared even with the general population, let alone the progressive left.’

And therein lies the fundamental flaw in the Greens thinking. They imagine themselves to be ‘progressive. It’s everyone else thats divisive. Spreading lies and hate, promoting extremist narratives, and thus stoking resentment and inflaming tensions. Repulsion is worrying oblivious to the fact that charges he levels at Reform might be more accurately used to describe the Greens. 

If he thinks that trans-women are women, or that you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semetic, then he’s really putting the mental back into environmental.

                      ***************************************

If there remained a shred of doubt in my mind that Farrago is by a wide margin the shrewdest political operator since Milk Snatcher, his decision earlier today not just to resign as the MP for Clacton-On-Sea, but to also stand as a candidate in the by-election it triggers demolishes it. Its a fucking genius move. 

Embroiled by recent scandals as he has been involving donations made to him personally, allegations that he’s profited from products he promoted without disclosing this at the time, and the more long-standing one of him being him, he’s wrong-footed his accusers and changed the narrative. He’s put his  money where his mouth is.

He’s throwing down the gauntlet. He’s standing for election so why doesn’t Andy Capp do the same?  In October 2020, after Lettuce stepped down, he tweeted ‘Election now!’, correctly anticipating that Tory MP’s would simply anoint a new leader and avoid the brouhaha that followed Boris’s Johnson resignation. 

If he hasn’t got a leg to stand on, what about the press? They can hardly impugn Farrago’s integrity and avoid mentioning Capp’s lack of it. Farrago has dared them to their job. 

It’s a bold move by him, certainly. But we all know what fortune favours… 

Even if I wasn’t in the chipper mood I am right nowon account of watching England beat Mexico in the World Cup this morning, this news story would’ve cheered me right up.

‘Australian prime minister says he would ‘shag’ Kylie Minogue’ was how’ The Daily Telegraph’’ chose to put it. Which, if you only read the headline before moving on, might leave you thinking that he was addressing their Parliament, giving a speech at a conference somewhere or prize giving at his old school when he just blurted this out.

What actually happened was this. Anthony Albanese, the Australian PM was appearing on a podcast. He was asked who he would “shag, marry or date” out of the pop star, or actresses Nicole Kidman and Rhonda Burchmore. I’ve idea who she is either.

After being asked the question, Mr Albanese was initially reluctant. “I just got married,” he said, “I’m only six months in.” But the host insisted saying: “But if it goes tits up, let’s just pretend,” the prime minister replied: “Kylie, clearly.” “You’d marry Kylie and shag her and date her?” Mr Albanese replied “all of the above”, adding: “She’s terrific.”

Which is the correct answer. It’s a no brainer. If you happen to be heterosexual male with normal eyesight, that is. It just is. Not, it seems, if you’re an opposition MP keen to manufacture a controversy out of someone not taking themselves to seriously. Sarah Henderson, shadow minister for communications and digital safety, said his comments “demean the office of prime minister”.

She then added “Australia’s Anthony Albanese’s whisky-fuelled comments are disrespectful to women, embarrassing to Australians and demean the office of prime minister.” Creating the impression that he’d been totally shit-faced when he said it, as opposed to the more sober reality of him having sipped occasionally from a glass of whiskey and water. And even if he had been totally shit-faced, do we really think it would’ve been ‘embarrassing to Australians?’

She is latest in a long line of politicians who seize on what was clearly a light-hearted comment and turn it into an opportunity to parade their highly censorious morality and get a jibe in at the same time. “Rather than politely decline to engage, Mr Albanese got into the gutter with his grubby remarks, which show extremely poor judgement at a time when trust in Labor is collapsing.”

The only Australian she’s embarrassing is herself. As she herself says,’ Australians deserve better than this.”

Proof, if any were needed, that football is a massively more popular sport than rugby was evidenced earlier this year by ITV’s decision to screen adverts during the Six Nations rugby thing. No surprises there. ITV is a commercial broadcaster after all and derives all of its income from adverts. Except these adverts didn’t appear during the regular scheduled advert breaks. They appeared whilst the play was actually happening. 

‘How is that even possible?’, one might reasonably ask. Well when a scrum is called, there is a bit of a kerfuffle while everyone gets ready, there is some some jostling and general fannying about. So some bright spark at ITV had the idea that if they screen split in two when a scrum was called they could show both the kerfuffle and show a 20 second advert as they did so. The screen thus returning to full screen once the advert had finished. Which is exactly what they did.  

Apparently there was a backlash. I didn’t notice. But what I did notice, like everyone else watching the football World Cup, was the absence of any adverts during the ‘hydration breaks’ of any of the matches shown on ITV.  How galling for them, to see all of that potential advertising revenue wasted. 306 minutes worth spread out over 51 games. Not all of it primetime given the time difference, but a guaranteed audience nonetheless.

But potential was all it ever was. Ofcom – the broadcasting regulator – stipulates that all of the UK’s  commercial broadcasters can only show 168 minutes of adverts a day and no more than 12 in any hour. That means that any extra time ITV dedicated to adverts during a ‘hydration break’ break would need to be taken away from other programming.  Meaning that if they were already using the maximum 12 minutes during a game, they would need to show shorter ad breaks before the game, at half time, or at full time. And because of the contract agreed with FIFA for the rights in the first place, they could only show adverts for the sponsors of the World Cup anyway. And they’d have deals agreed with FIFA anyway, so FIFA would take a slice of that action. Reducing still further the revenue ITV would get. All of which is why ITV is one of of the few global commercial broadcasters not to screen adverts during the ‘hydration breaks. 

So whatever guff ITV comes out with ‘about respecting the game’, ‘not wanting to take fans out of the moment’, or some other piffle, the fact is that they’re trying to spin things to their best advantage. To turning the legislative shackles from which they find themselves into a noble gesture of selflessness. Which makes me wonder; why did they do it at the rugby? Did  it not occur to them that there might be a problem. Or maybe it did, maybe they thought ‘Try it out at the rugby and if all goes well, we’ll do it the proper World Cup.’

                        ***************************************

And on the subject of the ‘hydration breaks’ one can’t help but notice the incredible restraint that both the BBC and ITV are showing when mentioning them. The commentators have to mention the loud booing that greets such a break, mainly because as it is so loud, they have no choice. But aside from that, apart from the occasional reference at the start of the completion of ‘we all know why they’re there’ – without actually mentioning what is is we all know – there has been nothing. 

Sure, the pundits have discussed the effects that the breaks are having on the games. The disruptive nature of them and the ability it affords managers to change tactics and the fact that for some games they aren’t needed at all. The ones that take place in the rain and those that take place in covered stadia with the air-con on. But not the reason for them. They never draw the obvious conclusion that a 3 minute ‘hydration break’ is uncannily similar to the length of a commercial break.

What do I think is behind this? Basically, that both the BBC and ITV are terrified that FIFA will award the UK broadcast rights for the 2034 World Cup to either You Tube, Amazon or Netflix. League. Terrified that legislation which has been in place since 1991, which ensure that the ‘crown jewels of sport’ – of which the football World Cup is one – must be shown on the BBC, ITV, C4 or C5, might be watered down or otherwise circumvented. Actually, Amazon would be the more likely. They already own the rights to the all the Premier League matches and the UEFA Champions League.

                             ******************************

And briefly, it can’t go unremarked that football commentators have some truly wonderful euphemisms for fouls, brutal tackles on display at this World Cup. Not to forget the various theatrics that accompany them both.

For example, ‘Leaving a early marker’ or ‘he left something on it’ and its variant ‘letting him know he’s there’ are used to describe the kind of foul that leaves the hapless recipient of it writhing in agony on the ground. Everyone knows the part that they have to play. The commentator will use a tone of voice more reminiscent of a 1950’s Ealing comedy. Picture Lionel Jeffies or Bernard Cribbins shaking his fist and his head in a ‘just you wait until I get my hands on you, you cheeky scamp’ kind of way and you get the idea.  

The player whose committed the foul will affect air air of outraged innocence at being so unjustly accused. This despite knowing that there’s an instant replay showing the incident in slow motion over and over again on the large screens inside the stadium. The player whose fouled meanwhile, is giving the impression that he’ll never walk again or that his dreams of moonlighting at a ballet company are forever shattered. This impression is undercut a few moments later, when after having been awarded a free kick or getting the other player booked, he miraculously springs to his feet and resumes playing. He does at least have the good grace to pretend to have to walk it off, sometimes throwing in the occasional wince for the aforementioned camera’s 

Quite what euphemisms commentators will use to describe Englands dismal performance against Mexico early tomorrow morning remains to heard. They could always recycle the one’s they used to describe Scotlands unsurprisingly execrable performances, I suppose.

                  *********************************

The fact that Labour think that Andy Capp is the answer to anything proves only that their asking themselves the wrong questions. Instead of asking themselves ‘How can we defeat Reform?’, they’d better off asking themselves ‘Why have so many former Labour voters switched to Reform?.’ And more crucially, ‘What can we do to win them back?’ Before asking themselves ‘But anyway, are the sort of people who’d vote for Reform the kind of people we’d want to vote for us?’

As has been noted by many others many times, changing leader may offer Labour MP’s, councillors and party members an illusion of change, but the real problem isn’t the leader. They’re just the figurehead. The problem is the Labour party itself. It has ceased to be what is was created to be; a vehicle through which the working class could effect political change for their betterment. Now it seems to view the working class, well the white portion of it anyway, with a contempt bordering on loathing.

And the single root cause of the reciprocal loathing which the working class feel for Labour is best expressed in a single word; Brexit. No other issue in British political history has had such a polarising effect upon quite so many people. The betrayal still smarts, passions may not be so inflamed but they’re still smouldering nonetheless.  It is the prism thorough which every most every political action since then can be properly understood.

Sick of all the judicial attempts to thwart it, the political reluctance to properly enact it and the widespread fury of every elite towards those who had voted for it, they majority who voted for Brexit had had enough.  The 2019 general election triumph of Boris’s Johnson was proof of that. And when that didn’t work, when the wheels finally came off that bus and the general election of 2024 happened, Reform UK got nearly 15% of the votes. Not bad for a party that a month and one day earlier – June 3rd – had basically never existed. However, on June 3rd, Farrago announced he’d be standing for Reform UK and from that moment on, the battle lines were redrawn.

Whatever charges might be levelled at Farrago, no-one can question his steadfast refusal to betray his beliefs. One might disagree with them, but he’s never wavered from them. And they all stem from a single proposition; that uncontrolled immigration was ruinous for the British people. And because membership of the EU meant we longer controlled our borders, we should leave it.  Simple and not confusing in the least. The people that hold him single-handedly responsible for Brexit are conveniently overlooking the fact that the EU we voted to leave was not the EU we joined.

For a start off it wasn’t called the EU. It was the European Economic Community (EEC). The then PM signed a treaty with it in 1971 and after three years of ‘associate’ membership of it, the British public finally got a vote on whether to join or not. Which they did. As well they might. Back then the EEC was, as the name implies, focused on almost exclusively on economic ties; trade harmonisation, closer co-operation and loads of other stuff that normal people tended to ignore in favour of having a life. 

Then in 1992, the EEC suggested a radical expansion of its remit. Not content with being just an economic trading entity, it sought to become a social, judicial one and financial one. Did John Minor, the then PM have any qualms about surrendering a a large part of Britains sovereignty to Brussels, for their courts and laws to supersede ours or to allow loads of European workers to flood in and undercut  British ones? Or was he just as terrified by their reaction as he was of his own ‘Eurosceptic’ backbench MP’s – who he called ‘bastards   Did Minor put this proposal to a public vote, or did he just nod it through? The fact that we had the referendum vote in 2016 answers that.

The fact that that result was stymied answers why Farrago made the decision he on June 3rd. By then vast swathes of the electorate, regardless of their previous political allegiance,   had come to realise that a vote for any of the existing parties was a vote for the existing state of affairs. Quite why Reforms success shocked anyone was shocking. From nowhere to almost 15% of the vote in a month is a clue as to the deep-seated mistrust of a sizeable minority of the British people of the Westminster elite.

And how did the Westminster elite attempt to prove them wrong? What efforts did they go to that might indicate that they were finally addressing the grievances which Brexit had revealed? What strategy did they employ to bring that 15% back into the political mainstream? By demonising them, of course. Calling them ‘far right’, ‘bigots and ‘racists.  Denigrating them, questioning their motives, making all manner sinister inferences. Ironically, doing all this while calling for unity, for tolerance, and other brazen hypocrisy’s. 

The only unity that the Labour Party achieved in securing was that a new leader would be the solution. That it was Emu alone who bore all the responsibilities for their dismal standing. However, if the Labour Party believes that the answer to restoring public trust in politics and the democratic process is to impose a new PM on the British public without calling a general election first, it just proves why people distrust it all in the first place. 

Well, the majority that voted for Brexit and who now vote for Reform, anyway.