Johnson insults Ukraine – A New Low

Johnson insults Ukraine – A New Low

Mar 21, 2022 | Bylines, News

Listening to our Prime Minister make crass, inappropriate, even insulting comments is unhappily nothing new, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for West England Bylines. We’ve grown accustomed to his style, his language, his need to please his own party. He has done so at our expense. He’s embarrassed us, made us and shamed our once great nation.

We thought we’d seen the worst of him. We were wrong.

Johnson’s latest insult

The offending statements were made at the Conservative Party Spring Conference in Blackpool on 19 March. In his closing speech, Johnson told delegates the Ukrainian struggle for freedom was comparable to the British people voting for the freedoms of Brexit. He did so in front of the Ukrainian Ambassador.

As with Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, before him, Johnson levelled an attack on ‘woke’ issues, using the Ukrainian crisis as a weapon in the ongoing Tory culture wars.

 

“I know that it’s the instinct of the people of this country, like the people of Ukraine, to choose freedom every time” – Boris Johnson

Widespread condemnation

While it’s not unusual for his remarks to draw criticism, Johnson’s latest appalling comments have drawn widespread condemnation. The Tories have been doubling down, repeating Johnson’s insensitive and damaging rhetoric, and applauding (literally) his every word.

A notable exception came from MP and Defence Select Committee member, Tobias Ellwood. He tweeted that “international leadership and unity” are required if we are to defeat Putin, the implication being that Johnson is a threat to both. Of Johnson’s suggestion that the Ukrainian peoples’ struggle and British people voting for Brexit are comparable, Ellwood said it “damages the standard of statecraft we were beginning to exhibit.”

 

The strength of feeling levelled at Johnson’s comments came from a wide range of sources. Some expected, some not. Ian Dunt spoke of his “disgust” and how what Johnson had said was “gnawing away” at him. Jessica Simor, QC, described Johnson’s speech as “utterly grotesque” and “stomach turning”. She added that, “for this alone” it was time for the Tories to “get rid of him”.

Best for Britain CEO, Naomi Smith said, “Equating the Brexit vote to Ukrainian plight is not only a disgraceful insult to those in the grip of war, it dismisses the fact Ukraine has applied to join the EU, the greatest peace project in human history.”

Johnson’s comments also drew strong criticism from outside of the UK. Two senior European politicians, Donald Tusk and Guy Verhofstadt – both rather familiar with Brexit themselves – added their own condemnation. Verhofstadt called Johnson’s remarks “insane”, pointing out that “Brexit was about undoing freedoms and leaving the EU”. Ukrainians, however, “want more freedoms and to join the EU”. Tusk levelled his comments directly at Johnson, saying, “Boris, your words offend Ukrainians, the British & common sense.”

The response from self-proclaimed “staunch Brexiter”, Julia Hartley-Brewer was, perhaps, more unexpected. She said that comparing the vote to leave the EU with the Ukrainian people’s struggle against a foreign invader was “an insult to their bravery and sacrifice”, describing it as “totally cringe”.

Deflection and distraction

In many ways, the Ukrainian crisis has perhaps been a welcome distraction for our PM. With our focus quite rightly on the terrifying plight of the Ukrainian people, those pestering niggles that have threatened Johnson’s position have faded into the background. Few are asking what happened to the Sue Gray report, the Met Police investigation, or various other scandals involving the leader or his party.

One exception has been the focus on Russian money, donors and close ties with the Conservatives. Another exception must be the UK’s continued failings towards Ukrainian refugees. Despite constant suggestions from Johnson to the contrary, the UK is not a generous or welcoming host. Where our neighbours have bent over backwards to help those in desperate need – waiving visas, helping find food, shelter, work – the UK is making the process as difficult as possible.

Ukrainians refugees must apply for a visa – assuming they have family connections or a sponsor. Not only that, but every stage of the application process seems deliberately designed to make things more fraught, gruelling and off-putting.

Johnson and his government insult us all further when they dare to suggest what a great job they have done supporting other refugees, such as those fleeing Afghanistan and Syria. The sheer audacity of such obvious lies is exasperating.

Self-inflicted damage

The pain, the anger, the disbelief that Johnson’s comments have caused will be with us for some time. The debate as to whether Johnson deliberately aims to offend, or does so by accident, will continue. Perhaps just as worrying is the fact that a team, presumably, of so-called experts would have approved his speech beforehand. Not only will they have agreed the content, but they will have thought it was just what was necessary.

If the aim was to please the Brexit extremists, maybe they have succeeded in the short term. But if this crisis has taught us anything, it’s that the British people are a lot more caring, a lot more generous, a lot more empathetic than the government, or the PM that represents us.

Johnson may have won over a few right-wing back-benchers, but he has distanced himself from the “will of the people” and damaged his chances of keeping his job. By supporting his stance, his own party have weakened their own position, furthered their own demise and distanced the UK from its former friends and neighbours.

The Conservatives might not yet be ready to get rid of Johnson. The country, however, is. If the party won’t rid themselves of their leader, Johnson will take them all down with him.

Now that really would be worth a standing ovation and a round of applause.

Frosty reception for latest protocol speech

Frosty reception for latest protocol speech

Mar 19, 2022 | Bylines, News

Lord David Frost, former Brexit negotiator, is having another tantrum. It seems he is not taking criticism of his recent speech well, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Lord David Frost, former Brexit negotiator, is having a bit of a tantrum. Yes, another one. It seems he is not taking criticism of his recent speech well, accusing critics of not having read the speech first. The Churchill lecture was given at the EuropaInstitut at the University of Zurich on 15 March. I’m sorry to report that I have read more than enough of it, so at least you don’t have to.

According to the Spectator, Frost set out a potential basis for future relations between the UK and the EU in a “warm” tone. His comments mark a “deliberate attempt to move on from scratchy relations of the last few years”, while failing, naturally, to accept any responsibility for how his own bombastic, truculent style affected EU/UK relations. For good measure, and without a hint of irony, Frost argued there is a “need to recognise that the EU is a natural ally”, adding that the UK and EU should “seek – as sovereign equals – ways to cooperate and work together more”.

Empty threats on the Northern Ireland protocol

The threat of triggering Article 16 – effectively suspending the Northern Ireland protocol – was one often bandied about by Frost, and by the prime minister. They have each claimed, on occasion, that the protocol has caused “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”. In doing so, they say, it has reached the necessary threshold to ‘justify’ triggering Article 16.

Maroš Šefčovič, vice president of the European Commission, described these threats as “enormously disruptive” and could result in “very serious consequences”. Increasingly, however, the EU politely dismissed them merely as empty threats.

Fast forward to his speech and Frost half-heartedly suggests the threat be taken off the table. Not without a quid pro quo though. In exchange for not throwing our toys out of the pram (again), Frost demands the EU accept the need for a fundamental renegotiation of the protocol. Should the EU fail to accept a renegotiation – something they have adamantly and repeatedly rejected – then surprise, surprise, we’re back to invoking Article 16. After all, according to Frost, the protocol was “always temporary” and it was “not realistic” to expect the border in the Irish Sea to last forever.

 

Or, to put it another way, as the Telegraph did, the “Tories should pledge to tear up the Northern Ireland protocol unless EU backs down”. It seems though, that Frost’s message was “not that of this headline”, according to his tweet.

Also, he’s a bit touchy about being referred to as one of those “Tory public schoolboys”. Duly noted

Questionable judgment and false statements

In a Twitter thread, Professor Steve Peers points out a number of false statements (lies) made by Frost in his speech. Frost claimed the protocol was “imposed on us” – a rather different picture from the one painted at the time of his signing the deal. So much for that glorified “oven-ready deal” sold to the country, which parliament voted for and Conservatives applauded.

Frost also suggested that Theresa May’s government was only interested in a “simulacrum of leaving”, which was clearly untrue. May had, from very early on, taken the single market and freedom of movement off the negotiating table, thanks to her obsession with immigration. But even May’s Brexit had not been hard enough for Johnson or Frost.

Peers acknowledges Frost’s positive suggestions on how the deal could be improved, such as youth mobility and cooperation on foreign and defence policy. However, this would involve the reversal of policies that Frost himself had negotiated, and, says Peers, “frankly, this calls his judgement into question”.

 

Peers also disagrees with Frost about the accuracy of the Telegraph headline, describing it as a “fair” interpretation. The speech, however, he described as “intellectually dishonest” – a description that could equally be levelled at the Tory public schoolboy.

Distorted Brexit reality

When Brexit was ‘done’, Frost signed an international, legally binding agreement that he never read, never understood, or never had any intention of implementing. He was given a Cabinet role by Johnson and elevated to the House of Lords, before resigning in a fit of pique when the EU exposed the weakness of his arguments. If he ever understood the way the EU works, negotiates, or protects its values, he has a strange way of showing it.

With every speech, including those made to parliament, Frost has never lost his ability to distort Brexit reality. Despite having negotiated a hard Brexit deal, including the protocol he now hates, his own deal was never extreme enough for his own liking.

I’ve had quite enough of Frost, and Tory public schoolboys, to last me a lifetime. Johnson and Frost have damaged our economy, our reputation and the democracy they falsely claimed to prize. You’ll have to read the next Frost speech yourselves, as I won’t be bothering. I know what he will say. The same as he always does – trumped up nonsense divorced from reality. Just like Brexit.

Home Office response to Ukraine refugee crisis a “total disgrace”

Home Office response to Ukraine refugee crisis a “total disgrace”

Mar 12, 2022 | Bylines, News

The government’s handling of Ukraine refugees is a “total disgrace”, the Home Office could and should do better, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

When Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper addressed Home Secretary Priti Patel at the despatch box on Thursday, she expressed feelings that much of the country could associate with. Showing passion, frustration and anger at the woeful government response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, Cooper pointed out the shocking inadequacies and failings of the Home Office scheme.

Cooper described the government’s response to the Ukraine refugee crisis as a “total disgrace” and highlighted the fact that Patel had to be “hauled into the House of Commons to make basic changes to help vulnerable people” fleeing Ukraine. She acknowledged some progress since last week but criticised the slow pace of action, especially considering that the government has known about a likely Russian invasion for weeks.

 

Ukrainian refugees left out in the cold

Meanwhile, desperate Ukrainian women and children are facing a bureaucratic nightmare, often waiting outside warm, relatively empty buildings for hours in freezing temperatures. Worse still, when they finally start the complicated visa application process – assuming they have made or can get an appointment – they have been sent to another town, or even another country, to continue their application.

The list of requirements is lengthy, and would be a bureaucratic nightmare under normal circumstances. Add in the complexities of fleeing a war zone in haste, often without even a suitcase, and demands for proof of residency or the production of a utility bill make even less sense and are even more degrading and inappropriate. Many refugees will be lucky to escape with their passport, let alone any other paperwork required by the British authorities. Thankfully, the system is being improved to allow online applications, though many won’t be able to take advantage of this addition to the process.

A risk to national security?

In a ridiculous attempt to justify their position, the government is insistent that the extensive checks and bureaucratic hurdles are necessary to protect our security. Despite the fact that the applicants are vulnerable women and children, almost exclusively with family in the UK, apparently they are a potential security threat.

Not only does the government, presumably genuinely, believe that Russia will take advantage of this crisis and import spies to the UK amongst the refugees, but it has criticised Ireland for their “liberal policy”. A government source told The Telegraph that, “Ireland has basically opened the door to everyone in Ukraine”, creating a problem due to the lack of biometric checks in the common travel area.

Already in trouble for a series of false claims – such as suggesting it was offering help in Calais when it wasn’t – the government’s criticism of Ireland’s approach has been described as “dirty propaganda”

 

Doubling down

In addition to claims made by the home secretary, government ministers and MPs have been doubling down on the rhetoric.

Interviewed on Sky News, James Heappey, representing the Ministry of Defence, said it was “a hard job being home secretary”. Not as hard as being a refugee fleeing a war zone, Kay Burley reminded him. On BBC Breakfast, Charlie Stayt asked Heappey why refugees couldn’t be brought to the UK and the paperwork sorted out on British soil. Heappey reiterated that the home secretary “has to weigh that up against risk”. He added, “we are not making the mistake of dropping our guard altogether”. In response, Stayt suggested that the premise that women and children escaping a war zone are a security risk was “bogus”.

 

Leading the effort against Russia

On Monday evening, a special hour-long edition of BBC Question Time was dedicated to the Ukrainian war. Following the government line, Education Secretary Nadam Zahawi suggested the UK was leading the efforts and that Russia regarded Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as a leader in this field.

His comments drew derision, both on the programme – most notably from the former Danish prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt – and later on social media. Thorning-Schmidt said that Zahawi almost made her “chuckle” with his ridiculous claims, and that the European Union is “leading the effort against Russia”. Regarding his claim about Johnson, she suggested Russia would not see our prime minister as a leader and Zahawi should set the record straight.

UK shamed by EU

According to the United Nations, over two million refugees have already fled Ukraine. Only 760 of those desperate people have been granted UK visas to date. As the fighting continues, the number of people expected to be displaced could exceed four million, with 18 million people projected to be affected.

EU countries, albeit geographically closer to Ukraine, have taken tens, even hundreds of thousands of refugees. In Poland’s case, it’s over 1.4 million. Even Ireland, with its relatively small population (just over five million), has taken in over 2,500 refugees – a third of them children.

Across the EU, refugees are being welcomed with open arms, being offered sustenance, free travel, accommodation and support. They are welcome to stay for three years, and without the need to apply for visas or jump cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles.

Many refugees are only seeking a temporary solution to the crisis and will want to return to their homeland at the earliest opportunity. But regardless of whether they wish to stay temporarily or permanently, they deserve our help and support.

The government response – hostile, and deliberately so – does not, however, represent public opinion. The generosity shown by the British people when the government launched its Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal demonstrates a sincere wish to offer help. The public are showing a level of compassion and humanity the Home Office would do well to emulate. In denying Ukrainian refugees the support they so desperately need and deserve, the government is also denying the public the opportunity to do whatever they can to help.

In an earlier article, I referred to the government’s handling of the Ukrainian refugee crisis as “world-beating indifference”. But it’s worse than that. In Yvette Cooper’s words, it’s a “total disgrace”. We can do better than this. And we should.

Conservative Friends of Russia group disbands with immediate effect

Conservative Friends of Russia group disbands with immediate effect

Mar 8, 2022 | Bylines, News

After 10 years of operation, the Westminster Russia Forum, formerly known as the Conservative Friends of Russia, has suddenly disbanded, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton. 

On 1 March, the Westminster Russia Forum, formerly known as the Conservative Friends of Russia, was dissolved ‘immediately’. Should this pro-Russia group have existed in the first place?

As it becomes more evident that Britain’s apathy, particularly from the Conservatives and the government itself, has enabled and encouraged Vladimir Putin and his regime, the group’s work needs scrutinising. Not only so we can avoid similar mistakes in the future but also so intelligence services can conduct enquiries into the group’s connections and funding to ensure no wrongdoing.

 

Conservatives have been complicit and complacent with the Putin regime

 

London is undisputed the global capital for Russians to launder money. In 2008, The UK government’s golden visa scheme was launched to allow the wealthiest people a fast track to British citizenship. A mere £2m got you and your family settled status in five years. For the super-wealthy, a mere £10m got you and your family there in just two years. This visa scheme was of concern to many. The project was insecure with worries around the efficiency of checks made on origins of wealth.

Parliament’s intelligence and security committee recommended in its Russia report, published in July 2020, that there should be an “overhaul” of the golden visa programme. Nothing happened.

A foreign affairs select committee report, produced four years ago, endorsed by Priti Patel as a backbench member, said ministers were risking national security by “turning a blind eye” to Russian “dirty money” flowing through the City of London. Yet again, the government took no action.

 

 

Priti Patel’s role

 

Last month, however, Patel suddenly announced the golden visa scheme would end with immediate effect in a bid to help stop “corrupt elites who threaten our national security and push dirty money around our cities”. Yet, she knew of the issues long before, so why only now?

One report examined the visa system between 2008 and 2015, a period in which 700 Russians gained residency. Yet, Patel and the government have consistently delayed its publication.

Then, there are the donations. There have been growing concerns regarding Russian oligarchs donating to the Conservative Party, and these donations have increased under Boris Johnson’s premiership. Indeed, six oligarchs alone have donated £2m since Johnson became prime minister.

 

 

History of the Conservative Friends of Russia group

 

The Westminster Russia Forum, initially the Conservative Friends of Russia, was founded in 2012 by Richard Royal, a communication specialist for Ladbrokes. Its organisers and members often appeared on Russia Today, the Russian state-owned news channel.

The group then, and now, calls itself a think tank, but no published research exists. They are more akin to a lobby group; however, there is no requirement to register their activities or interests, no scrutiny or checks, so we are left guessing as to the scope of the work they did.

As reported by Open Democracy, Sue Hawley, the director of Spotlight on Corruption, stated:

 

 

“‘Friends of’ groups of political parties are alarmingly unregulated and provide a back door for unofficial lobbying, access and paid influence. It is high time that these groups were brought out of the shadows, adequately regulated and that the public can have far greater insight into how they operate and who is behind them.”

 

Who is behind the group?

 

One of the group’s initial organisers in 2011 was Sergei Nalobin, a diplomat suspected of being a Russian agent. He was the first secretary in the Russian embassy’s political section and son of Nikolai Nalobin, a former KGB general, who left the UK in 2015. He wanted to build closer ties with the Conservative Party and, strangely, was interested in the rivalry between Boris Johnson and David Cameron.

The group launched at the Russian embassy in August 2012. Then minister John Whittingdale was the group’s honorary vice-president. He attended the opening with then office aide Carrie Symonds, now Carrie Johnson, wife of Prime Minister Johnson.

Another founding member of the group was Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the official Vote Leave campaign. Whittingale was also one of six Cabinet ministers to favour Brexit during the 2016 EU referendum. There seems to be a specific correlation between many of Brexit’s most prominent supporters, who are anti-EU yet enamoured with Russia.

 

Renaming the group

 

The original founder, Royal, persuaded Conservative MP Malcolm Rifkin to join the Conservative Friends of Russia. However, Royal publicly attacked Labour’s Chris Bryant MP, a prominent Kremlin critic, by sharing a photo of Bryant in his underpants taken from a gay dating site. After this, Rifkin resigned, and soon the group fell apart, with many Conservatives distancing themselves from it. This was when the group reformed under the name of Westminster Russia Forum.

The forum categorically states it is non-political and focuses on trade, culture, and sport, but its role has undoubtedly helped give credibility and influence to pro-Russia lobbyists. It would have brought Russian funding into UK businesses and politics.

The forum’s organisers are mainly London based, with business interests in Russia. The current chair, Nicholas Cobb, runs an energy communications firm focused on Russia and former Soviet republics. He has also appeared on Russia Today and is pro-Moscow.

The Westminster Russia Forum’s events grew from having around 50 attendees in 2015 to having 170 in 2020 when it drew 47 speakers on UK-Russia relations. The group was overwhelmingly effusive on the need for strong ties with the Putin regime.

The group struggled to attract big Conservative names after ‘underpantsgate’ in 2012. Still, it hosted around 80 events and intended to hold its first in-person event for two years on 4 March. As the group was unregulated, the public never had access to its activities and fundraising information records. Some political figures like Lord Andrew Adonis are now calling for their records to be handed to police and sanction advisers. Surely this would be the right course of action for ‘the national interest’.

 

Why the rush to dissolve the group?

 

When Russia illegally invaded Ukraine, the focus started to turn and look at the Conservative Party’s relationships with Russian oligarchs and its seeming reliance on Russian donations. A spotlight has been shone on the Conservatives Party, which has taken millions in oligarchs’ donations.

Johnson’s relationship with Evgeny Lebedev, son of Alexander Lebedev, a former KGB agent, has come under intense scrutiny once again. Johnson awarded Lebedev, who had only received dual British citizenship in 2010, a peerage in 2020.

Intelligence officials raised concerns that granting a peerage to a Russian business leader posed a national security risk, but these concerns were withdrawn after Johnson intervened.

On a brief look back through the group’s Twitter page, @WRForum, I didn’t find anything too salacious, but it is uncomfortable. The reliance and amount of retweets from the Russian embassy is striking.

It oozes pro-Russian sentiment and only retweets views and accounts that echo the narrative that Russia is not the aggressor.

 

We need to learn lessons

 

We desperately need to bring in new laws to ensure transparency around the many subgroups, ‘friends of’, and lobbying groups that exist.

While Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is undoubtedly a valid reason for a group that supports business and connections between Britain and Russia to disband, we must also consider that maybe knowingly or unknowingly, the group could have enabled dark actors and dark money to corrupt our political systems. If they have nothing to hide, the group should now turn over all documentation and information that it holds to sanction advisers and the intelligence services. Our democracy depends on it.

UK demonstrates world-beating indifference to Ukrainian refugees

UK demonstrates world-beating indifference to Ukrainian refugees

Mar 5, 2022 | Bylines, News

Many in the UK are experiencing a severe case of national shame at the appalling indifference and lack of action shown by our government, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson for Yorkshire Bylines.

When Ukrainian refugees arrived at Berlin station on Thursday, they were met by thousands of local residents offering help, support and comfort. The moving account of the generosity and compassion of the German people, and the German government, brought a tear to many an eye and stirred up a wide range of emotions. Not least, a severe case of national shame at the appalling indifference and lack of action shown by our own government. As if that indifference were not bad enough, insult is being added to injury by government claims that the UK is doing more than it is, and more than anyone else.

Misleading claims of UK action

Claims by Boris Johnson that the UK is world leading – at anything and everything – are nothing new. In fact, they are all too familiar. This latest, terrible crisis sadly is no exception. It’s yet another opportunity for government to gaslight, grandstand and distort reality. And, of course, to travel to foreign parts for the seemingly compulsory photo-ops, ideally in front of a row of tanks or military aircraft.

Despite claims that the “UK stands with the people of the Ukraine” and is “doing everything” it can, government actions do not speak louder than their words. Measures meant to penalise Russia, or its oligarchs, fall far short of what’s urgently required or what other countries are doing, or have been doing for years. It’s the pandemic all over again – too little action taken too late, and at odds with the rest of the world.

Refugees not welcome in the UK

Although recently ‘improved’, likely as a result of public and parliamentary pressure, the UK’s offer to Ukrainian refugees is pitiful. Where other countries have waived visa requirements, the UK has made the hoops smaller and the jumps higher.

The Ukraine Family Scheme allows applicants “to join family members or extend their stay in the UK”. Applications are subject to security checks, and in order to be to eligible, applicants must meet all the following criteria:

be applying to join or accompany your UK-based family member
be Ukrainian or an immediate family member of a Ukrainian national applying to the scheme
have been residing in Ukraine prior to 1 January 2022
Applications must be made online – not exactly easy when fleeing a war-torn country – and heaven help anyone who is ineligible.

Still, not to worry, I’m sure the news announced by the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, will prove an enormous relief to Ukrainians unfortunate enough to find themselves heading for Blighty. Shapps anounced that the UK is “making it easier for those fleeing conflict to travel to the UK”. It will no longer be necessary to take covid travel tests or to fill in passenger locator forms. So, only the complicated, limited eligibility visa application to worry about then. Phew!

A moral duty to act

The EU, by contrast, are welcoming victims of Russian aggression with open arms. An emergency plan will see Ukrainian refugees given the right to live and work in the EU for up to three years. Ukrainian citizens already have 90-day visa-free access, but a change in EU law will see their status secured after that three-month period expires.

“Protecting the people fleeing Putin’s bombs is not only an act of compassion in times of war”, said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, but it is “our moral duty as Europeans”.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss agreed that “we have a moral duty to support Ukrainians forced to live in fear by Putin’s invasion”. It’s a shame – no, it’s a scandal – that the government’s idea of what that support looks like seems to involve keeping them off our island, if at all possible.

The German example

For decades, many questioned how Hitler managed to gain such terrible power in Germany in the 1930s. How did the German people let it happen, they asked? Why wasn’t he stopped? We are not asking those questions now. We have witnessed far-right extremism taking over in our own backyard, and it was easier than we ever thought possible.

Brexit, and the toxic, anti-immigrant rhetoric of our Go Home Office, have opened our eyes to exactly how the far-right can steer a country so dangerously off track. Yet our government still tries to claim the moral high ground as they hypocritically criticise others. At a time when it is more important than ever to work closely with our neighbours and allies, the UK is looking increasingly isolated and misguided.

Germans paid a high price for the sins of the past, but they learned valuable lessons, which they grasped with both hands. Their attitude towards immigration has been to look at the many positives, not the negatives, and to do so with compassion and gusto.

The Germans have a special word with regard to immigration – ‘Willkommenskultur’. It means ‘welcoming culture’ and is a “German concept which designates firstly a positive attitude of politicians, businesses, educational institutions, sports clubs, civilians and institutions towards foreigners, including and often especially towards migrants”.

The UK don’t have a similar word, or a similar concept. The word for what they have in its place is unprintable.

The Conservative Party Common Sense Group: another sub-group with no common sense at all!

The Conservative Party Common Sense Group: another sub-group with no common sense at all!

Mar 5, 2022 | Bylines, News

The Conservatives like their sub-groups, and who doesn’t like a bit of common sense, right? These think tanks with catchy names give the impression of seriousness and expertise. Yet, when you get closer to the truth, their mission generally stands in stark opposition to what their names suggest, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton for Yorkshire Bylines.

 

In my previous article, I wrote about the ‘Net Zero Scrutiny Group’. If the group were transparent in their aims and objectives, they should be named ‘The Group Against Net Zero’. It turns out the Common Sense Group (CSG) is no different.

 

What does the Common Sense Group stand for?

You only have to read two paragraphs of their webpage to understand that this is just another Conservative group whose focus is on attacking liberal and compassionate thinking. It is a significant player in the so-called ‘war on wokeness’. They proudly display this quote from the Daily Express on their website.

Who are the CSG?

The group is chaired by Rt Hon Sir John Hayes CBE MP and reportedly has around 70 members, though there is no comprehensive list available.

In 2020, a Telegraph letter signed by Sir John Hayes, Lord Lilley, Sir Edward Leigh MP, Sally-Ann Hart MP, Tom Hunt MP, Imran Khan MP, and 22 others, suggested that the CSG had been formed to, “speak for the silent majority voters tired of being patronised by elitist bourgeois liberals”.

They concluded their letter with this:

“History must neither be sanitised nor rewritten to suit ‘snowflake’ preoccupations. A clique of powerful, privileged liberals must not be allowed to rewrite history in their image.”

The preface

It is impossible (in one article) to cover the scope of the topics that the CSG discuss, but their downloadable book Conservative Thinking for a Post-Liberal Age, written by Sir John Hayes, gives you a fair idea of what to expect. There are some small areas of reasonable policy thinking but in the main it makes for some worrying and depressing reading.

The manifesto is full of the tropes we are used to hearing from ultra-conservatives as they desperately flay against the inevitable changing demographics of our world. Hayes talks of:

“Extreme cultural and political groups, Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, Kill the Bill et al. subversives fuelled by ignorance and an arrogant determination to erase the past and dictate the future.”

 

On the Conservatives taking Red Wall seats, he states:

“Expectation of our voters is for a government that, at last, might reflect the will of the people, rather than pandering to the peculiar preoccupations of the liberal elite and the distorted priorities of left-wing activists”.

As with other sub-groups like the ERG, the Covid Recovery Group, and the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, they take their own, often antiquated views and skew them to elicit responses to maintain and feed the culture war necessary for distraction. Look at them, not us. They use war-like rhetoric to inflame their target base:

“The Battle for Britain has begun; it must be won by those who, inspired by the people’s will, stand for the common good in the national interest.”

That ‘national interest’, by the way, is THEIR self-interests. Interests propped up by the right-wing media and hard-right antagonists but certainly not by the majority of the British public.

Their ‘manifesto’

Many of their thoughts and ideas in the book are predictable. There is an all too often seen attack on human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, which has existed since 1953 and whose jurisdiction covers 47 nations.

Sir John Hayes talks of the liberal elite and intolerant ‘woke’ dogma of Black Lives Matter, transgender rights activists, advocates of ‘decolonisation’, and critics of ‘white privilege’, describing them all as ‘woke warriors’. He calls Extinction Rebellion extremists, and attacks institutions and multinational businesses like Starbucks and the National Trust for daring to educate its members on slavery ties to some of its properties.

At the end of 2020, the National Trust added Churchill’s home in Chartwell to the list of properties with links to colonialism and slavery. Was this ‘rewriting history’ as the CSG claimed? Or was it an attempt by the conservation charity to point out Churchill’s role in the 1943 Bengal Famine and his prominent role in the British Empire?

‘What is Wokeism and How Can it be Defeated?’

Gareth Bacon MP writes a chapter that exhibits a deep fear of change, a craving for bygone times when Britain and the white man held dominance over the world.

He suggests that British heritage is ‘under direct assault’ and that people are losing sight of what it means to be British. He questions why the empire is ‘no longer seen as a modernising, civilising force’, and why a picture has been painted of imperialism as racist and invasive.

At least he got the second part of that point correct. Naturally, humans want to learn from history and evolve to a future where our greatness does not lie in the oppression of others. That is humanity.

History is far from static, and our thoughts and ideas change; society is reflective of history. If our thought didn’t evolve, we would be stuck in times where women could not work, vote, or hold mortgages, where being gay was illegal, and where slavery was acceptable.

Criticism and investigation into the reality of colonisation is becoming more widespread outside of academic circles. Colonisation was certainly not a great force of good; under our nations’ flags, our ancestors, driven mainly by greed and power, committed atrocities. We ravaged the wealth of other countries, destroyed an unknown amount of cultures, and enforced our religion on indigenous people worldwide.

It is difficult to judge and quantify what richness and diversity the world lost through colonialism, but what is undeniable is that European imperialism (including British) constructed and facilitated structural, institutional racism, which still exists today.

‘Conservative Case for Media Reform’

Our media is not only under siege by the left but dominated by the left, apparently. James Sunderland MP and David Maddox, in the chapter entitled ‘Conservative Case for Media Reform’, include a quote from Enoch Powell, known for his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, on how mass media coverage shapes the cultural environment in which we all live.

It was reported that of all liberal democracies, Britain had the most right-wing media. The BBC is now under an increasingly overt attack from the right, as evidenced by recent appointments, including Tim Davie, former Goldman Sachs associate. There have also been threats from government officials themselves to remove Channel 4’s licence.

Sunderland and Maddox call on Conservatives to be the “Samson of the 21st-century, understanding that the two pillars holding up the temple of wokeness are the broadcast media and internet giants”.

Their five-step plan to destroy ‘wokeness’ is as follows:

  • Break up the BBC
  • End the need for impartiality
  • Treat social media as publishers and make them pay
  • Repeal hate speech laws
  • Ensure quality and transparency
  • While some may seem logical, i.e. ensuring quality, when you read more deeply, they are all a ploy to ensure right-wing thinking dominates media and society.

What is the Common Sense Group all about?

Fundamentally, CSG members are deeply insecure and fearful. A world where equal opportunities apply regardless of origin, colour, sex, or gender, disrupts their worldview. After all, that means a lot more competition from those who traditionally would not have competed.

It is the realisation that society is changing rapidly. For generations, those who held power have come from ‘their country’, looked like them, spoke like them, and come from the same social classes.

They are an almost homogenous group. All would likely say they accept those who are different, but their words and actions show that such commitment comes with a caveat; that those who are different will be tolerated, as long as they remember their place, don’t speak up, and certainly don’t challenge power structure that keeps them in place.

It’s not common sense at all; it’s nonsense.