Antifrank looks at where the EU referendum will be won and lost

November 15th, 2015


Picture: The classic 90s game, Lemmings.

Referenda are odd affairs.  Two sides, both of which are passionately invested in the success or failure of the proposition, seek to woo disproportionate numbers of far less interested voters to their respective causes.  Votes are counted, not marked out of ten for enthusiasm.  Each side must resist the temptation to make arguments that fascinate those who are already-engaged but which make the barely engaged switch off.

Activists on both sides of the EU referendum debate must constantly remind themselves that they are unusual, both in being consumed by the subject and in having made their mind up already.  The average member of the public is just not that into it.

So with that in mind, what will the undecided be weighing when they decide how to vote in the referendum?  For a start, we need to get away from the idea of an identikit undecided voter.  Undecideds are far more heterogeneous than either Remnants or Leavers.  Strategies that will work with some voters will actively repel others.  The process will resemble a game of Lemmings, with some marching resolutely over a cliff even as others are obediently marching to the desired destination.  As with the computer game, the trick will be to get to the finishing line with sufficient numbers of lemmings following your instructions and not worrying too much about those who you’ve had to sacrifice.

Where is the battle going to be won and lost?  I have identified three central battlegrounds.

  1. The economy

The public will want to know whether the economy will be better or worse inside or outside the EU.  Here at least most voters are likely to have an aligned view of what they are looking for: few voters would be keen on the idea of impairing the national economy.

On this battleground Remain starts with a real advantage.  Even the Leave camp concedes that leaving the EU would require the renegotiation of the trading relationship.  It argues that the costs of EU membership outweigh the benefits of remaining.  The Leave camp is impeded because, inevitably, the terms of any renegotiation are at present unknown and would have at least some costs attached to them.  The public will naturally tend to a safety-first approach, all things being equal.

Numerous studies have been undertaken as to the possible effect on the UK economy of leaving the EU.  Open Europe has given what it describes as a realistic range of between a 0.8% permanent loss to GDP in 2030 and a 0.6% permanent gain in GDP in 2030.  Other estimates are available to be selected according to personal taste.  All estimates will be commemorative rather than definitive.

The two campaigns will spend ages talking about the economic detail.  By and large, the public will tune this out.  Their eyes will glaze over as the two sides discuss the per capita contribution that Norway makes or the trade terms that South Korea enjoys with the EU.  No minds will be changed by this fruitless endeavour.

In practice this battle is most likely to end either as a no score draw (most members of the public hate thinking about economics, even though they know it’s important) or on balance the public will form a vague sense that leaving the EU would be bad for Britain’s economy.  The outcome of this battleground will probably depend on completely unrelated aspects of the debate, with most members of the public backfilling their view of the economics from their conclusions elsewhere (just as much of the Scottish electorate did in their independence referendum).

  1. Relationships with other countries

The public will be naturally more attuned to consider Britain’s place in the world.  This is a perennial subject of debate.  Here the public has a much more jumbled sense of what’s going on.  It doesn’t want to be ganged up on by all the other EU countries and see Britain forced to do things it doesn’t want to do.  But it doesn’t want to be shut out from decision-making.  It likes the idea of international co-operation in the abstract.  And it likes Britain doing lots of things and having lots of influence around the world.  Few members of the public have fully thought through which bits of this mix are most important to them.

The two campaigns will spend quite a bit of time talking about this area.  Is Norway a fax democracy?  What decisions of the ECJ is Britain stuck with?  How is Switzerland getting on with ignoring freedom of movement?  Can we trust the other EU member states to behave decently towards us?  Will that differ inside or outside the EU and if so how?

Once again, more heat than light will be generated.  Much of the discussion so far undertaken on this subject has come from a right of centre perspective.  That is a major mistake.  Something like half of the electorate thinks of itself as dressing to the political left.  Internationalists will not be much interested either in splendid isolation or in Britain’s ability to mount effective military actions.  They will be much more concerned about social Europe and TTIP.  Both referendum campaigns should consider how to reach these voters.

  1. National identity

Above all, the decision about whether to stay in the EU or leave it is a decision about who we are as a nation.  The Leave campaign has framed much of the discussion on this around immigration, noting that it is rated the most pressing problem facing Britain right now, playing on the sense that only by leaving the EU can Britain regain control of its borders.

National identity is not just about immigration, however.  Many voters will feel uncomfortable with the idea of Britain retreating to introspection.  They will want to be persuaded that Britain will be playing a full part internationally and not becoming a backwater.  Many voters will be anxious to ensure that Britain does not end up a country that things are done to rather than one that takes a lead in doing things.

Left of centre voters will want to be sure that their vote will enable Britain to become more progressive, or at the very least not regress towards reactionary politics.  Different left of centre voters, of course, may have different views about whether economic progressiveness or social progressiveness is more important.

None of these concerns is intrinsically owned by either Remain or Leave.  Both camps will need to think about how they will construct a referendum-winning coalition from the various permutations open to them.

Both sides, it follows, would benefit by putting forward a positive view of Britain in the future as well as knocking the future for Britain offered by their opponents.  I see no evidence that either has any intention of starting work on a positive case any time soon.  This is not just a great pity, it is a serious mistake.

To date, Leave has sought to portray Remain as representing anti-democratic duplicitousness in hock to the EU hierarchy.  In return, Remain has sought to give the impression that Leave is run by aggressive and erratic mavericks and that all the sensible people are backing Remain.

Both attacks will be believed unless one or the other is obviously untrue.  If the public have to choose between dishonest bureaucrats and angry nutters, they will probably with regret choose the dishonest bureaucrats.  Tony Blair’s surname was mangled into Bliar by his more juvenile opponents. It didn’t stop him winning three elections.

So the Leave camp have an urgent problem to fix: they need to find some boring politicians with an impeccable reputation for competence.  If recruited, Boris Johnson wouldn’t help on this front.  Theresa May or Philip Hammond would, because they would make the public look again at what a post-Leave Britain would look like.

So if I were on the Leave campaign, right now I would be putting a lot of effort into recruiting Theresa May to be the campaign leader.  I can’t see how Leave can get guiding enough lemmings to reach Norway without a politician of that style and stature at the helm.



Another reason why Cameron shouldn’t hold the referendum next June

November 15th, 2015

Was this the match that lost the 1970 election for Harold Wilson and ultimately ushered us into the European Community?

Most of the country will be focussing on the football next June.

Since the second world war, the greatest general election upset was not 2015 nor 1992, but Harold Wilson’s surprise loss in 1970. Most of the polls and the commentariat expected Labour to win a majority comfortably yet the Ted Heath’s Tories won a majority. Some have attributed Labour’s defeat in part to England’s football team losing their World Cup quarter final to West Germany a few days prior to election day. 

Wilson categorically pooh-poohed any [World Cup] connection – “governance of a country has nothing to do with a study of its football fixtures” – but years later in his memoirs Denis Healey, then defence minister and later chancellor, let slip that as early as that April the Premier had called a strategy meeting at Chequers “in which Harold asked us to consider whether the government would suffer if the England footballers were defeated on the eve of polling day?” Even more explicit in his published reflections of the period was serious football fan (Grimsby Town) Tony Crosland, then local government minister and later foreign secretary, who blamed the defeat “on a mix of party complacency and the disgruntled Match of the Day millions”.

Nor was Wilson’s minister of sport, former League referee Denis Howell, in any doubt. “The moment goalkeeper Bonetti made his third and final hash of it on the Sunday, everything simultaneously began to go wrong for Labour for the following Thursday,” he wrote in his retirement memoir all of 20 years later.

Scotland’s determination to show they are unlike the other home nations also extends to their football team who are the only home nation not to qualify for next year’s European Championship, so in theory a substantial number of voters in the United Kingdom shall be interested in the football next summer especially amongst the Welsh and Northern Irish who qualified for an international tournament for the first time in fifty-eight and thirty years respectively.

In 1970 it was said the general election contest was an “unpopularity” contest with the public showing a much keener interest in the England football team’s attempts to win the 1970 World Cup in Mexico. You can see that also applying to the EU referendum. The side that is trailing in the polling might not be able to reverse that position if the majority of the country’s focus is elsewhere. As we saw with the Scottish Independence referendum the last few weeks are critical to both campaigns.

If most of the country’s focus and attention is on the football this might also have an impact on turnout, my own hunch is the lower the turnout the better it is for Leave. If Cameron chooses to hold the referendum next June, to paraphrase an old maxim, Cameron might find history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as Farage. Cameron should hold it when he has the nation’s full attention on the referendum which will maximise the “Cameron premium” that many think will be crucial in this referendum. 



After the second Democratic Party debate Clinton remains the overwhelming favourite to get the nomination

November 15th, 2015

Last night we had the second Democratic Party Presidential debate and the tragic events of Paris were discussed. Clinton’s past record came under scrutiny, first her support for the 2003 Iraq War (which Sanders said helped the rise of ISIS) and her tenure as Secretary of State. She came through all of this largely unscathed. Where she made a mistake was when the issue of the large donations she’s received from Wall Street, she said it was down to the 9/11 attacks and her being the Senator for New York at the time.

My feeling is the only thing that will stop Hillary Clinton becoming the nominee will be if she is charged in relation her private email scandal. In the debate itself Bernie Sanders didn’t seem to think it had any potency, he said “We’ve gotten off Hillary’s emails. Good. Let’s go to the major issues facing America.” If ISIS and Foreign Affairs in general becomes a major issue in this primary cycle then this should favour Clinton and damage those anyone who doesn’t like a credible Commander in Chief.



Electoral pacts: the siren voice of destruction for Labour

November 14th, 2015


Q Nothing else would so effectively combine surrender with contempt for the electorate

Parties that do badly at elections should always reflect on why that was the case. It’s not an easy question to ask because almost certainly there’ll be tough answers, if the question’s answered honestly. In all probability, those answers will include ‘our campaign was ineffective’, ‘the public did not support our policies’, ‘we did not look credible as a government / force of opposition’, ‘our record in government is disadvantageous’, and the like. Such answers invite blame. One way to avoid that risk is to place the blame elsewhere: misled or selfish voters, rival parties ‘cheating’ (morally, if not in fact); above all, a ‘system’ rigged against them.

So rather than try to address the real causes of failure, parties or their supporters indulge in the distraction of trying to counter-rig the system in their favour. After all, correcting an existing bias must be fair mustn’t it? And it’s in that tradition that Nat Le Roux’s suggestion that Labour should form an anti-Tory electoral pact for 2020 is, like so many similar ideas before it, a grand self-deception.

There are so many errors of analysis in the prescription that it’s difficult to know where to start, but these are the main reasons why Labour would be mad to even consider it:

It’s a surrender

Trying to arranging a pact would be an explicit admission that Labour could not win on its own terms; not now and not in the foreseeable future. Le Roux in fact states this outright. It would be giving up on ever running the country again. It is to essentially write off Scotland and consign Scottish Labour to the bin (because if the SNP were to be given a free run there for Westminster, on Labour’s behalf – see below – then how on earth does Scottish Labour fight as relevant for Holyrood, or for Scottish councils?).

The split vote on the left is a myth

The idea of an anti-Tory majority is one of the biggest deceptions in British politics because it’s true. There is indeed an anti-Tory majority. There’s also an anti-Labour one, an anti-UKIP one, and anti-Lib Dem one, and so on. There’s nothing particularly special about the anti-Tory one. In fact, one of the reasons there is currently a majority Conservative government is that the anti-SNP majority was effectively mobilised in England. To lump UKIP, the Lib Dems and Greens in together as a ‘broad-left’ coalition is stretching terminology beyond usefulness. Can we really imagine Nigel Farage and Natalie Bennett sitting round the cabinet table together? One suspects that Le Roux knows this but can only make his case if he includes UKIP and their 3.9m votes within his stable. In reality, had the election been held under PR and resulted in the MPs in his table, Britain would in all probability now have a Con-UKIP coalition with DUP support. Even to include the Lib Dems in the column is pushing it, considering their record in coalition-forming.

Other parties would demand a high price

Le Roux also errs when he only considers the arguments just in terms of benefitting Labour or voting reform. To make a viable pact, Labour would have to gain the support of the other parties; parties which have their own priorities and independence. To make sacrificing that independence worthwhile, they would have to be given a very high price. The SNP could reasonably expect a free run in every seat they already hold, plus, presumably, something like devolving referendum powers and FFA to Holyrood. What would UKIP’s price be? A guaranteed referendum on the EU, perhaps, but also a clear run not only in seats where they challenge the Conservatives (of which there aren’t that many), and in a decent number where they were second to Labour. In other words, Labour would have to sacrifice perhaps a dozen or more seats to bring them on board. The challenges of bringing the Greens or Lib Dems into the camp might, if anything, be even higher.

Voters cannot be so easily corralled

And even if by some miracle, the party leaderships could agree on seat allocations (which notwithstanding everything else, the new boundaries would make even harder), the fact remains that voters are not there to be corralled like counters on a board. They have their own minds. One feature of British politics since WWII has been how Con and Lab votes have declined in parallel. When there were only two parties, they polled about 50% each, give or take floating voters. They now poll about 30-35% each. If Britain were to revert back to just two sides, what is to prevent those that don’t like the ‘rainbow coalition’ / ‘herd of cats in a thunderstorm’ from slipping over to the Blue side of the divide and restoring something approximating to parity? Former Lib Dem voters might prefer Con to, say, UKIP; former swing voters who went Labour might prefer Con to, say, Green; unionist Labour might go SCon rather than SNP; former Green voters might well abstain rather than back anyone else. And so on.

The precedent would be hard to break

Le Roux advocates the pact as a one-off but the reality is that once formed it would have a dynamic of its own. Scotland, as already mentioned, is something of a special case but if Labour did have to sacrifice perhaps another thirty seats elsewhere to bring in UKIP, the Lib Dems and Greens, then they would be writing off the chances of a future outright win under FPTP for ever. If they lost in 2020, the logic of maintaining the pact for 2025 would be just as strong, and Labour’s self-weakened baseline would make it all the more necessary. Of course, under the PR that Le Roux advocates, it would be far harder for anyone to win outright meaning that Labour would always be reliant on smaller parties.

What would the coalition be for?

It’s all very well fighting the Tories and opposing what they do in government but suppose the coalition did win. What would it do in power? How does it keep its component parts together and focussed on a common policy? What would education policy be? What about tax, borrowing and spending? International aid? Trident? Alternative medicine? And so on. Even if the parties could campaign independently, they couldn’t govern as such.

It takes Labour’s eye off the ball

In reality, such a coalition is an unobtainable objective. Furthermore, unless it all happens, none of it happens. To the extent that the logic fits together, it only works if all the anti-Tory parties join; if only two or three do, the smaller ones run the risk of seeing their ‘not the other two’ votes slip off to the independent minor parties (and this might happen even if all those named did join – there’d still be others). The dynamic would be that of the National Liberals.

However, for all the parties, there’s a bigger risk. All this navel-gazing would take their collective eyes from what the government’s doing. Simply trying to put the coalition together would involve so much arguing between leaderships, and between front-benches and back-benches, about what their own policy line was that the government would have policies enacted before the opposition had their amendments ready. Lib Dems of a certain age no doubt recall the many hours wasted deciding which of the Liberals and SDP should contest Little Maltingham South and which Little Maltingham North.

But Le Roux has ended in the wrong place because he’s started in the wrong place. His assumption that Labour can’t reach office without the support of the smaller parties is simply wrong: Labour has been in a worse state before and has come back. There is no reason it cannot do so again with the right personnel and policies. His argument is defeatist, it takes the electorate and other parties for granted, and misreads the dynamics of how politics works. Labour has made some bad decisions over the last decade but this strategy, were it adopted, would outweigh them all.

David Herdson


Time to face facts: The ‘War on Terror’ is here to stay and we need to take it seriously

November 14th, 2015

Friday’s attacks on Paris show that the terror threat remains. It’s time to fight back with every means at our disposal and take the fight to ISIS writes Keiran Pedley. But do we have the stomach for it?

I thought quite hard before writing this piece. I wasn’t sure whether or not it was too soon. To those that think it is I say fair enough. However, having had some (limited) time to think I wanted to post my initial reaction.

First things first, solidarity with France and with Parisians in particular. They are our friends, our brothers and sisters. With Paris but two hours from London by train, it is hard not to feel these attacks a little stronger than others. At the time of writing the shocking death toll is at least 128 according to the BBC. It will only rise. I am supposed to be going there with my wife and her parents in a couple of weeks. I would love to say that we definitely still will but I just don’t know yet.

What happens next?

Once the dust settles and life returns to ‘normal’ (as it must) thoughts will inevitably turn to what comes next and how the West responds. I say ‘the West’ because, as President Obama said with his typical eloquence on Friday night, this really is an attack on all of us rather than just France.

This is more than just rhetoric. We all know deep down that this will be London one day. It is just a matter of time. As someone that lives in London, works in Canary Wharf and regularly visits the capital’s pubs, restaurants and cinemas I feel this only too well. The point is that when we are attacked, we will expect the international community to unite in response and so we must unite with France today. It’s what friends do. But what does ‘unite’ mean? What should Britain actually do? There are no easy answers but three points immediately come to mind.

Stick together

The first point is that is we must stick together, with our allies and amongst ourselves as a country. People will use these attacks to further their own political causes and we must not let them. We must resist blaming the migrant crisis. After all, it is exactly this sort of violence (and worse) that these people are fleeing from in the first place. We must also resist suspicious glances at Muslims in general, 99.9% of whom deplore such actions as the Muslim Council of Britain has made clear. We must even resist the temptation to lapse into the lazy assumption that this is all Blair and Bush’s fault. Debates about EU borders and Jeremy Corbyn’s fitness for the office of Prime Minister can also wait too. Of course the media has a responsibility here in how it reports events but we won’t hold our breath there.

The long war

 Secondly, we have to prepare ourselves for the ‘long war’. By this I do not strictly mean military action alone but the less ‘Hollywood’ but arguably more practical steps we can take to fight back day to day. This will be hard. It means being simultaneously vigilant and empowering our security services to keep us safe without sacrificing our civil liberties or alienating vulnerable young Muslim men and women in the process. Nevertheless, we cannot fight this war with one hand tied behind our backs. We are going to have to accept some degree of empowering the security services in ways we might not like to keep us safe. After all, this is governments’ first responsibility. We are also going to have to look very closely at where ISIS gets it’s money from and follow those conversations wherever they lead.

Military action

And finally comes the hard bit. The military solution. I accept that this will upset many. Military action in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan has not made us safer people will cry and look at the human cost of those conflicts. I have a degree of sympathy here. Saddam’s fabled WMD are already etched into British political history and it is hard not to look at the death tolls (and injuries) in Iraq and Afghanistan without asking ‘is it all worth it’?

But here’s the thing we must remember. We didn’t create ISIS and we didn’t create Al Qaeda. They are the result of a poisonous ideology that pollutes one of the world great (peaceful) religions. To these people there will always be a reason to attack us. When we intervene our troops are on Muslim lands and must be expelled. When we don’t we are enslaving Muslims by propping up corrupt tyrants. We are the evil West and it is always our fault. Sadly many in the British left agree.

However, what has changed since Friday is that it is fast becoming clear that this isn’t going away. Any hope that if we simply ignore ISIS and withdraw from the Middle East then we will be safe seems hopelessly naive. Perhaps it always was but with every attack this becomes more and more painfully clear.

Britain has to get over its Iraq hangover and reengage with the world properly. Right now we feel very hesitant and half-hearted.  If, as I mention above, you accept Friday’s attacks are on all of us and that inaction doesn’t make the problem go away, then the West has to start contemplating the military option and Britain must play its part. This does not mean we can bomb our way to peace but that our response cannot include allowing ISIS to solidify its position in Syria and Iraq.

In all honesty Britain’s military policy in the Middle East is an embarrassment at the moment. Bombing ISIS in Iraq but not across the now largely artificial Iraqi / Syrian border makes no sense.  It is why we had to rely on the U.S. to deal with the so-called ‘Jihadi John’ this week. The Prime Minister is going to have to put intervention in Syria back on the table. If it requires a fight with (and within) Labour then so be it.

‘Boots on the ground’?

The problem is I have a feeling that bombing alone won’t be enough. We may end up facing the real prospect of British ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria and Iraq as part of a UN peace-keeping force (backed by NATO) designed to uphold any regional political settlement the international community arrives at. This won’t happen overnight – it may never happen at all – but if it does we must be prepared to play our part; however tough that might be for us to accept.

And perhaps here is the real question – do we have the stomach for it? We are fighting an inter-generational conflict that won’t be over any time soon. It will take significant resources, time and human cost before it is over. It is no wonder that we want to believe that if we look the other way then it won’t concern us, that if we ignore it then it will go away. However, events this weekend suggest such a belief is woefully misplaced. This fight is with us whether we like it or not. It is now up to us how we respond. There are no easy answers. There is no one solution. Cool heads must prevail but nothing must be off the table.

Keiran Pedley

You can follow Keiran at @keirapedley


Confidence, resilience, determination: the necessary response to the Paris attacks

November 14th, 2015


It is time to reaffirm and protect Europe’s values

The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens. In that duty, France failed yesterday, as all states do from time to time because that duty can never be held to be absolute. It is impossible to protect against every threat every time, and any attempt to do so would impinge so heavily on other rights and values that it would in itself be an attack on the citizens. Yet the French state still failed, grossly.

It could have been still worse. The suicide bombers at the Stade de France could have killed far more had they detonated their bombs while the crowd was leaving the stadium. Why they didn’t, we’ll probably never know. We should be thankful for small mercies at a time like this.

But while we must pause to remember the lives stolen by the terrorists, both in deaths yesterday and in futures immeasurably altered, governments and nations must also think about how to respond. There will be voices stating that the best response is to carry on as normal; that the aim of terrorism is to affect a change in behaviour, both from the people and from their leaders, and so the only legitimate response is not to allow that to happen. Those voices have a point but of itself their case is far too passive.

The attacks are an assault not just on people but on a way of life. The response must be in kind. As with any military action, the West’s core values must be defended and promoted; victory can only come when the assault on them from those who would expunge the liberty that shines pre-eminently in France’s ancient mission statement is vanquished.

One casualty of this war – and it is a war, as France’s former PM and potential presidential candidate, Francois Fillon has said – must be cultural relativism. The West’s values of liberty, of freedom of speech, thought and association, of secularity, of democracy are innately superior to any alternatives. We must not be afraid of saying so. To be afraid, either out of intimidation from those who would destroy them or from a cringing fear of causing offence, is halfway to losing them. That those values are not universally applicable in a practical sense is beside the point: it is not the West’s fault that not every country in the world is mature and civilized enough to handle them. Nor is it racist to say so: no truth ever is.

Simply reaffirming that is a start. It renews confidence in what we stand for. That for all the differences between Cameron and Corbyn, or unionists and nationalists in Scotland, or even between the DUP and Sinn Fein, we recognise a common basic framework for society; a framework that while not perfect and is in places contradictory, is still better than anything else.

But reaffirming it is not enough: warm words butter no parsnips. Nor is continuing to live out those values; continuing to speak out, to socialise at cafes, to go to football matches and concerts and the like. The West – and the U.S., Britain and France in particular – need to sort out their objectives in relation to Islamic terrorism and the Middle East, and then work from there to a strategy to deliver those objectives, and to the practical policies and resources necessary. At the moment, they are simply poking the hornets’ nest. One option is to withdraw away, in the hope that the terrorists will leave us alone, despite the knowledge that they despise us. The other is to deal with them properly. But as the West doesn’t have the capacity or will to do it directly then the only option is to work through, and in support of, middle men – and the only one available in Syria is Assad. A brutal dictatorship is better than either chaos or a militant and crusading theocracy. Supporting dictators has a long and ignoble history but in this case his primary interests mesh with ours and that is enough given the lack of alternatives. However, if the U.S. is not prepared to take that action then Britain and France, in the front line against attacks like this, must act with Russia instead to the same end.

Then there is the problem in Europe. Germany alone expects (or expected – this was before yesterday’s attacks) almost a million migrants to arrive in the last quarter of the year alone. These were people let into the continent, unchecked and largely unhindered, mostly from areas where crusading Islamists are active. The risks were self-evident even before Paris. Marine le Pen has no need to say ‘I told you so’. Yet still they come and still they will continue to unless the policy changes. So the policy must change, up to and including forced deportations if necessary, though whether Germany, with all its historic baggage, is prepared to go that far remains to be seen: after all, Germany isn’t the one under attack.

There will be more, much more, that needs to be done and the joy of living in a democracy is that we can and should debate vigorously what those actions are. France too has to engage in such a debate, not just in the heat of the aftermath of the attacks but in the 18 months through to the presidential and parliamentary elections in Spring 2017. For that presidential election, Le Pen is already polling about 30% of the first round vote and outpolls Hollande in a head-to-head second round (though little second-round polling seems to have happened for months). The mainstream politicians must act now, and act decisively. If they do not, they too, and what they claim to stand for, will be casualties.

David Herdson


Paris is just a 2 hour train ride from the centre of London

November 14th, 2015


Our thoughts tonight are simply with the people of Paris

November 13th, 2015