A New Place Of Exile

Richard Hutton

Category: Uncategorized

The Conservative Manifesto: a magnum opus of commonsense and gut-thinking.

I consider it my civic duty to declare the Conservative Party’s manifesto a masterwork of plain old-fashioned commonsense. Just the ticket for the twenty-first century.

If you won’t take my word for it, then simply pay heed to the many newspaper columnists saying much the same thing – and these are people who hold Britain’s most important opinions. It is high-time that the democratic will of the papers was respected, in my view.

Many have faulted the pledge to end free school-meals; but it is very sensible, actually. The best way to end hunger among children is to deprive them of access to food. This is just commonsense. I ask simply this: what use would free school meals be without a sound digestive system to begin with? Instead of relying on the nanny state, therefore, the young should learn about looking to themselves, first and foremost – cultivating sound digestive autonomy, by hunting and foraging in their school grounds. Not only would this instill self-sufficiency, but it would clamp-down on the propaganda underscoring many state-sponsored recipes – in the form of left-wing meals, such as green curry; or vegetarian anything.

The vow to require voter ID at ballot-boxes is a firm step in the right direction, likewise. Quite frankly, I do not see why my vote should only have as much value as a member of the hoi polloi’s. If anything this measure simply does not go far enough. I say that the voting age must be raised to 65 for men – and 67 for women, due to greater life expectancy; and should entail a property qualification – to ensure that the decent among us can have our say without interruption from life’s underachievers. I am of the mind that between elections, any attempt to be involved in democracy is undemocratic – or at the very least uncouth. It really is high time that people remembered their place.

This manifesto also provides a welcome assurance aimed at becalming those of us who have very real concerns about immigration. In fact, it is not long since I myself witnessed the devastating impact that the sweeping and rapid cultural change which foreign introductions have wrought upon this once benighted nation. In the aisles of my local supermarket, I encountered as stouthearted and sensible a chap as ever I met – who was no stranger to roughing it, having spent 30 years working in the cut-throat world of importing soft-furnishings. Yet there he stood, completely overcome – and weeping tears of bitter lament. Several other experienced men – retired officers from the merchant navy, all – were close by; rapt in a similar state of anguish. The cause of their distress? A bottle of Polish beer being sold in full view of the unsuspecting general public, on a shelf in the drinks section.

This whole incident was symptomatic of the horrors faced by the embattled British population; who comprise a mere 94% of the local community, these days. Thankfully, the Conservatives intend to put an end to this sort of thing, forthwith. Not before time.

On a related note, many people mocked our Prime Minister for saying “we want to lead the world in preventing Tourism”; but this manifesto proves that they were quite wrong. A loss of tourism is actually good for Britain, as it means there will be smaller crowds on piers; so there is less chance of people falling off them, into the sea. In today’s culture of health-and-safety gone mad, that is no minor blessing.

The true fulcrum of this manifesto, however, is social justice. For instance, many of Britain’s impoverished multi-millionaires are barely able to get by on their meager incomes as it is these days. Even the slightest increase of taxation among this downtrodden group could lead to a catastrophic decline in the ownership of second homes. Therefore, we can but be grateful for sensible measures on that score, contained in this manifesto. Besides, if the resultant shortfall in government revenue becomes noticeable, then we can simply make good any deficit through levying fines on people who are caught burning poppies.

There are various other things which are unlikely to be of general interest. So, to summarize:

Foreign policy – wars just happen; a bit like the weather. There’s simply nothing that can be done to prevent them.

Brexit – if EU countries sign up to a post-Brexit deal with Britain before the end of the year, they will receive a free pen or carriage clock.

Environment – green measures should be abolished; as it’s not like global warming is real.

Pensioners – winter fuel allowance should be abolished; as it’s not like winters are cold these days.

If there is one noteworthy absence from this manifesto’s pages, it is a pledge to make patriotism tax-deductible; but it is perhaps unreasonable to ask for too much.

In short, this progamme is a blueprint for a proud nation, and a bright future: one which will restore us to our present economic standing, after no more than several years of turbulence.

The Right-Minded View: The Labour Party’s Draft Manifesto.

The word on the doorstep, I hear, is that the Labour party’s manifesto is very good; and would materially improve the lives of most British people. This is a bad thing – and it behooves me to restore sound, right-thinking commonsense to proceedings.

From the outset, it seems Mr Corbyn’s “kinder politics” do not extend to private companies who want to exploit tax loopholes, while underpaying their employees – only to people who are visiting their relatives in hospital; along with the NHS staff who take care of them.

As for the broader issue of a well-funded health service – well, I ask simply this: do we need hospitals at all? All that health treatment does is cure illness; it certainly doesn’t teach people the virtues of self-reliance. Is it really beyond the pale to suggest that those who happen to be unwell simply take an aspirin, and find a quiet place to lie down; so as not to inconvenience those of us engaged in wealth-creating endeavours? You would think so, to judge by this manifesto.

Domestic policy is no better, I am afraid to say – Labour will take us back to the 1970’s, by reversing the privatisation of train services, which began in 1994; ending tuition fees, which were introduced in 1998; and returning the Post Office to public ownership, which it left in 2013 – to much financial merry-making among the government ministers who decided matters.

And strengthen employment rights? This fails to account for the fact that there is no need for employment rights in the first place; as business leaders are naturally altruistic sorts – who gladly pay the lads (and where applicable, lasses) as much as they can. This must surely suffice.

Improve wages? I say that this goes too far. Paying people to work simply degrades them: nobody wants to see their hours of labour being turned into an unseemly financial transaction. Certainly if my experience is anything to judge by, modern staff much prefer a well timed expression of praise to a salary-handout. The hard-working majority don’t care about job-security or well-paid employment. If people have done right by their employer and any stockholders, then that is all the reward they seek.

Eliminate child poverty? Why, it can be overcome very easily – by the simple expedient of a paper-round. This would have the added benefit of clamping down on the childhood obesity epidemic, which has spread throughout this country like wildfire due to the overbearing machinations of the nanny state.

End homelessness? There is of course no real homelessness in Britain – only relative homelessness. A person may be without a fixed abode, certainly; but many’s the rent-free doorway in this day and age – and while they may lack a permanent address, there is nothing to stop them inscribing their initials on a park bench, or a newly cemented paving slab. Would that hard-pressed taxpayers were so fortunate.

Improve opportunities for women? That sounds suspiciously like feminism to me. I have an acquaintance who is in the know about such things; and according to him feminism is entirely unnecessary in this day and age.

For example, women don’t need equal pay legislation – as they can simply work additional hours (and overtime during weekends) until they have earned as much as their male colleagues. What’s more, rather than worry unduly about reproductive rights, they might embrace a lifetime of celibacy instead.

Nor does the 1967 Abortion Act need to be extended to Northern Ireland. Women can simply receive one-to-one abortion counselling by virtue of communing with whichever Pope was most recently canonized.

Labour’s foreign policy proposals are equally superfluous. We don’t need state-intervention on the whole Brexit thing. Let our unelected betters decide things for us appropriately, I say; and the free-market will take care of the rest. Early indications are that this will revolve around placing British jam, tea, and biscuits – along with the odd game of cribbage – at the heart of the Brexit negotiations; before promptly instructing the rest of the world to stop mucking about, and put us back in charge once again.

Nor is there a need to be unduly cautious with the launching of nuclear weaponry – should any happen to go awry, and incinerate the odd continent, then we can simply conduct a Parliamentary inquiry – which discerns the mistakes which were made in good faith; and which of the correct lessons we have learned in the course of making them.

All told, Mr Corbyn’s Labour only offers voters free giveaways, such as liberties and rights – instead of sensible, pragmatic and carefully thought-through policies; such as tax-cuts for those of us who have made something of ourselves.

Also, there was a typing-error on page 2 of the manifesto – which invalidates the whole thing, in my view.

Labour have 3 key problems heading into this general election; and none of them are its leader. But there is a more important issue at stake: the prospect of ‘hard’ Brexit.

The Labour Party has three main difficulties confronting it, this general election:

1) Brexit put them in an impossible position. However they responded to the EU referendum, it would alienate many voters. This situation was borne-out when a number of loyal Shadow Cabinet Ministers had to step down over the Article 50 vote.

2) The coup/leadership-challenge of last year damaged the party badly in terms of wider public confidence.

3) Ukip’s dissipation has led to a significant number of voters boosting the Conservatives.
Contrary to the media narrative about Ukip’s electorate being former Labour-supporters, who became disaffected with Labour because it wasn’t sufficiently hostile towards migrants; the bulwark of Ukip’s vote-base were ex-conservatives.

A fourth point could be added to this list: namely, the way that the issue of Independence-Unionism has distorted the political landscape in Scotland; a former stronghold of Labour’s. Labour suffered heavy losses in the recent council elections – and predictably, it was cast as being Jeremy Corbyn’s fault. This demonstrates a particularly woeful misunderstanding – if not a willful one – of the political situation which currently applies in Scotland.

There is a simple question that could have been asked by any commentator venturing their tuppence-worth here: why did Labour lose so many seats to the Conservatives, rather than to the SNP? Or, for that matter, to Ukip – the supposed beneficiaries of disaffection among Labour voters; who were themselves wiped out in Scotland. Why did the much-vaunted ‘Lib Dem revival’ fail to materialise? Because it’s the same journalists and publications who have pushed these three narratives persistently during recent years, who suddenly decided that actually none of it applied. No, it was all Jeremy Corbyn’s fault. Presumably it was also his fault that Labour’s MPs were wiped out in Scotland during the General Election of 2015? He must also have been the cause of Scottish Labour losing its governing majority in 2007.

Either Labour have been in long-term continuous decline within Scotland, for over a decade; or their problems only materialised the moment Corbyn was elected to lead them – and began travelling back through time to wreak his havoc. It cannot be had both ways. It is fairly clear which reading is supported by evidence; and which one is not. Perhaps when people feel like being honest about any of this, they might begin to offer some constructive input into remedying it.

There is another issue which requires more immediate attention, however. Journalists have spent the past fortnight bemoaning an inability to ask questions of the Prime Minister; but they could question her nonetheless, by asking why we are having a General Election now, rather than in 2020. They could also ask why the Conservative Party’s election campaign is so idiosyncratic – why is it being advertised as ‘Theresa May’s team’? Why are the press events so tightly-controlled? Why do the public seminars exclude members of the general public?

The fulcrum of May’s campaign – which is being so circumspectly avoided via the choreographed electioneering – is that she intends to commit Britain to a position of ‘hard’ Brexit. Her administration lost two court cases in an attempt at preventing Article 50 being put before Parliament. When forced to do so by law, May again tried to ratify the most extreme version of Brexit – and failed once more; due to the amendments that Parliament secured. Sufficient evidence indicates that this is precisely what May intends to undertake – and it will require a strong Parliamentary majority to deliver it: not merely to overcome external opposition, but to override any internal rebellions. This course will not end well for Britain.

Brexit is not the only issue which matters in this General Election – but it will affect every area of public life and social policy; and thereby determine the future of our country for many years to come. It is important for honesty, now, about where we are headed, and why.

Somebody was rude to me on the internet!

Somebody was rude to me on the internet! One moment, I had published a trenchant critique of established wisdom, explaining how the popular consensus was wrong about a certain novel; and the next, I received a barrage of disrespectful replies from common members of the hoi polloi.

“Before reading Mr Swift’s novel, Gulliver’s Travels,” I began, “I’d held strong suspicions that the travels would prove to be more fantasy than fact; and I am afraid to say my doubts were swiftly confirmed”. I thus continued: “I have to say that I was appalled by the author’s lack of citations. It was impossible to check whether or not this so-called ‘work of satire’ represents a fair commentary on the social attitudes of its author’s day. In fact, I would be tempted to conclude that Mr Swift was simply making the whole thing up. Nobody I know would ever be sufficiently petty as to divide an entire nation over something so trivial as the best way to crack a boiled egg”. And there the matter rested. Or so I thought.

To my surprise – in fact, disgust – the response I received can at best be described as dismissive; if not impertinent in every conceivable particular. Having read a number of comments to the effect that it was I – rather than Mr Swift – who had the problem, it reached a point where the effrontery simply went too far. One young ‘gentleman’ even had the audacity to suggest that I read the novel again – as if I hadn’t understood it properly the first time!

Consequently I contacted – in quick succession – the local council, social services (the office was closed, typically), the central library, and the local newspaper; before finally coming to my senses and dialing 999. I consider it my civic duty to remark that the inability of these respective offices to grasp the urgency of the situation offers irrefutable proof that they must be privatised forthwith. I would add that by contrast to all of the above, the sympathy I received when mentioning this outrage to neighbours was beyond reproach.

Far too many people are under the wholly false impression that this sort of thing exists only in the fervid minds of tabloid journalists, or the wilder elements of popular imagination; but my experience proves that it is only too real. In fact, this entire episode demonstrates everything that is wrong with our country, these days.

Prospects during the General Election (2017).

People may have noticed that the fairly despondent recent post about the General Election was removed – it was written mainly off the back of emotion, rather than reason; and after a short period of reflection, didn’t seem especially constructive.

Looking at the matter more objectively, what I expect to happen as a consequence of this election is not greater cause for optimism, unfortunately; but I think it’s important to be honest.

Labour will probably suffer heavy losses. Voter-intention is one issue, but turnout is another. This is not about Corbyn, or Labour themselves, however; it’s a consequence of Brexit. Labour were left in a uniquely difficult position by the EU referendum – whether they accepted or repudiated the outcome, they stood to alienate many of their supporters, either way.

The factor at issue is ‘depressed voter syndrome’ – namely dejection among many of its supporters about the prospect of overseeing Brexit. I don’t personally want them to win this election if it means presiding over the upcoming economic disaster that Brexit will almost certainly induce. This purview is liable to be shared by many people; and result in a desultory showing of votes. By contrast, enthusiasm for Brexit among its supporters remains high; and evidently favours the government.

Labour will be the first casualty of Brexit. They will not be its last, however; and hopefully, they will be the first to recover.

George Osborne resigned as an MP, heading into a general election which his party are expected to win comfortably. This specific circumstance seems to be unprecedented. There are two primary reasons why MPs resign from Parliament – one, a personal scandal is set to become public; two, their parties are in serious trouble. Osborne is not that interesting. So, the second of these is the more plausible motive.

If the Conservatives are in government until 2022, then they will preside over the full period that Britain is outside the single European market; which is expected to prove economically calamitous. If this does occur, then there will probably be a vote of no confidence in the government before 2022.

However, a strong majority for the Conservatives in Parliament will mean two years with weak opposition – and thereby free-reign over policy; until the reality of Brexit hits home in 2019. Two years can be a long time in politics for those on the receiving end; but it can also be a short time when a dreadful prospect looms.

A strong Tory majority precludes independence for Scotland any time soon. The SNP can present a bill requesting a second independence referendum; but it would simply be voted down.

There will almost certainly not be a vaunted ‘lifetime of Tory government’, no matter what the current prospects may indicate – if the Conservatives themselves believed otherwise, then we would not be having a general election now, instead of in 2020; when they would have benefited from the boundary review changes.

Labour’s members evidently remain committed to the party’s future – even with a bleak immediate outlook. After the election is over, they will have to decide whether they want to continue the good work that was done prior to the EU referendum, as there will be strong calls for a lurch to the hard-right, especially on the issue of free-movement/migration. Public opinion and political expedience will probably undergo a marked change from 2019 onwards, however.

The left is not forgiven its failures the way the right is. Corbyn is liable to lead Labour to dire results – it is obvious that he will be blamed personally; as he was for the outcome of the EU referendum, despite campaigning against it. This will not be valid.

Corbyn kept Labour intact and functioning during the coup which followed the EU referendum. He also steered it through Article 50 – both of these issues could have caused the party to implode. All of the other leadership candidates he faced stated after the referendum that they would end free-movement, which would have committed Labour to support for ‘hard’ Brexit. This would probably have seen the party decimated during the upcoming election; as even many supporters of Brexit do not want the worst version possible to apply.

As it stands, Labour are still liable to suffer heavy losses as a consequence of the EU referendum’s outcome; but hopefully, it will not prove as devastating as it would have done under any other leader. There is at least the possibility that Labour will have a future once the damage of this election has been overcome. Political parties can recover surprisingly quickly from heavy defeats; particularly given a change of circumstance.

This general election represents a lose-lose scenario for Labour – either suffer heavy losses; or enter government, and be responsible for overseeing the disaster of Brexit. One of these outcomes is recoverable. While Labour will suffer the consequences of Brexit this election, the Conservatives will suffer it the next.

Brexit cannot be made to work in actuality. The outcome of this election will primarily reflect public opinion on the issue; which is currently devoid of basis in reason. Reality will intrude at some point down the line, and sanity will eventually be restored; but until then, there is cause for severe pessimism about the future.

The upcoming years will be difficult ones for our country and its people.

The Right-Minded Review – Nigel Farage’s ‘The Purple Revolution: The Year That Changed Everything’ (4th anniversary edition)

 

I was given this trenchant tome as a gift, by somebody who had purchased it in error; and it did not disappoint.

Throughout its pages, Farage addresses important questions such as:

‘Why do young people these days lack the moral fibre of the previous generation?’ (a good war would stiffen their resolve, in Farage’s purview).
‘Why are 97% of scientists wrong about Global Warming?’ (Farage has an interesting explanation).
‘How many of the world’s problems are simply the result of the British no longer being in charge?’ (most – if not all – is the short answer).
And ‘were all of Hitler’s ideas bad?’ (the answer may surprise you).

Throughout its opening pages, Farage’s autobiography addresses the pressing political issues of the day. For example, whether it’s time to close the English channel, and how this might be achieved; and the probable reasons why crime is no longer illegal. This section of the book confirmed to me that most of my opinions were already correct.

Arguably of more interest to the casual reader, however, is the author’s – at times, inspiring – life story. Unlike liberal elites, educated at exclusive comprehensive schools – or prestigious secondary moderns – Farage set out in life at the humble confines of Dulwich prepper; before working hard, and earning a seat on the ladder of prosperity. He then went from being a successful City trader, to become the most successfully unelected Parliamentarian in British history. On a more poignant note, however, Farage documents his personal health battles with a characteristic candour – such as the anxiety disorder which overcomes him whenever he sees two people of the same sex holding hands; or when any woman in his vicinity is engaged in breastfeeding.

Anyone who wants to know what the European Union is, or where it is located, will learn a great deal from this book. With regard to affairs of the European Parliament, future historians may focus on the author’s imperious record of non-attendance; but I suspect that members of the public will favour the more light-hearted anecdotes – such as the misunderstanding which arose between several senior Ukip MEPs in one of Brussels’ many gentlemens’ saunas (it all ended humorously; with minds duly broadened).

Closer to home, Farage reflects on the political earthquake he generated – which simply defied the richter scale: namely, the general election of May 2015; which resulted in Ukip ending the day with no fewer than one Member of Parliament (I am not an expert, thankfully; but why 4 million votes for Ukip didn’t translate into 4 million MPs is beyond me).

The special fourth anniversary edition also comes with an audio CD, read by Farage himself; which narrates the legendary fight between two Ukip politicians in the European Parliament, during October 2016. I was very impressed. Step by step, Farage walks listeners through the weeks and days leading up to the affray. The tension builds as the two politicians approach each other, and battle commences. The action is graphically narrated – and may be unsuitable for younger listeners in parts; but it allows the attentive listener to visualise the action, and understand the key moments of the melee.

In sum, this is a book which is frank and surprising in equal measure. I give it the four stars, rather than the full five, as it would have benefited from a glossary of words which you can no longer say in public, due to political correctness.

The Right-Minded View: The Prime Minister’s vision of a Shared Society.

Now when Prime Minister May saw the crowds of journalists, she went up on a podium and she began to teach them:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is a redefined definition of poverty.

Blessed are those who hunger, for they shall be satisfied by the local foodbank.

Blessed are the meek, for those who know their place, and play by the rules, shall benefit from a cut to inheritance tax.

Blessed are you when you make handsome, if discreet, donations; rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in the House of Lords.

Blessed are the hedge fund managers, for they shall reap what others sow.

Blessed are the healers, who are willing to work seven days a week, for five-days’ worth salary.

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, this only breeds dependency. It’s high-time that your neighbours learned to stand on their own two legs, and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.

Ask for a handout, and it will no longer be given. Which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? All of you should, if you want to impart a valuable life-lesson in self-sufficiency.

Ensure that you practice your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have a reward from your admirers in the press.

Do not think that I have come to uphold the Laws; I have not come to fulfill, but to abolish them. Specifically those concerning human rights.

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, sometimes it’s expedient to be creative with the truth. Let what you say be simply ‘it means what it means’, or ‘I do not accept that'”.

And when the Prime Minister finished these sayings, the journalists were astonished, for she was teaching them as one who had a teleprompter, and had not just replicated her predecessor’s pabulum on the same theme. Then the sick and the lame were brought to her, and put through a work capability assessment; consequently they were declared fit and healthy once more.

Afterwards, the Prime Minister entered a temple, and congratulated the wealth-creators within for their free enterprise – praising their aspirations. The high rates of usury, and the absence of red-tape – which the Prime Minister had guaranteed – ensured that they would not take their business elsewhere.

They’re Not Like Us (A Reverse Poem)

They’re not like us
So do not be naive enough to think that
We will find them to be like us
With only a bit of thought and friendship
They’re so unwilling to adopt our way of life
Is it any wonder
If people are distrustful and unwelcoming
It makes everyone afraid
Knowing strangers might hate you and hurt you
They’re not like us
Is it fair to say
Our behaviour might be the problem
When we find their customs and ways so strange
They keep to their own
So is it unreasonable that
We keep to our own
Why do people think they’re not like us
It’s not difficult to answer the question
Hearing a strange language seeing strange clothes
In the middle of a crowd with strange faces
How can you expect to feel at home
When you’re no longer surrounded by people you know
It hardly fills you with confidence
Complaining all the time about our country
Hearing people
Who don’t fit in
Always moaning about those
Ordinary British things like tea and chips or
All the things that make Britain what it is
When you think of
People coming here and changing our culture
The British way of life has always been about
What is unique to us
What is normal and ordinary
But when you think about it
They’re not like us
There’s nothing wrong with saying
How they are
It’s not too much to ask them
To fit in with us
Ordinary Britons
Who see little but resentment from
These people
How can we expect
To feel at home in our country anymore
And no-one ever asks them
To move half way around the world
They’ve managed
To take jobs and houses too
People around them would have needed
That can’t be right
If they don’t like our ways at all
Why do they move to our country
These people are so strange
So do not tell me
It isn’t fair to assume the worst
It isn’t right to be called names
You’re only judging by what you see
Which is so out of the ordinary
What do foreigners bring with them into Britain
If you think about it
All sorts of things which seem peculiar
Sometimes people fear
These things are not so simple but
Please think on
Do not be too quick to judge
When somebody says they’re not like us

[Now read from bottom to top]

A Pledge of Allegiance To British Values

 

british_patriotism_by_naturalles-d5jjbz1

I pledge allegiance to Britain and its resplendent jams (and magnificent biscuits),
Salute the Royal Yacht,
Support Brexit,
Oppose casual littering,
Believe strongly that you should be able to hear the lyrics in modern music
(too often you can’t, I say),
And object to the general absence of moral fibre in the young these days.
Also, you get far too many leaflets posted through your front door.
As far as I’m concerned it really is not on –
The council ought to crackdown on this racket, as a matter of urgency.
Bring back national service.
Lest we forget.

The Right-Minded View: The Richmond Byelection – Farewell, Zac Goldsmith

keep-britain-tidy-logo-1

I am not a supporter of the Conservative Party, myself – though I do invariably vote for them in elections; I merely believe in fairness, and giving people their due. On that tack, I say it is only right to extol the many virtues of Mr Zac Goldsmith.

As a man of conviction, Mr Goldsmith took a principled approach to the London mayoralty contest, by noting the distinct similarity between the surnames of the Labour candidate, Sadiq Khan, and famed Mongol Horde chieftain: the warlord Mr Genghis Khan.

As a point of order, Mr Goldsmith bravely demanded that the one Mr Khan clarify any possible links to the other Mr Khan; and confirm that he had no plans to lay waste to Central Asia in like manner. I, for one, do not doubt for a moment that this was a genuine point of concern for Mr Goldsmith’s part.

It was perhaps this peerless repository of personal integrity which saw Goldsmith romp home to an impressive second-place finish, overall. Indeed, had the London Mayoralty contest been an Olympic event, this would have garnered a silver medal, no less. Something to bear in mind for future contests.

On much the same tack of, well, thing, (about fairness and dues etc), the Liberal Democrats warrant a fittingly fulsome encomium; as is only proper.

As their formidable leader, Mr Tim Farron, has noted, there is little to no discernible difference between Zac Goldsmith on the one hand, and Mr Jeremy Corbyn on the other. Whereas Goldsmith engaged in populism (sometimes mis-spelled these days as ‘racism’) for personal gain; Mr Corbyn has never done or said anything derogatory about anyone. You simply cannot tell the two men apart, in my view.

What’s more, unlike sundry latte-sipping Leftists, who live in out of touch parts of the country like Islington, Richmond represents the pulse beating at the very heart of the nation’s corpse.

While Richmond may be more affluent than Islington, and more exclusive, and less socio-economically diverse, with a much less varied array of ethnicity and nationalities among its inhabitants – and for that matter, geographically indistinct – it clearly represents something or another; which proves that whatever political interpretation is attached to this byelection result is not merely of national significance, but is also indisputably correct. And you can’t say better than that, now, can you?

Farewell then Zac Goldsmith – a true gentleman and scholar of British politics. Welcome, in turn, a ninth Parliamentary member for the propitious Liberal Democrats – easing themselves into position as a sort of political suppository for the softening of Brexit.