Category Archives: charles kennedy

SHOULD THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS NOW BE PROSECUTED FOR MIS-DESCRIPTION?

SHOULD THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS NOW BE PROSECUTED FOR MIS-DESCRIPTION?

At the Liberal Democrat Conference, Jo Swinson, their new Scottish Leader (when was the last time they had an English one?) breezily called for the votes of 17.4 million British voters (15,188,400 English voters) to be disregarded.  The “Liberal Democrats”, if elected to Government, would simply now revoke the Article 50 Notice served by Theresa May on 29th March 2017 under the EU Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017 (which by rights should have got us out of the EU at 11.00 p.m. on the 29th March 2019!).
Following this policy shift by a woman whose husband is apparently in receipt of millions of EU money (see article below), the mask has been dropped by this Party of being willing to abide by democratic decisions.
As their former Leader Paddy Ashdown put it on 23rd June 2016 on the TV referendum vote programme:- “I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken. Whether it is a majority of 1% of 20%, when the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you do not.”
The “Liberal Democrats” also show by their addiction to Europhile Statism that they are against the bedrock of liberalism, which is “Free Trade”.  Rather than Free Trade what they want is EU State regulation. 
The “Liberal Democrats” do not even adhere to Liberal values on Free Speech.  They are amongst the keenest to ban people from writing, saying or speaking anything critical either of multi-culturalism or of the various restrictions on Free Speech which multi-culturalism insists upon. 
In short they are a Party which is completely devoid of either Democratic or Liberal values. 
In addition to this the “Liberal Democrats” are very much a Party which is globalist and hates the very idea of our traditional nation and our nation state.  This is at the root of why they are not willing to recognise a democratic vote because they would deny that the People of our country are even a “demos”.  The Liberal Democrats particularly loath the idea of England as the above quotation from their former leader Charles Kennedy vividly demonstrates. 
So Liberal Democrats are not merely a blight on our national politics but their whole way of thinking is actually a vicious cancer within the heart of our Nation eating away at its very existence.  So the question arises what can be done about them?  Clearly we can campaign against them and should do so.  We should of course also campaign against their multi-culturalist, globalist values, but can we bring the law into the equation? 
It is of course particularly important for the English Democrats to stop the Liberal Democrats from besmirching and misusing the word ‘Democrats’ in their Party name!
In the circumstances we have an interest in prosecuting them if at all possible. 
The relevant legislation is the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 as amended by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  An issue is whether politics is a trade.  I don’t think that question has been legally tested though and after the “Liberal Democrats” behaviour would you call their politics a profession? 
The way to bring a prosecution is I think that we could prosecute their Party for selling something which is using their false description.
What do you think?
Here is an article about Jo Swinson’s husband’s sizeable financial interest in supporting the EU:-
“IT LOOKS LIKE JO SWINSON’S PASSION TO STOP BREXIT OR A NO-DEAL BREXIT “AT ANY COST” HAS TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLIED.
Swinson’s point blank and quite illogical refusal to join the cross-party coalition to prevent a no-deal Brexit has a 3.5m euro explanation. And the irony of the whole context goes to show that the LibDems are as insincere and deceitful as they ever were.”
This is political dynamite. The European Union gave a 3.5m euro donation to Transparency International, which in peak irony is supposed to be an anti corruption watchdog with a mandate to foster, erm, transparency.
It is run by Jo Swinson’s husband. Has Jo Swinson declared this conflict of interest to the House of Commons? No.
Is that a breach of House of Commons protocol? Yes.
Is it a breach of the law? Yes.
So who is Jo Swinson’s husband? His name is Duncan Hames. He is the director of policy at Transparency International UK.
He also used to be the Liberal Democrat MP for the Chippenham constituency in Wiltshire, holding the seat during the disasterous Cameron/Clegg coalition government responsible for the deaths of 130,000 poor, sick and disabled people under their deadly “Welfare Reforms”.
The same Welfare Reforms Iain Duncan Smith justified with the phrase “Work Frees People” – a sentence last seen, in German, above the entrance gates to Auschwitz.
Unlike Lib Dems we aren’t prone to calling our opponents “Nazis” simply for disagreeing with our political opinions but in this instance, if the cap fits…
During this period Mr Hames was Parliamentary Private Secretary to none other than David Cameron’s number 2, Nick Clegg.
So as you can see, the Swinson family household has its fingerprints all over the social degradation our nation suffered during that horrendous 5 year period.
The idea that the Liberal Democrats under Jo Swinson are the answer to our nations’ current predicament does not stand up to a single moment of scrutiny.
Here is a link to the original article>>> https://nyebevannews.co.uk/swinson-fails-to-declare-family-company-was-given-3-5m-euro-by-the-european-union/

The reporting of the death of Charles Kennedy

A week ago we had the death of Charles Kennedy, the former Leader of the Liberal Democrats. His death cannot have been entirely unexpected, not only because of longstanding ill-health issues, but also that those were not unlinked with his now well-known alcoholism. Having lost his seat, despite the fact that there were further opportunities beckoning him, the temptation to drink must have been overwhelming.

It has however been interesting to see how his death has been reported by the British Establishment Political class and the comments that they have made, which all seem to be along the lines of what a wonderful warm person he was. I did not know him personally and, indeed, never met him so I cannot vouch either way for that. 

The one certain thing that I do know about him which has an impact on my attitude to him is that, not surprisingly, as a Lib Dem Leader, he was a highly enthusiastic Europhile who, not only as a Lib Dem, but also as a Scot, hated the “very idea of England”. 

Indeed he told a Dumfermline meeting of Liberal Democrats back in 1999, when he was their Leader, that he was an enthusiastic supporter of Regionalisation “Because Regionalism in England is calling into question the very idea of England itself”. Nothing could really be clearer as to his Anglophobia. That is enough to damn him politically as far as I am concerned.

It is however interesting to consider the British Political and Media reaction to mr Kennedy’s death. Especially, in light of the kind of comments that they have made about Alex Salmond’s comment in which he simply tried to suggest that Charles Kennedy might have had some sympathy for the Europhile SNP brand of Scottish nationalism. This may after all be true, since it certainly is the case that Mr Kennedy was keen, as any Europhile would be, to break up the old great Nation States so they could be more readily digested by the emerging EU State.

We are hearing a lot about Magna Carta at the moment but we don’t need to go back nearly as far as that to a day when it was quite normal for rival politicians not merely to hate each other but to try to get their rivals executed when they fell from power. That was the normal state of affairs in England as recently as the early 18th Century and in the 17th Century it was all too typical. 

Of course in those days politicians generally sincerely believed in their politics. Also then the difference between the various political groupings was a serious matter of principle, as opposed to the sort of cosy club that now prevails and which Alex Salmond would appear to be in danger of being blackballed from! 

Here is an example of the type of article which I am refering to:-

With Charles Kennedy’s death a light has gone out in Scottish and British politics


The late former Liberal Democrat leader always had a smile on his face, but was every inch the serious politician

By Alan Cochrane
Charlie Kennedy was one of those fortunate people who didn’t need a surname. To everyone, throughout Scotland and over the entire political world, he was just Charlie. Thus when I received a text shortly after six thirty this morning asking: “Have you heard about Charlie,” I knew at once who we were talking about.

And, sadly, I also at once guessed the worst. To many, if not most, of those who knew Charlie Kennedy it was not an exactly surprising, if still appalling, bit of news that he had died a little over three weeks after losing his seat in his beloved Highlands in the general election.

I take nothing away from the Ian Blackford, the SNP candidate who defeated Charlie – he has all the attributes necessary to turn out to be an accomplished MP – but with Kennedy’s death a light has gone out in Scottish and British politics.

That may appear as an over-worn cliché but Charlie Kennedy did brighten every room, every company, every conversation he entered. He was a marvellous communicator an engaging companion and will be missed terribly.

There was an impish quality to his public persona and he was seldom without a smile on his face but he was every inch the serious politician and was a hugely successful Liberal Democrat leader – at least with the public.

He demonstrated in spades his political skills in what was perhaps his finest political hour – when he withheld his party’s support from George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, leaving only the Tories on their own in backing Tony Blair. It was tactical masterstroke which increased dramatically his party’s support in the country in the 2005 general election.

But you cannot talk about Charlie Kennedy without talking about his battle with booze. He did not hide his struggle with drink. At first when challenged about his drinking, he tried to laugh it off and insisted that as a Highlander it was not exactly an unnatural trait for him to enjoy a dram. However, he did eventually concede that it was a problem that had got out of hand and he did try to tackle it. But it did contribute to his losing the leadership of the Lib Dems and thereafter his position in the political firmament gradually receded.

However, his popularity with the general public never diminished and he played a key part in fighting by-elections for the Lib Dems and was one of the stars of the all-party Better Together campaign last year in fighting off the SNP led plan to break up Britain. Charlie spent the bulk of that campaign in his native Highlands, helping to ensure that it voted ‘No’ to independence.

I didn’t see much of Charlie recently, and I had the impression that of late he seldom ventured out of his Highland fastness. However, when last we encountered each other he pointed at me and with a huge grin asked the assembled company: “I see a large edifice over there. It looks like Alan Cochrane.”

You couldn’t really use such a description about Charlie Kennedy. He may have put the beef on a bit lately but he will best remembered as that slight, red-haired Highlander with a permanent grin on his face.

But there was nothing insignificant about his political standing and the affection in which he was held by the people who matter most – the voters.

He will be much missed. 
 
(To see original article, click here >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11645170/Voters-will-remember-Charles-Kennedy-with-affection.html).

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians

Daily Telegraph reports on IPPR findings


The Brit/Scot Telegraph journalist Iain Martin writes below about a key finding of the IPPR report. Here is the link to that report >>> http://sites.cardiff.ac.uk/wgc/files/2014/10/Taking-England-Seriously_The-New-English-Politics.pdf

This finding is that there is virtually NO popular or democratic demand from the English People for any form of devolution which involves the break up of England.

There is however a clear agenda from the British Establishment, as well as from the EU, which calls for England to be Regionalised. Fortunately for the English nation they can’t agree on the details!

The purpose of the Establishment agenda is clear as Charles Kennedy let slip when he said, while he was Leader of the Liberal Democrats back in 1999, that he supported Regionalisation because “in England Regionalisation is calling into question the idea of England itself”.

As English Nationalists the real question about the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is:- Should we accept that England must be broken up to allow the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish to feel comfortable and unthreatened by alleged English dominance?

An example of this thinking is what Jack Straw said when he described the English as “potentially very aggressive, very violent” and also claimed “that the English had used their “propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland”.

OR should we, as English Nationalists, loudly, forcefully and uncompromisingly say that we would prefer the UK to be broken up rather than allow England to be broken up?

I know where I stand on this issue. United England first, second and third! Where do you stand?

Here is Iain Martin’s article:-

The English do not want England divided up to suit politicians


By Iain Martin

While Gordon Brown was burbling on in the Commons yesterday about the constitution, and in his usual fashion taking no responsibility whatsoever for the mess he helped cause, a fascinating report was being discussed elsewhere.

The Future of England Survey was produced by constitutional specialists and is based on in-depth polling on attitudes.

It is worth reading it in its entirety, particularly now that all manner of schemes are being suggested by politicians for the creation of regional government in England in the wake of the Scottish referendum. Whatever the merits of such proposals, and the need for some larger cities to be given the powers that booming London enjoys, the report makes clear that there is almost no enthusiasm on the part of English voters for the country being divided up into regional assemblies.

It looks as though English voters grasp what Gordon Brown and some of his Labour colleagues cannot. England is a country. Even with regional government – which isn’t going to happen – there would still be English laws on justice, education health and so on, which voters understandably do not see as the business of MPs sent by the Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish.

The option which attracts most support, which avoids the creation of a new and expensive English parliament, is some form of English votes for English laws in the Commons.
As one of he authors of the report, Professor Charlie Jeffrey of Edinburgh University, puts it:
“People in England are not just reacting against their ‘others’ in Scotland and the EU. They are also searching more positively for an institutional recognition of England that can express their concerns better than the current political system, which submerges the representation of England within the wider UK’s institutions in Westminster and Whitehall. From the various alternatives, the most preferred one is – as David Cameron now seems to have recognised – English votes on English laws in the House of Commons.”

With some compromise by all parties at Westminster, with new protocols and cooperation with the devolved assemblies and the Scottish parliament, such an arrangement is perfectly workable, as I explained here.

The risk now for Labour, as it bizarrely allows its position to be dictated by Brown and the other Scots who spoke so loudly in the Commons yesterday against English votes for English laws, is that it ignores a critically important development. That is the emergence of a distinct English identity requiring constitutional recognition. If the party continues down this path – with the direction dictated by Scots – it is not inconceivable that in time it could come to be seen as innately anti-English. Some Labour MPs in England see the danger, even if the party leadership does not.

A more self-confident UK Labour party would recognise the English demand for fairness in a new constitutional settlement, accept English only votes in the Commons and set about winning a majority of seats in England again.