#Zac Goldsmith MP | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

uk-news-talking-politics · 5 years

Text

The Brecon tactic: How progressive parties can get together to stop Brexit

By Naomi Smith

There's a warning over the Brecon Beacons – those handsome hunks of sandstone that take their name from the signal fires lit on those ancient mountains to warn of impending attack.

The present warning is aimed at politicians, particularly but not exclusively those contesting the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election.

Plaid Cymru, the Greens and Change UK have stepped aside in the contest to give the Lib Dems the best possible chance of winning this traditionally marginal seat back from the Conservatives.

Why? The reason, like everything these days, is of course Brexit. With the government on a majority of just three, including their DUP partners, taking this seat from the Conservatives could prove crucial for the Remain alliance in stopping Brexit altogether.

Pro-Brexit voters will be spoilt for choice: the incumbent MP and Conservative representative Christopher Davies, who was recently found guilty over false expenses, is standing, along with the Brexit party and Ukip. Pro-European voters will congregate around the Lib Dem candidate, Jane Dodds. Labour will likely try to straddle the two groups but it's not a seat they can realistically grab. The last time the constituency elected a Labour MP was 1970.

Leaders of the anti-Brexit parties have all suggested that this Brecon alliance could be repeated in the event of a general election or a new Brexit referendum.

This should leave Conservative and Labour politicians quaking in their hiking boots. After three years of division, in-party fighting and a humiliating lack of progress, the big two parties are about to learn the hard way that the world of politics is changing, and changing quickly. A positive alliance between smaller parties now presents a substantial challenge to both Labour and Conservative MPs.

Conservatives may respond with their own lashed-together version of an alliance with Nigel Farage, although in truth he'd be the puppet-master rather than a partner.

Alliances come in many different flavours. They range from a basic sense of cooperation to a full scale pre-negotiated coalition, as happened in the early 1980s between the SDP and Liberal party. In 1997, an electoral pact was formed between the Lib Dems and Labour when both stood aside in the Tatton by-election so independent candidate Martin Bell could defeat the sleaze-ridden Conservative MP Neil Hamilton.

Despite examples of successful cross-party work, some tribalists remain resistant to the approach, even at the expense of their own party's electoral success. To assuage the concerns of sceptics, here are five partnerships, of varying degrees of cooperation, to illustrate the ways parties can work together for the greater good.

The non-aggression pact

The parties all field candidates, but only one is fighting - and spending money - for victory. This can be easier for activists to swallow than more restrictive alliances. Think of the 1997 Lib-Lab pact. Campaign directors swapped information including target lists and, while still fiercely competing in seats where both were in contention, they didn't focus resources in each other's marginals with the Tories. In 1997, a spinner leaked to the Mirror newspaper a list of 22 seats where Labour voters would be urged to back the Lib Dems in a bid to defeat the Conservatives. The plan worked in 20 of those seats. The local cluster Remember the 2016 Richmond Park by-election? The Greens stood down and Labour didn’t channel its resources, allowing the Lib Dem candidate Sarah Olney to take the seat from incumbent Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith. This bottom-up approach can help work around national leadership intransigence and deliver a desired result via a local level alliance. Tactical voting In areas where parties have not managed to negotiate a formal pact, the electorate can still swing a result by voting not for their first preference of candidate, but for the candidate best placed to prevent an undesirable outcome. The simple pledge Individual candidates can sign a pledge - for instance promising to back Remain in a final say referendum - to inform a tactical vote A joint policy commitment

Without standing aside, this allows parties to increase their chances of achieving particular policy outcomes, such as guaranteeing a vote on Brexit.

There’s something important to bear in mind here. These are all positive alliances. Parties get involved because they want to help one another achieve particular goals. They need to be informed by the most up-to-date polling, but not driven entirely by it. The incentives for smaller parties to join come in the form of real reciprocation and the chance for them to increase their parliamentary clout.

It is also important to note that, in order to achieve a stop-Brexit majority in parliament, joint working may only be required in a third of the seats up for grabs, or perhaps even fewer. Beware partnerships that appear to be positive alliances but are actually built on mutual distrust or worse. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, we are looking at you.

The Brecon and Radnorshire is an important first step. Now we see if the progressive parties of British politics can work together in a way that could fundamentally change the Brexit debate.

#brexit

3 notes · View notes

sexydeathparty · 2 years

Text

Tory MP Slapped Down After He Calls For All Russians In Britain To Be 'Sent Home'

A Tory MP sparked fury today after he called for all Russians living in the UK to be expelled.

North Thanet MP Sir Roger Gale was hit with a barrage of criticism online after he told a radio show that everyone with a Russian passport should be expelled.

The veteran MP even suggested one of his own constituents - who he described as “reputable” - should be expelled in order to send a message to Putin.

Sir Roger told talkRADIO: “The prime minister said last week that we shouldn’t visit the sins of parents upon their children.

“Well, I’m sorry, my view is that we should send a very clear message and rescind all the visas for Russian citizens currently extant in the United Kingdom and send everybody home.”

However, environment minister and Tory peer Zac Goldsmith hit back, saying: “There are 70,000 Russians in the UK.

“Our quarrel is not with them or with Russian people - it is with Putin and his cronies.

“Too many influential people are choosing to conflate the two. It is both unfair and dangerous, and it must stop.”

Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale says all Russians living in Britain must be sent home. "We've got to send a very harsh message through the Russian people to Putin."@petercardwell | @SirRogerGale#UkraineRussiaWarpic.twitter.com/mrWproAjcA

— talkRADIO (@talkRADIO) February 27, 2022

Some Twitter users said there was “no justification” for attacking all Russians for the actions of Putin, with one adding: “Ordinary Russians living in the UK are not complicit in the invasion of Ukraine and so do not need to be punished for it.”

Others described his comments as “dangerous”, “hysterical” and “incredibly stupid”.

Sir Roger was pressed on the radio show over whether he meant “every Russian” should be expelled and replied: “Well, there’s going to be some collateral damage because there are good, honest and decent Russians of course here working in all sorts of spheres.

“I’ve got a constituent who’s working in IT here and I have no reason to suppose that he’s anything other than reputable.”

Asked why his constituent should be sent back to Russia, he replied: “Because we can’t pick and choose. Because what we’ve got to do, I’m afraid, is send a very harsh message through the Russian people to Putin.

“The only way this message is going to get through is when and it may seem facile to say ‘well we’re not going to play football there and we’re not going to take part in the Eurovision Song Contest’ but for the ordinary Russian these things do actually matter…”

Pressed on whether he thought every person with a Russian passport should be expelled from the UK: “I think pretty much yes. I’m afraid so.”

Related...

Vladimir Putin Puts Russia's Nuclear Deterrent Forces On High Alert Over Tensions With West

Liz Truss Says She Backs Brits Who Want To Fight In Ukrainian Resistance

Ukraine Crisis Will Become 'Very Bloody' And Last For Years, UK Warns

Former Tory Cabinet Members Are Calling On Priti Patel To Let Ukrainian Refugees Settle In The UK

from HuffPost UK - Athena2 - All Entries (Public) https://ift.tt/bgH3izm via IFTTT

#IFTTT #HuffPost UK - Athena2 - All Entries (Public)

0 notes

informnewsworldwide · 2 years

Text

Boris Johnson enjoyed free holiday thanks to defeated MP Zac Goldsmith who was made a peer

The prime minister is also being accused of "staggering hypocrisy" after he reportedly used a private jet to fly home from the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow, to attend a London dinner with another of his peer appointees.

In an update to his register of interests, it has been confirmed that the PM stayed at a holiday home of Lord Zac Goldsmith's family in southern Spain last month 'free of charge'.

Lord Goldsmith is a government minister who was Conservative MP for Richmond Park before he lost his seat at the 2019 general election.

Despite the rejection by voters in the south west London constituency, Mr Johnson subsequently made Lord Goldsmith a Tory peer in the House of Lords so he could keep his ministerial role.

Last month, the prime minister was reported to have flown to Marbella with his wife, Carrie Johnson, and their son, Wilfred, for a holiday after delivering his keynote speech at the Conservative Party conference.

Photos were published of Mr Johnson painting at an easel while enjoying his break in the Spanish villa, which was reported to cost as much as £25,000 a week to rent.

Mrs Johnson is said to be a personal friend of Lord Goldsmith, who she worked for in her first job in politics.

The updated entry in Mr Johnson's register of interests stated: "The prime minister has had a longstanding personal friendship with the Goldsmith family and, in that capacity, in October 2021, stayed in a holiday home in southern Spain, which was provided free of charge by the Goldsmiths.

"Given Lord Goldsmith is a Minister of the Crown, the arrangement has accordingly been declared."

#politics #borisjohnson #conservatives #ukpolitics #news #torysleaze #torypeers #prime minister #carriejohnson #zacgoldsmith #cop26 climate summit in glasgow: live updates #cop26 summit

1 note · View note

whatiswildness · 4 years

Text

Summary Response to England Tree Strategy Consultation

Rewilding Britain, along with a raft of other environmental organisations including The Wildlife Trusts, The Woodland Trust and The National Trust are callling for increased woodland cover in England. Between them these organisations have over 6 million members. Pledges to increase tree cover were also popular among voters at the last general election. The Committee on Climate Change has recently made the case for increases in tree cover and recent statements from politicians have been positive, particularly from The Rt Hon George Eustice MP and The Rt Hon Lord Zac Goldsmith. To be taken seriously as a world leader in tackling climate change, the UK must lead not only on renewable energy but also on landuse reform to protect, enhance and expand woodland. England’s tree cover now stands at just 10% against a European average of 38%.

There appears to be a consensus that the time is right to action the commitments made to improving nature and acknowledge the risks if we do not - losing yet more wildlife and woodland on an island already highly degraded in this respect. The question now is how exactly woodland cover should be increased so that it works for wildlife and people. Current proposals are not ambitious enough and overly complex.

Rewilding Britain have provided ample evidence in support of natural regeneration. It can be significantly less expensive than planting trees. The ecosystems that develop in this more organic way are more resilient, reduce flood risk, support pollinators, replenish soils, boost vulnerable species, offer variety and interest for people visiting sites and have a favourable net carbon impact when compared to energy-intensive planting. With natural regeneration, plastic tree guards are unnecessary and therefore do not need to be removed years down the line, ongoing maintenance too, or 'thinning' except for cutting paths for visitors where appropriate.

Planting trees does have value for engaging volunteers and making them feel that they have contributed and invested in the land but paying contractors to plant the majority of new woodland greatly limits what can be achieved. The speed at which new woodland will take hold on its own will vary but much of England, particularly the lowlands, is surprisingly fecund in this respect. The time frame would not be significantly different compared to planting in some areas.

In pushing for natural regeneration, we must open up our notion of what constitutes "woodland". Scrub (e.g. thorn, elder and bramble) is valuable. It is not simply the poorer underdeveloped precursor to closed canopy woodland. Our inherited mixed coniferous/deciduous woodland is also valuable, and the removal of interspersed conifers is another unnecessary expense based on overly rigid concepts of nativeness and nature - one only has to look to the wildlife-rich mixed forests across much of Europe.

In developing its new Tree Strategy, England has the opportunity to greatly reduce the operational costs of woodland creation and maintenance and improve outcomes. It must use those savings not only to provide additional landowner incentives but to invest in education around the value of natural regeneration and low management approaches - this includes education of forestry professionals, farmers, estate managers and even conservationists, in addition to the wider public.

With woodland creation simplified in this way with minimal capital required, incentives can be redeployed towards increasing the total area of land under woodland - or rather wildland - creation schemes by offering competitive acreage payments.

0 notes

anewsbuddy · 4 years

Photo

Minister throws a lifeline to Chester Zoo In a Zoom meeting with Cheshire Conservative MPs on Sunday morning, Zac Goldsmith promised the Government would do ‘whatever it takes’ to ensure Chester Zoo stays open.

0 notes

politiciansandanimals · 7 years

Photo

Zac Goldsmith with a dog.

#Zac Goldsmith #Dogs #UK MPs

2 notes · View notes

getpoliticaluk · 4 years

Text

Look how close it is in some places:

Stirling - Historically a Tory-Labour marginal, the SNP now has the best chance of overturning a Conservative majority of just 148 VOTE SNP

Chipping Barnet - Pro-Brexit Theresa Villiers is defending a 353 majority in a seat that voted Remain VOTE LABOUR

Loughborough - The local student vote could threaten a 4,000 majority; the former MP, Nicky Morgan, is not standing VOTE LABOUR

Richmond Park - Zac Goldsmith’s 45-vote majority is vulnerable to the former local Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney VOTE LIB DEM

Uxbridge and South Ruislip - Boris Johnson’s 5,000 majority could just be vulnerable to a large Labour vote by Brunel University students VOTE LABOUR

Watford - Labour has the best chance of retaking the seat, despite a Lib Dem challenge, to overturn a 2,000 Tory majority VOTE LABOUR

Every vote counts, it is vital that you vote if you are able to, and please encourage others to vote!

Compare tactical voting sites here and find out how best to vote the tories out:

https://tactical.vote/compare

#voting #british politics #ge2019 #boris johnson #vote #politics #uk politics #tories out #general election uk #england #scotland #northern ireland #wales

4 notes · View notes

seekingthetruth · 4 years

Text

The Subjugation of Democracy

It has been just over two weeks now since the general election. I have calmed down (slightly) but the rant must continue. The people have voted and democracy is under threat.

The government claims it has a “stonking” mandate and is branding itself as the “people’s government” whereas the reality is that a minority of the population voted for this government. Subversion of true democracy has been going on for years with our adversarial two-party system bolstered by the antiquated “first past the post” electoral system. Both of the major parties historically have had a vested interested in perpetuating this system but it always results in a parliament which is not truly representative of the public and which disenfranchises large groups of people who choose to vote for the smaller parties.

So it is that the current Tory government holds 56% of the seats in parliament, with a majority of 80 BUT only received 45% of the public vote. Government of the majority by a minority is not true democracy.

What is more worrying though is the explicit threat to our democracy expressed in the Tory manifesto which pledges to curtail the checks and balances on government that are currently in place. We are seeing today the rise of right-wing populism which can be compared to the rise of fascism in 1930s Germany.

In previous posts I have looked at two points of similarity common to both periods - extreme jingoistic nationalism and austerity. This post looks at the third point of similarity - what I call THE SUBJUGATION OF DEMOCRACY.

There is also bizarrely a spooky coincidence - the number 48.

The Rise of Fascism - Article 48

After the First World War Germany was re-shaped into a federal republic comprising a number of states. This was the Weimar Republic and was governed by the Weimar Constitution which attempted to combine aspects of presidential and parliamentary systems with a commitment to social justice. The intent was admirable but it contained one fatal flaw which ultimately enabled the rise of the Nazi party and the Third Reich - this was “Article 48” which gave the president emergency powers.

The critical paragraph in Article 48 is:

“In case public safety is seriously threatened or disturbed, the Reich President may take the measures necessary to reestablish law and order, if necessary using armed force. In the pursuit of this aim he may suspend the civil rights described in articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 154, partially or entirely.”

Whilst some form of emergency powers are probably necessary within a Constitution a problem arises if there are insufficient checks and balances which could lead to abuse of those powers. This is of course what happened in Germany.

The rot started to set in in 1930 when Chancellor Heinrich Bruning was faced with combatting the economic crisis caused by the Great Depression. The actions he took were extremely unpopular and he was forced to invoke a series of emergency measures through Article 48 which eventually led to his cabinet’s resignation in 1932. Adolf Hitler grabbed the opportunity to become Chancellor in 1933 and Bruning fled Germany in 1934 fearing arrest in the new Nazi regime.

Whilst Article 48 brought about Bruning’s downfall, Hitler seemed to be far more canny in exploiting its weakness to further the rise of the Nazi party. When he was elected Chancellor he didn’t actually have a majority in the Reichstag (parliament) so he was forced to call elections in March 1933. Shortly before the election date the Houses of Parliament in Berlin were severely damaged by fire. The Nazi party immediately claimed that this was the first step of a Communist revolution and used the fire as a pretext for invoking Article 48 through the “Reichstag Fire Decree”, officially known, ironically, as the “Presidential Decree for the Protection of People and State”.

This decree gave the Nazi party incredible powers:

“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

Shortly afterwards Hitler also pushed through the”Enabling Act”, officially known as the “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich”. This act officially recognized Hitler as Germany’s dictator and abolished democracy.

The Rise of Right-Wing Populism - Page 48

The Tory manifesto specifically sets out to enshrine in law measures to reduce the accountability of government to the people through their representatives in Parliament and through the Supreme Court.

Ironically the section is entitled “Protect our Democracy” and is laid out largely on page 48 of the manifesto. The justification for the proposed legislation is in the opening paragraph:

“The failure of Parliament to deliver Brexit – the way so many MPs have devoted themselves to thwarting the democratic decision of the British people in the 2016 referendum – has opened up a destabilising and potentially extremely damaging rift between politicians and people.”

Of special relevance is the following:

“After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people. The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical. We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government. We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates.”

The wording sounds innocuous, as did Article 48, but it refers to all the checks and balances that are in place to allow proper oversight of what the government was trying to push through with Brexit. Boris Johnson was personally thwarted for breaching the law and the lawful right of Parliament (who represent the people) in challenging the government. Remember that he illegally prorogued parliament (i.e. shut it down) for five weeks in an attempt to prevent them from effectively challenging his proposed Brexit legislation.

The Tory manifesto is laying virtually the same groundwork as the Enabling Act in Germany in 1933. Remember that that Act was officially entitled “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich” which has an uncannily similar ring to the Tory manifesto’s “a destabilising and potentially extremely damaging rift between politicians and people”.

No legislation has yet been enacted but drawing lessons from history would suggest we need to keep a very close watch on how the legislation unfolds. The historic comparison could lead to:

The Tories turning the UK into the equivalent of a dictatorship by:

Imposing indefinite Conservative government. The manifesto says “We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action”; and as Johnson said after the Queen’s speech: “This is not a programme for one year or one parliament – it is a blueprint for the future of Britain”

Ensuring the courts cannot stop the government from breaking the law. “We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.”

Removing our right to protest and using the police and armed forces to enforce that. “We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government,”

Signs of things to come

Obviously the above is speculation but already there are signs of things to come:

1. Two former conservative MPs, Nicky Morgan and Zac Goldsmith, have been rewarded with peerages and appointed members of the Cabinet. So we now have non-elected people being members of this government - clearly not a people’s government.

2. The Brexit Withdrawal Bill which has just been passed in parliament has been amended to remove the right of MPs to have oversight over or challenge the terms of the Brexit deal - removing one of the balancing controls over government.

3. Boris Johnson has declared that all-out strikes on public transport will be made illegal under a new Conservative administration following - the first removal of right to protest?

4. The chief executive of the Best for Britain campaign, Naomi Smith, said the plans “should set alarm bells ringing for anyone who believes that parliament must be able to act as a brake on a runaway government. We must be hyper-vigilant to any chipping away of the checks and balances that keep our democracy functioning. We have already seen that Johnson is prepared to bend the law to his will – further subversion by stealth cannot be allowed.”

5. Green Party MP Caroline Lucas warned: “Judicial independence is critical to our democracy. The prime minister has already fallen foul of the Supreme Court. So I find his proposed constitution, democracy and rights commission very worrying. There must be no attack on our judiciary.”

6. Outgoing Supreme Court president Lady Hale – who famously ruled against Mr Johnson’s five-week prorogation of parliament while wearing a spider brooch – used her recent retirement speech to warn Mr Johnson against political appointment of senior judges - “Judges have not been appointed for party political reasons in this country since at least the Second World War. We do not want to turn into the Supreme Court of the United States – whether in powers or in process of appointment.”

Where is this leading?

In the 1930’s the Nazi party used a very simple slogan to unite thinking of the population: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer – One people, One nation, One leader. The slogan emphasized the absolute control of the party over almost every part of German society and culture, whilst the strong image of the “Leader” had an overriding appeal which overcame any normal level of trust in political leadership.

One people, one nation, one leader - do you see any similarity with the Tories’ “people’s government”, “one nation conservatism” and the stated intent to be ruling for at least 10 years with its implication of just “one leader”?

#fascismpopulismdemocracyonenation

0 notes