Tales from an author

#GeorgeOrwell #NineteenEightyFour

George Orwell (1903-1950) published 12 books – split evenly between six novels and six factual works (the latter a mix of autobiography, political commentary, and literary essays). His final book, Nineteen Eighty-Four, arrived on June 8 1949, with an unsettling opening sentence, “It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen”, setting the scene for the nightmare existence that unfolds in the novel. This was – or might be in a future, projected 35 years on from the time of publication – the world of “doublethink”, “thoughtcrime”, and the daily rewriting of history (anticipating the “fake news” of the current day). It is a world divided into three superstates, Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania, which are permanently at war.

In the beginning, Nineteen Eighty-Four was my favourite book. I think it still it is, but I am not sure it should be. I have read Orwell’s masterpiece several times, and each time I am astounded anew by his brilliance. So why the hesitation? There are two reasons for reservation. Firstly the book is not an easy read, it is far from being a pleasant story, with a happy ending, and I wonder whether my allegiance should be moved to something that feels more positive. Secondly the structure of the novel can be a bit of a challenge, particularly the presence of an Appendix, explaining the Newspeak language, awkwardly introduced by a footnote – in mid-sentence – early in the narrative. Later in the novel, there are a couple of chapters from the Emmanuel Goldstein book, a “factual” work within the fictional landscape.

In the character of Winston Smith, who starts to write his fictional diary on April 4 1984, Orwell conveys the outlook of an individual battling to express a minority view – “sanity is not statistical”. Inspired by reading a Penguin paperback edition, during 1983, I set pen to paper a few months later, and the diary started as a youth, on the first day of 1984, has been maintained throughout my adult life. I subsequently acquired a hardback, with the novel being reissued in 1987 as Volume Nine of “The Complete Works of George Orwell”. This remains a favourite artifact, more than thirty years after I bought it, and the copy I still read.

In contrast to the many colour cover illustrations on paperback versions, capturing themes of the book, the 1987 hardback has a stark black dust jacket, with text picked out in mostly simple white lettering, although the book title on the front and spine has a gold tinge. The real book cover is printed in blue, with gold embossed text on the spine. Eventually running to 20 volumes, expertly edited by Dr Peter Davison, the Orwell collection was published between 1986 and 1998. “The Complete Works” edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four concludes with a Textual Note by Dr Davison, which is fascinating stuff for me, as a reader, and writer, with an interest in such detail.

Amidst the oppressive atmosphere that pervades Nineteen Eighty-Four, there are passages of great lyricism. The first time that Winston and Julia are together alone, they meet in an incongruous version of a lovers’ lane, with Orwell displaying his admiration of nature as he sets the scene – a bird sings amidst a beautiful place in the countryside. Winston calls this the “Golden Country”, a place he has seen in his dreams. It is a piece of nostalgia, in the fictional 1984, for the past. Winston frequents an old junk shop, in which he bought the decades-old notebook he uses for his diary. A subsequent purchase is a glass paperweight, with a piece of coral set inside. Winston feels a comforting satisfaction in owning this relic from the past. He rents a room above the shop, to snatch and share Summer evenings with Julia. They adorn the room with a few comforts, and Winston reflects that “The paperweight was the room he was in, and the coral was Julia’s life and his own, fixed in a sort of eternity at the heart of the crystal”.


Absinthe #AliceInWonderland

A short story contained within my novel “Alice’s Adventures in Fantasyland” 

He was British and she was French. A femme fatale like the woman in the song by Lou Reed. Or was the song about Lou loving Nico, who was German? I digress, as I often do. Now the French lady charmed the British man with sophisticated clothes, perfume, drink. Mostly drink. Absinthe. French liqueur, nicknamed the green fairy. Green and magical like fairy liquid.

The protagonist of the story was called Phillip. He was a paperback writer, writing novels inspired by the Beatles. Sometimes he rambled and got the beginning, middle, and end of stories mixed up. The story of the French lady was a favourite.

Phillip first tasted absinthe in Paris. He got talking to a lady in a bar. She suggested he try the magical drink. He asked her name. She said ‘It could be Helaine or Jacalyn or Ysabel or Capucine or Aimee or Veronique or Cecille.’ After some teasing she said ‘My name is Helaine, like Helen of Troy, wife of Paris.’

The drink was intoxicating. Phillip was aware of Helaine’s perfume. Phillip was not as sophisticated as he hoped to be (was that a type of pencil?). He liked her perfume, but did not recognise it. The perfume added to the allure of Helaine. Her mysterious beauty also helped.

She reminded him of Vesper in Casino Royale, the James Bond novel. Helaine disappeared. Phillip drank more absinthe, and thought about her too much. Sometime between Phillip meeting Helaine and her disappearing, they had a whirlwind romance. It was like James and Vesper. Or Betty Blue and Zorg. Or Bridget Jones and Mark Darcy. Whichever characters from a novel turned into film you prefer.

He did not expect her to disappear. When she did, he did not know what to do. He drank too much of the green stuff, and yearned for her. Phillip told the story about himself and Helaine to many people (too many) across the years. People asked what it all meant. He would stare, long and longingly, into his drink, and eventually get to the point….‘Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.’



“Under The Ivy: The Life and Music of Kate Bush” by Graeme Thomson

This book, first published in 2010, with a revised edition in 2015, has been widely praised as a brilliant example of the music biography genre. It is certainly extensive, with a text running to 367 pages, much of which is based on interviews by Graeme Thomson with dozens of people who have worked with Kate Bush. On the other hand, Thomson does not appear to have directly interviewed Bush herself, or either of the closest musical collaborators, Del Palmer and Danny McIntosh, her former and current partners in life. Is this an attempt at an authorised biography which did not get approved?

Thomson, a great enthusiast for Bush’s music, writes with knowledge and clarity, being particularly strong on her songwriting and innovative studio recording process. He also unravels a lot of the mysteries of Kate’s personality, dispelling some of the myths about her being a virtual recluse. Bush comes across as a warm human being, working in a supportive way with a great variety of musicians and producers, nearly all of whom speak positively about the experience. During the early years, Bush’s parents and brothers provided great encouragement to her music, and protected the management of her career. Thomson provides a lot of detail about the development of Bush’s distinctive sound, and the way her performances integrate a love of dance.

Kate Bush became an “overnight sensation” as “Wuthering Heights” reached number one in the UK singles chart in 1978, when she was aged only 19. She had been writing songs for several years, and had actually been signed by EMI in 1976, on the strength of demos recorded in the previous year, when she was “discovered” by David Gilmour of Pink Floyd. Some of the 1975 recordings were actually used on her debut album, “The Kick Inside”, including “The Man With the Child in His Eyes”, the follow-up single to “Wuthering Heights”.

For many critics and fans, including the author of the book, Kate’s creative peak was the “Hounds of Love” album, released in 1985, and the dazzling originality of the record is celebrated here. After “The Red Shoes” in 1993 – her seventh studio album – Bush took a break from recording, which was then extended by the wish to devote time to her son, Bertie McIntosh, born in 1998.

When Bush returned to the limelight in 2005, it was with “Aerial”, a double album, and another career highlight. By the time that the first edition of the book arrived, five years later, Bush’s career again looked dormant. Moving forward another five years, Thomson ended the revised edition on an optimistic note, as the release of two albums in 2011, followed by the spectacular “Before the Dawn” show in 2014 – Bush’s first concerts since 1979 – suggested a revival of activity which would continue. The audio of Before the Dawn was released as an album in 2016, but the expected DVD has not arrived. During 2018 Kate’s studio albums were reissued in remastered versions, but there has (again) not been any sign of new music for several years.

Thomson is not afraid to draw attention to some shortcomings in Kate’s music, and has well-argued opinions of particular albums and songs. On the other hand, and as Thomson accepts, responses to music are largely subjective. He makes several references to “The Red Shoes” being weak compared to other albums by Kate, the logic of which I cannot follow with my own ears. Amidst a lot of excellent analysis, I feel that Thomson too often repeats himself. There is a whole chapter about Kate’s videos, much of which covers ground which he has already well-trodden. I think this would be a better book if it was fifty, or even a hundred, pages shorter.

The main thrust of the Thomson’s argument is that Kate Bush is not only a deservedly recognised great artist, but actually should be further acclaimed as a ground-breaking innovator, and national treasure. It is certainly the case that Kate has inspired many other artists, including a lot of amazing (a favourite Bush word) female singers, notably Bjork and Joanna Newsom. Another comparison, often made, but strangely not mentioned by Thomson, is that with Patti Smith, a bold and independent woman, whose famous debut album, “Horses”, arrived in 1975, three years ahead of “The Kick Inside”. Kate said that “Don’t Push Your Foot on the Heartbrake”, a song from her second album, “Lionheart”, released in 1978, was influenced by Patti. Dave Marsh, one of the USA’s leading rock critics, unflatteringly described “The Kick Inside” as “sort of like the consequences of mating Patti Smith with a Hoover vacuum cleaner”. Bush has only enjoyed intermittent acclaim in the USA, and elsewhere in the world. Thomson shows that a dislike of flying, and time away from home comforts, has limited the effort Kate has felt able to put into the international promotion of her work. In any case, as the author also explains, Kate Bush is very much a product of English / British culture, and somebody who has done much to celebrate it. This book is definitely recommended reading for anyone wishing to gain an insight into Kate Bush, and her very original genius.

#Patti Smith A Biographical Sketch


Patti Smith has emerged, across a period of nearly half a century, as one of the greatest figures in contemporary art and culture. Primarily known as a poet who became a rock musician, Smith is also revered as the author of several memoirs, illustrated by distinctive polaroid pictures – with photography being another of her many talents. Patti has also dabbled in drawing, theatre, and cinema, besides political and environmental activism. The woman who arrived on the New York scene, as a rebellious youth, has travelled across much of the world, and now dispenses the wisdom of a mature observer. Smith’s multi-faceted work has drawn upon a myriad of influences, from both past and present. Patti has always acknowledged artistic debts, and this has inspired devotees to delve into the stories of the people who have helped shape her.

The beginning was modest. Patricia Lee Smith was born, on December 30 1946, in Chicago, the first child of Grant Smith, a factory machinist, and his wife, Beverly (nee Williams), a waitress. Patti would be followed by her siblings, Linda (born 1948), Todd (1949), and Kimberley (1958). The Smith family moved to the Germantown neighbourhood of Philadelphia, during 1950, and then Woodbury, New Jersey, in 1955. Patti developed an early love of books, with her mother being a keen reader. Beverly enjoyed music, and Patti followed her in listening to jazz. The young girl also discovered the excitement of rock’n’roll, when hearing a record by Little Richard. A family trip to a museum enabled Patti to view paintings by Salvador Dali and Amedeo Modigliani, both of whom caught her attention, at the age of 12. Patti would herself soon show a talent for painting.

Arthur Rimbaud, the nineteenth century French poet, would become a major focus of Patti’s work. The awareness began as Patti found a copy of Rimbaud’s Illuminations, during 1963, when she was 16. Patti completed high school the following year, and became a student at Glassboro State Teachers College, in New Jersey, displaying wayward tendencies while training to be an art teacher. During Summer holidays, Patti worked in a factory that produced baby buggies, and dreamt of a better life. Having become unexpectantly pregnant, during a liaison with a youth two years her junior, Patti gave birth to a daughter in April 1967. Patti, aged only 20, felt unequal to raising the girl, and the baby was passed for adoption by a childless couple. Having been dismissed from college, Patti moved to a new life in New York City, in July 1967, hoping to establish herself as an artist.

Patti quickly became friends with Robert Mapplethorpe, a man destined to become one of the great photographers of the era. Living together for several years, including a spell at the famous Chelsea Hotel, they were also lovers, until Robert realised that he has was a homosexual. The bond, however, flourished, and much of Patti’s work would be illustrated by Robert’s pictures. Patti took her first trip outside the USA in 1969, visiting Paris with her sister, Linda, soaking up French art and culture. Back in New York, Patti did some work as an actress, with roles in films and plays produced by friends, but decided to focus on writing poetry, and gave her first public reading in 1971. For this Patti was joined by Lenny Kaye, who played electric guitar. In 1972 Patti had two booklets of poems, kodak and Seventh Heaven, published by small presses. These were followed by Witt the next year. Patti and Lenny continued to perform together, and in 1974 they were joined by Richard Sohl, a pianist, as Patti released a single. The A side was a cover of “Hey Joe”, a song recorded by many artists, including Jimi Hendrix. The B side was an original, “Piss Factory”, a poem in which Patti recalled her first employment experience, a decade earlier.

Patti was signed by Arista Records in 1975, while her band expanded, with Ivan Kral joining on bass guitar, and Jay Dee Daugherty on drums, and became formally known as the Patti Smith Group. The 28 year old Patti Smith’s debut album, Horses, is still revered as one of the most original, and impressive, records of its era. A follow-up, Radio Ethiopia, was released in 1976. At the start of 1977, Patti fell off a stage during a concert performance, seriously injured her neck, and required several months of recuperation. She returned, refreshed, in early 1978, with her first full-length book, Babel, and third LP, Easter. Bringing together poems, song lyrics, short stories, photos, and drawings, Babel was a surreal collection. Easter spawned a massive hit single, “Because the Night”, Patti’s rewrite of a Bruce Springsteen song, through which she celebrated her romance with Fred “Sonic” Smith, a guitarist who had starred with MC5. He was also the subject of “Frederick”, the opening track of Patti’s fourth album, Wave, in 1979. Patti and Fred set up home together in Detroit that year, and married in 1980.

The Patti Smith Group was disbanded, and its singer disappeared from view. Patti and Fred Smith had two children, Jackson and Jesse, born in 1982 and 1987 respectively. In 1988 Patti, now aged 41, released Dream of Life, her first album for nine years, with Fred very involved in the project. This proved to be a musical one-off, as Patti returned to family life with her husband and children. Patti was, however, still writing, and published Woolgathering, a short book of episodic childhood memories, in 1992. She gave two poetry readings at Central Park in New York, during the Summer of 1993, to great acclaim. The next year brought the publication of a poetry collection, Early Work: 1970-1979. Fred Smith was in poor health for several years, and died of a heart attack in 1994.

Supported by friends, Patti returned to live in New York City in 1995, and also the stage, including some shows with Bob Dylan. Patti was also recording again, with the Gone Again album arriving in June 1996, and receiving critical plaudits – she was back in the limelight, at the age of 49. The previous month had seen the publication of The Coral Sea, a fictionalised account of a sea journey taken by Robert Mapplethorpe, shortly before his death. Gone Again was quickly followed by Peace and Noise, in 1997. There was also the book Patti Smith Complete: Lyrics, Reflections & Notes for the Future which appeared in 1998, and would be updated in 2006 and 2015.

Moving into the new millennium, Gung Ho, Patti’s eighth album, was released in 2000. A couple of years later, two separate retrospectives marked Patti’s increasing body of work. Land (1975-2002) provided a double CD overview of the music, and Strange Messenger was a major art exhibition, based around Patti’s drawings. The remainder of the decade brought two more studio albums, Trampin’ in 2004 and Twelve in 2007, the latter being a set of cover versions, issued during the year in which Patti was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. A thirtieth anniversary edition of Horses combined the original 1975 album with a vibrant re-run of the tracks, from a 2005 live show. That year also saw the arrival of a new book of poetry, Auguries of Innocence. In 2008, a documentary film, Patti Smith: Dream of Life was released, plus a live CD, preserving a musical version of The Coral Sea, with Patti being joined by Kevin Shields.

Another tribute to Robert Mapplethorpe followed in 2010, as Patti published Just Kids, a book telling the long story of their friendship. This set the tone for the next few years, with the writing of memoirs taking precedence over the recording of music. Her only new studio album at this time was Banga, appearing in 2012, when Smith was aged 65, although she still performed energetic concerts. The books M Train (2015) and Year of the Monkey (2019) were rambling, in the best sense of the word, accounts of Patti’s recent travels and thoughts. Sandwiched in between, the captivating miniature Devotion (2017) combined a short story with Smith’s account of the circumstances in which it was written. At a time when most people of her age had settled into retirement, Patti embarked upon another of the ambitious collaborations that characterise her work, joining the ambient music group Soundwalk Collective, on four albums, released between 2016 and 2020. These records paid tribute to Nico and Rimbaud, among others, as Patti Smith continued to find original ways to celebrate the inspiration of art.

#LabourLeaks and the #FordeInquiry


Today is the closing date for submissions to the Labour Party’s Forde Inquiry, tasked to look into the circumstances surrounding the report on the disciplinary process, and undermining of the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn by a clique at party headquarters. That report was leaked in April 2020.

This Blog post sets out my submission, with lots of contemporary evidence of failings at party HQ in 2016,. I also reveal detail of sabotage of the 2017 General Election campaign.

Forde Inquiry

Submission by Andrew Godsell

Member of Southampton Itchen CLP (I was a member in Southampton Test in 2016)

The Orwellian nature of the Labour Party’s disciplinary process has caused me an enormous amount of stress across several years.

I provide a short outline here. I find it difficult to revisit the detail. There is also the concern expressed by many party members, which I share, that the recent decision of the current party leadership to apologise to former staff, featured in the BBC “Panorama” programme last year, totally undermines the Forde inquiry into party discipline. The use of Labour Party funds to pay compensation to people who plotted against the party membership, despite the party lawyers thinking we could win the court case, is a sickening insult.

I no longer have access to the email account I used 2016, the year I was unfairly suspended from the Labour Party. It has been reported that the plotters against Jeremy Corbyn, and his supporters, destroyed a lot of the documents regarding party discipline. Therefore much of the documentation may be lost. I posted a lot of detail about my suspension on my Blog during 2016. Links to some posts are provided here – please read them, as they expose many failings of party HQ:

During the course of my suspension, I obtained documentation from party HQ through a Subject Access Request. Most of the documentation was heavily redacted, but it was clear that my suspension was discussed at length by staff at party HQ, who were well aware of who I was. I may have been only one of about 500,000 party members, but I also had a public profile as a Labour activist, author, and Blogger. I was certainly known by Sam Matthews, having disagreed with him during his time as organiser for Southampton Itchen at the 2015 General Election – his work was characterised by secrecy and also erratic. Although I lived in Test in 2015, most of my campaigning was in Itchen, as I was a candidate for an Itchen ward in the Southampton City Council election held at the same time as the General Election. Mike Creighton was also aware of me, as we were both party members in Southampton.

The SAR response showed that party HQ had broken the Data Protection Act, by disclosing details of my suspension to the “Guardian” newspaper without my consent.

Moving on to the General Election of 2017, it was clear that the vast majority of resources in Southampton were directed towards holding the Test constituency, rather than seeking to regain the marginal Itchen, lost to the Conservatives in 2015. The Test MP, Alan Whitehead, had been part of the 2016 “Chicken Coup” front bench resignations, aimed at breaking Corbyn. The outcome was that Test was retained in 2017 with a majority of 11,508 votes, but Labour lost Southampton Itchen to the Conservatives by just 31 votes.

The day before polling day, I coincidentally met Mike Creighton at the local party office. I asked why he thought it acceptable to have signed off my being suspended from the party in 2016 for alleged comments on Twitter, when he had now quite clearly broken the rules by calling Len McCluskey a “wanker” on Twitter during the current Election campaign. Creighton said to me “I don’t care about the rules”, and then refused to speak to me further when I tried to diplomatically express dissatisfaction with his response.

When my suspension was lifted in 2016, a letter was put on file by the party HQ, warning me about future conduct. I think a letter of apology from the Labour Party to myself would be a suitable response, in view of the events outlined here.


Take it on the Chin: Conservatism and COVID #GTTO

A piece I have written for the forthcoming second edition of the GET THE TORIES OUT! book.

The Coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic has tragically killed over 280,000 people throughout the world. Officially 31,855 people in the United Kingdom have died as a result of COVID, at the time of my writing this, May 10 2020. Today Boris Johnson has announced plans to ease the lockdown (to the horror of many people). Our nation is experiencing an unusually high percentage death rate among confirmed cases, compared to the world average. There is public expectation of a major inquiry into the mistakes made, including many by the Conservative government, in dealing with COVID.

The mainstream media view is that Johnson, himself recently hospitalised by the disease, and the government he leads on an intermittent basis, are competently fighting a valiant battle to save the nation from the disease. The failings of the government have, however, been so severe that even political reporters and newscasters at the BBC – the supposedly public broadcaster which gave Johnson such an easy ride during the last General Election – have been expressing some reservations.

Outside the MSM bubble, large sections of the population, including many NHS staff and other key workers, have displayed trenchant criticism of a muddled government response. For far too long, the Conservatives placed their support of the capitalist economy, and big business – the natural plus financial friends of the Tories – ahead of the need to save lives, and protect the wider community.

An official inquiry could be months, or years, away. Any completion of such a process, and implementation of recommendations, will follow even later – as we have seen in numerous cases of state failure, ranging from the Hillsborough disaster to the Grenfell Tower fire. Before scrutiny of any of the important issues debated during the early stage of the COVID outbreak possibly fades, a look back to the initial government response may help as a reminder. The rot had set in even before COVID reached Britain.

On January 23 2020, Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health, made the first government statement to Parliament about the implications of the outbreak of a new form of Coronavirus, at Wuhan, in China, during the final weeks of 2019. Hancock said:

We have been closely monitoring the situation in Wuhan and have put in place proportionate precautionary measures. Our approach has at all times been guided by the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty….The Chief Medical Officer has revised the risk to the UK population from “very low” to “low”, and has concluded that, while there is an increased likelihood that cases may arise in this country, we are well-prepared and well-equipped to deal with them. The UK is one of the first countries to have developed a world-leading test for the new Coronavirus. The NHS is ready to respond appropriately to any cases that emerge. Clinicians in both primary and secondary care have already received advice, covering initial detection and investigation of possible cases, infection prevention and control, and clinical diagnostics….The public can be assured that the whole of the UK is always well prepared for these types of outbreaks, and we will remain vigilant and keep our response under constant review in the light of emerging scientific evidence.

The statement aimed to offer assurance but, within weeks, it became clear that Hancock, and other Tory ministers, were alarmingly complacent. The message from Hancock was shown to be dangerously wrong in several respects.

The first COVID cases in the UK were diagnosed on January 31, just eight days after Hancock and Whitty thought the risk to be “low”. The risk level had been moved to “moderate” on January 30, but the government took little action to alert the public to the scale of the danger during February.

Johnson announced, on March 3, “I was at a hospital the other night, where I think a few there were actually Coronavirus patients, and I shook hands with everybody, you’ll be pleased to know, and I continue to shake hands”. Johnson’s handshakes were politeness turned into pure irresponsibility.

The first death occurred on March 5, and Johnson belatedly attended the Cabinet’s emergency COBRA committee on March 9, after he had missed the five preceding meetings on the subject of Coronavirus. The risk level for the UK was not escalated from “moderate” to “high” until March 12.

The government, and its scientific advisors, favoured the idea of attempting to create “Herd Immunity”, with Johnson saying in a national television interview “one of the theories is that perhaps you could take it on the chin, take it all in one go and allow the disease, as it were, to move through the population, without taking as many draconian measures”. Once laymen started to point out the massive number of deaths that would be likely in Britain, before the remainder of the population could hope for “Herd Immunity”, the government backed down, but its strategy remained far from clear.

The Cheltenham Festival horse race meeting went ahead as usual – allegedly due to gambling companies lobbying the government against possible cancellation – with crowds of around 60,000 people per day, something that was soon shown to have spread COVID. Other sports events were postponed, upon the decision of various organising bodies, rather than government direction. For several weeks, the response of Johnson and his government was complacent, until pressure from NHS staff, a Labour Party still led (at that point) by Jeremy Corbyn, and the wider public, prompted action, as the death toll rose. Daily life continued much as usual, until the government belatedly started to recommend social distancing, and closed schools. Johnson did not announce the much-delayed effective lockdown until March 23.

Rishi Sunak, the new Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the departure of Sajid Javid – who clashed with Dominic Cummings, the power behind the Johnson throne – delivered a multi-billion pound emergency financial package. The Tories celebrated Sunak’s role, but other people asked why the “Magic Money Tree”, which Theresa May said in 2017 did not exist, and therefore could not produce a pay rise for nurses, had suddenly sprouted the green shoots of a massive capitalist bailout. It was similar to the taxpayer rescue of the banks during the 2008-09 financial crisis – a time when Javid and Sunak were speculative bankers.

Returning to the claims of Matt Hancock, there has been little evidence of the UK being a world leader in testing for COVID. Johnson and Hancock have announced various targets to test 10,000 people per day, then 25,000, followed by 100,000, and the latest aim is 200,000, but progress has generally fallen short of intention. Despite great public campaigning to get patients, NHS clinical staff, carers, more key workers, and masses of vulnerable people, rapidly tested, for many weeks it was clear that this was not happening at a sufficient scale. The government also failed to ensure that the private sector could produce, and deliver, sufficient testing capacity.

Hancock declared the NHS to be ready for the spread of the illness, back in January. In the following months, testimony from NHS staff and patients showed this had not been true, and was still not true. Already hard-pressed hospitals suddenly had to deal with additional admissions of COVID patients. There was a shortage of ventilators, despite claims by the government that they were urgently arranging to increase production and acquisition, and many frontline health workers lacked the required Personal Protective Equipment.

As events unfolded, it was clear that Hancock, Johnson, and their friends in government, were not vigilant. They were slow to take action, and much of that action was indecisive – until the government were reluctantly forced to fall in line with the plans advocated by other people.

This complacent attitude has led to the official total of over 31,000 deaths. It is widely believed that thousands more people have died due to COVID, but are excluded from the total, as they were not tested for the disease. A study published by the Financial Times – traditionally a Tory-supporting newspaper – estimated the real UK death toll to be 41,000 on April 21. At that time, the official figure was 17,000 deaths. Hancock and Whitty should be sacked for their fatal mistakes, but they continue to shape policy, and defend it with evasive comments at daily press conferences.

Many Conservative MPs have publicly called for the lockdown to be rapidly lifted, with their priority being the strength of the economy (code for the income of party funders). The Tories tell us that capitalism is the world’s greatest economic system, with centuries of proven success. Why do they think that a few weeks of COVID lockdown could destroy their beloved capitalism? Could the real answer be Socialism and a planned economy?

The tragic failings of the Tories over COVID are sadly predictable, repeating the pattern of a cruel decade of austerity, in which the rich minority have got richer, while millions of people have struggled. In 2017, an academic study, projecting figures from the increase in the death rate since the Conservatives took power in 2010, suggested that 120,000 people had died prematurely as a result of austerity. Consistent under-funding, and privatisation, of the NHS have been a major feature of austerity, and this in turn has contributed to tens of thousands of preventable deaths in the COVID crisis.





Get The Tories Out #GTTOTheBook

Labour tweet Nov 2019

I have begun to compile a book that will bring together short essay pieces written by Labour and left Tweeters.

Provisional title Get The Tories Out: Voices from Social Media

In the weeks since the General Election defeat, I have seen an enormous amount of positive activity on Twitter. There have been inspirational ideas about Socialism, plus the #GTTO message.

The plan is to capture some of this excellent content, in a cheap paperback, that can spread our Socialist message beyond Twitter.

I have a lot of experience writing and publishing books (cover pictures in Twitter header).

Anybody interested in writing a piece, please reply to me on Twitter or send Direct Message there. Please also feel free to offer suggestions, or ask questions.

Thanks to those who have responded so positively in the first two days of this project!

Aim 100 page book

80 pages text

20 pages preliminary material plus some photos

30,000 words text

Aim about 30 people to write pieces, average 1000 words

Subjects to be covered:

In simple terms whatever people think will work!

Piece on why you are Labour member / your political experience / policy issue you are knowledgeable on / tips re grassroots organising / critique of Tories / how Twitter and social media spreads our message etc.

I am seeking between a few hundred and a thousand words from most people, and happy to recycle / adapt anything someone has already Blogged or posted as a Twitter thread.

Pieces longer than a thousand words also welcome, where people wish to produce something extended.

So far the offers have ranged between 200 words and 2,500 words.

Not looking for literary brilliance. Enthusiasm and authentic voices are the key. For those who are interested, but have not written for publication before, I am happy to edit / help shape your ideas into a piece.

Whether you have hundreds or thousands of followers on Twitter, we can all sprinkle some magic. Several high profile Tweeters are already on board and planning pieces, but I am equally keen to hear from new enthusiasts.

This is a socialist / cooperative enterprise. Contributors offer their writing, I edit it into a book, self-publish it as a cheap paperback, available for people to buy via Amazon and other retailers. Price will be as competitive as I can make it, taking into account printing and distribution costs – I am not looking to make a profit here.

Hopefully we then advertise the book via Twitter and other social media. The focus is on spreading our message, and building the network.

If the book proves a big success, we could look for mainstream publication, on a commercial basis, but that is something for the future.

Thank you for reading this. I hope you are enthused to get writing!

Example piece for book, with thanks to Wolfie who offered thread below.

Talk to people, listen and help them



Consultant to @LeftPhoenix

“Notorious, dangerous, unofficial Labour Propaganda Machine”

Pro Corbyn, Pro Palestine. Anti Tory

Joined Twitter 2017


Twitter Thread December 14 2019 – the day after General Election result.

My thoughts on where we need to go.

We need to have an election style canvass in every constituency at least once a year. A quick questionnaire to ascertain people’s concerns and where they think Labour have gone wrong. Feed it back into a database.

We need to select our candidates for the next election now. Preferably local people, who can get into their constituencies, listen to people, put pressure on the Tory incumbent, and sow seeds for the next election. We need to regain trust.

As well as looking where we’ve failed, we should look at where we’ve done well. Look to Liverpool, and see why working people are so engaged with Labour. Is it the opposition to the media, strong grassroots, engagement through football?

More than anything we have to counter the media. They are never going to be on our side. We get into communities, do voluntary work without being overly political, but join with charities and movements. We have to understand what is going on in each constituency.

The next five years are going to be hard for most people, but especially hard for the people we lost. We have the numbers, the Tories have the media. We have to use our strengths and talk to people, listen and help them. Isn’t that what socialism is about?






Labour tweet Nov 2019

The explosion of social media in recent years means that real life General Election campaigning is complemented by the online variety.
The Tories are flooding Facebook with adverts, paid for by millionaire hedge fund donors, but Labour members are winning the online battle in the current election.

Two weeks ago, home from a positive spell on the Labour doorstep, I posted an enthusiastic two minute video about the experience on Twitter, and started a hashtag, #VoteLabourVideos.

Over a few days, I started Tweeting other people who were posting similar videos, urging them to use the hashtag, and the message started to grow.
Now more and more people are posting the videos, often linking them with the Momentum #VideosByTheMany campaign. Several prominent left wing figures (including Rachael Swindon and Chelley Ryan) have added support with Retweets. Many of the videos have been watched by thousands of people, some of them by tens of thousands of people, across Twitter and Facebook in just a few days.

Tanya Shaw’s piece about the effect of Tory austerity on her local community, and the belief that Labour can help rebuild it, has been watched 31,000 times in less than a week!

I am seeing ordinary Labour Party members, who have never previously put a video on the Internet – because they are struggling with illness, or lack of confidence – offering brilliant and articulate cases, based in personal experience, and being encouraged by others who feel strongly about our cause.

At the 2017 Election, Labour were 750,000 votes behind the Tories nationally.

In 2019, if each of Labour’s 500,000 members can convert just two people, we could gain 1,000,000 votes.

Real conversations, recounted in videos, mean more than Tory adverts.

I believe talking head videos are an authentic, and effective, campaigning tool for Labour. This is real democratic debate, it is reaching many people, and I believe it can go further.

Why Not Trust the Tories?

Bevan jacket 2

Aneurin Bevan is famous as the Labour government minister who founded the National Health Service, which has been serving the nation since 1948. Bevan is also known as the firebrand MP for Ebbw Vale, on the left of his party, involved in many controversies, between his first election to the Westminster Parliament in 1929, and his death in 1960. Less well-known are the two books that Bevan published. In Place of Fear, from 1952, setting out the case for democratic Socialism, has been reprinted several times, without achieving the recognition accorded to many books written by former Cabinet ministers. Bevan’s earlier effort, Why Not Trust the Tories?, published in 1944, rapidly sold an amazing 80,000 copies, and then all but disappeared. The book has never – as far as I can tell – been reprinted, and receives only passing references in biographies of Bevan.

Why Not Trust the Tories? was published by Victor Gollancz, as part of a series providing critiques of the Conservative, and right wing, approach that had dominated British politics in recent years. The most famous of these books was Guilty Men, by “Cato”, published in 1940, attacking the appeasement of Fascism by the National Government. There was speculation that Bevan might be the author, but “Cato” was the pseudonym for a trio of journalists, including a young Michael Foot. Four years later, Bevan did enter the literary fray. The title page of Why Not Trust the Tories? announced the author as “Celticus”, but there was no need to speculate on the identity, as this was immediately followed by “(Aneurin Bevan, M.P.)”. As a hardback, with a dust jacket, and a text running to 89 pages, this was a real book – weightier than a pamphlet. It is now 75 years since the book was published, but Bevan’s work remains one of the most perceptive analyses of the negative outlook, and cynical actions, of the Conservative Party. Much of the tragedy of the past has been repeated as farce in more recent times, and Bevan’s message should be heeded today.

In 1944, victory for Britain, and her allies, in World War Two was in sight. In the first chapter, “1918: After the Armistice”, Bevan drew parallels with the position at the end of World War One. During both wars, Britain was governed by a coalition of the Liberal, Tory, and Labour parties. At the end of the first war, Labour decided to revert to independence, opposing the Tories. Within days of the conflict ending, the coalition called the infamous “Coupon” General Election, with David Lloyd George, a Liberal, as Prime Minister. The Tories – shunning the Liberals loyal to the preceding Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith – manoeuvered to ensure they emerged from the Election with more MPs than their partners, and thereby controlled the government moving forward. One of the instigators of the plan was Winston Churchill, a Liberal MP who was formerly a Tory, would later become a Tory again, and was Prime Minister at the time Bevan was writing.

In the course of the book, Bevan suggests that public opinion was shifting towards the left, and his faith was realised. Germany surrendered on May 8 1945, ending the war in Europe. Churchill wished the Coalition to continue until Japan was defeated, an event not expected to occur until the following year. Churchill was trying to repeat the trick of 1918, seeking a Tory-dominated coalition going forward, but Labour members of the government pressed for an early Election on party lines. During the Election cam­paign, Churchill concentrated on attacking the alleged intentions of the Labour Party, claiming that it would not be able to implement its programme without “some form of Gestapo”, a sickening reference to the Nazi secret police from the man who had recently allowed two million Indians to starve to death in the Bengal Famine. Churchill seemed to forget that his wartime government had included members of the Labour Party. Churchill also ignored his pre-war support of Fascism. Labour won 393 seats, and a majority of 146, as people voted for new hope. The discredited Conservative Party took only 198 seats in the 1945 Election – their smallest total between humiliating defeats by the Liberals in 1906, and Labour in 1997. The Labour Party formed its first majority government, with Clement Attlee as Prime Minister, and Bevan as Minister of Health. As for the Liberals, they experienced a long period in the wilderness, after dissolution of the coalition in 1945. They did not return to power until 2010, when a Conservative and Liberal coalition government, following that of 1918 to 1922, followed a policy of austerity, to condemn the hopes of a nation to the scrapheap.

In the second section of the book, “The Betrayal of the Miners”, Bevan looks back to 1919. With the British coal mining industry in a sorry state, due to mismanagement and profiteering by the owners, the miners argued for nationalisation and workers’ control. Lloyd George, on behalf of the coalition government, set up the Sankey Commission to investigate, and Bonar Law, leader of the Tories, pledged to implement the recommendations, accepting these could include nationalisation. When the commission supported nationalisation, however, the government rapidly reneged on its promise. The coal mines remained in the hands of private owners, who were allowed to increase the price of coal, and the industry remained in crisis. Bevan noted that production dropped, from 286,000,000 tons in 1913, to 196,000,000 tons in 1943. In office from 1945, Labour carried a major programme of reform, including public ownership of the coal mines, railways, electricity, gas, and steel, plus the Bank of England.

Later conflict between the Tories and the miners led to the downfall of Edward Heath’s government in 1974. Margaret Thatcher took power five years later, leading an ideological right wing government, which attacked the organised working class with deindustrialisation and privatisation. The actions of Thatcher, John Major, and David Cameron would have shocked even Bevan. The protracted miners’ strike of 1984-85 failed to reverse Thatcher’s decimation of the coal industry, which was privatised in 1994, and deep coal mining in Britain completely ceased in 2015. British steel was denationalised by the Conservatives in the 1950s, renationalised by Labour in 1967, and then privatised by the Conservatives in 1988. Since 2010, the steel industry in this country, largely owned by foreign companies, has experienced a lot of uncertainty, with the Conservatives refusing suggestions that renationalisation be used to protect manufacturing capacity.

At the start of chapter three, “Death by Words”, Bevan looks back to 1922, when the Tories ditched their coalition with the Liberals, which had delivered economic depression and mass unemployment. The Tories won a General Election as a single party, with Law offering the country a policy of “Tranquility”, which proved to be another word for cuts to services, and more unemployment. The General Election of 1922 has been echoed in 2015, as the Conservatives gained marginal constituencies from their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, and also Labour – centrally funded by the Tory Electoral Fraud – and won a majority in the Commons, with only 37 per cent of the votes cast.

Bevan hops from 1922 to planning for the future, during World War Two. Tories pretended to be enthused about popular reforms, but found ways to delay their implementation, with official enquiries and reports being followed by detailed consideration from the government. Bevan provides an excellent analysis of events surrounding the Beveridge Report, published in December 1942, which envisaged a comprehensive scheme of social security. The plan was originally due to come into effect in July 1944. The Con­servative Party was not, however, enthusiastic about the scheme so the government delayed its implementation. When the Beveridge Report was debated in the House of Commons, during February 1943, the Tories carried a motion welcoming it as an idea for “post-war reconstruction”, defeating a backbench Labour amendment that called for “early implementation of the plan”. Bevan, one of 119 MPs who voted for the amendment, writes that here was “The Tory variant of ‘Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today’”. Bevan borrowed this curious idea from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, And What Alice Found There. The White Queen offered Alice work as a maid, for “Twopence a week, and jam every other day”, going on to say “The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday – but never jam today”. Bevan quotes the speech by “Mr Willink, who is now Minister of Health”. Henry Willink said “I am for improving the Beveridge Report”, although “there are many features of the report which I do not wish to see implemented”. Willink then voted with his fellow Tories for delay – he will appear later in this piece. During the following months, Beveridge and opposition MPs regularly pressed the government for a commitment to progress, but were met by delaying statements from Churchill and others.  Bevan points out that massive public enthusiasm for the scheme was replaced by disillusion, as the Tories “contrive to drown the wistful hopes of the people for social security in a torrent of words, specious promises and endless delays”.

“Jobs for Some” is the heading of Bevan’s next exploration. He begins with Churchill addressing the nation in a radio broadcast, during March 1943, about post-war prospects. Bevan hears Churchill planning a repeat of 1918, with his suggestion that defeat of Hitler be followed by a Four Year Plan of reconstruction, led by “a National Government comprising the best men of all parties who are willing to serve”. In perhaps the only quote from the book to achieve longevity, Bevan comments “Political renegades always start their career of treachery as the ‘best men of all parties’ and end up in the Tory knackery”. A White Paper on Employment Policy arrived in May 1944, attempted at improving morale, shortly before the troops left for Normandy on D-Day. Bevan satirises the White Paper at length, particularly the idea that “thermostatic control of employment” could see troops – hoping to settle in family homes, and stable employment, upon their return after the war – being converted into mobile labourers, hopping between locations and trades, evening out fluctuations in the temperature of failing capitalism. Bevan ends the chapter with a quote from a speech he made, when the White Paper was debated in Parliament. He said of the plan, “It runs away from every major social problem. It takes refuge in tricks, strategies, and devices because it has not the honesty to face up to the implications of the social problems involved”. Bevan was correct in his scepticism. Post-war Conservatism has brought continued mismanagement of the economy, leading to several spells of mass unemployment. The number of people unemployed rose above three million under both Thatcher, in 1982, and Major, in 1993. Cameron was little improvement in this respect, as unemployment increased to almost 2,700,000 in 2011.

“Will You Get That House?” is the question asked by the penultimate chapter. Bevan remarks that while the British forces were abroad fighting the Nazis, at home the Tories were focusing on their own priority. He points out that “the private ownership of land and the right to do what they like with it have always been the holy of the holies for the Tories”. From this stem issues over the provision, and affordability, of housing. Millions of new homes would have to be built to rectify a pre-war shortfall, that had been exacerbated by the destruction of bombing. Following a familiar pattern, the Tories set up a Royal Commission, and two Committees of Enquiry, rejected the suggestions they did not like, and were still procrastinating over action as Bevan completed work on the book. Bevan could not see Churchill, a Prime Minister who had the clearest power to act, delivering on his frequent promises of future “sunny uplands”.

In the current age, Conservative Brexiteers, of both deal and no deal persuasions, dream of “sunny uplands” – presumably overlooking headless (or chlorinated) chickens running around Brexitised wheat fields. Cameron announced the plan for a Referendum on membership of the European Union in 2013, and it was held three years later. The purest of Brexiteers said they would end payments to the EU, take back control of our laws from the European Court, leave the EU single market and customs union, not pay a divorce bill to the EU, negotiate free trade agreements with the EU plus the world’s other leading economies, and achieve all this within two years of a vote to leave in the 2016 Referendum. It is now more than three years since the British people voted to leave the EU, but the Tories have failed to achieve any of their Brexit milestones.

Returning to the past, Britain did get a massive programme of house building after World War Two, but this was not initiated by the Tories. Bevan mentions that, in 1944, Henry Willink pledged a post-war house building programme, which the former thought was far from sufficient. In practice, the man directing the programme was none other than Bevan himself, whose role as Minister of Health also included responsibility for housing. During Bevan’s spell in office, a million council houses were built, to a higher quality standard than was previously in place. Council houses remained a central part of affordable housing in Britain until the decline began during the Thatcher era. Thatcherism’s ideological sales of council houses fueled a growth in house prices and rents plus homelessness, the sad legacy of which afflicts potential owners and tenants today, while a large proportion of current Conservative MPs are landlords.

Perhaps the most relevant part of the book for the present day is the final chapter, “The Mechanism of the Tory Mind”. Bevan begins by stating that he does not regard Tories, as men and women, to be “worse than other people”. He thinks that Tories have good private morals “whereas their public morals are execrable”, with habitual telling of lies about their political motives. Bevan points out that “the traditional Tory does not look upon himself as the people’s representative, because the Tory doctrine pre-dates the rise of modern democracy”. The Tories had fought against the development of democracy, and had sided with Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco in their attacks on democratic government. Bevan also draws attention to the way in which the Tories had blocked a role for Parliament in the organisation of the British economy, in order to protect their own position as the representatives of the propertied class. He states “By refusing the state effective intervention in the economic activities of society, the Tory is a potential Fascist element in the community. By denying Parliament a vigorous economic life he condemns it to death”. Necessity had led to an economic role for the state during the war, but Bevan pointed to signs that the Tories would seek to retain power with the help of “a freedom campaign”, backed by “the Tory millionaire press”, with propaganda against state regulation. This would enable a Tory to “be free once more to hunt in the jungle of economic competition”. Bevan warned that the left must guard against “appearing to be the advocates of regimentation as opposed to freedom”. Bevan highlighted the perennial problem for the Tories: “It is how to induce the many to vote the few back into power at each election. Or, to put it another way, how to persuade the poor to allow the rich to continue ruling”. In our own day, Jeremy Corbyn has made the phrase “For the many not the few” into the Labour Party’s mantra, and 2017 Manifesto title.

The Tory propaganda failed in 1945, and the incoming Labour government delivered the welfare state. The defining achievement of Labour was the National Health Service, with Bevan being the architect. The Conservatives responded with vehement opposition, voted against establishment of the NHS in Parliament, and have continued to undermine its principles. With Bevan standing firm, the NHS opened on July 5 1948. On the previous day, Bevan addressed a Labour Party rally in Manchester. Having given the Tories the benefit of the doubt about their morals in 1944, Bevan now saw things very differently, doubtless antagonised by the Tory attempt to block foundation of the NHS. In the speech, he contrasted the promise of the welfare state with the poverty suffered by working class people, including himself, due to the past policies of the Conservatives. “That is why,” Bevan said, “no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned, they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first class people to semi-starvation”. The Conservative press reacted with furious condemnation of Bevan’s bold political banter. Conservative Party members set up a Vermin Club as a protest against Bevan, with a prominent member being Margaret Thatcher, an aspiring politician destined to lead a Conservative attack on the NHS decades later, with the introduction of an internal market.

A major reorganisation of the NHS, introduced by the Con-Dem coalition, took effect in 2013, increasing the rate at which privatisation, and fragmentation, undermined a vital public service. In 2017, Jeremy Hunt, as Secretary of State for Health, told the Conservative Party Conference (ironically meeting in Manchester): “Nye Bevan deserves credit for founding the NHS in 1948, but that wasn’t him or indeed any Labour minister. That was the Conservative health minister in 1944, Sir Henry Willink, whose white paper announced the setting up of the NHS”. Many people smelt a rat, or at least a large piece of fake news. Hunt’s ludicrous claim that a Conservative had set up the NHS somehow failed to deal with the fact that the Conservatives, including Willink, had voted against legislation, during 1946, that set up a comprehensive NHS – which went beyond the coalition plan of 1944. Of course Hunt is no longer in government, having departed upon his recent defeat against Boris Johnson in a Conservative Party leadership election. When detailing the “sunny uplands” of Brexit earlier, I did not mention perhaps the most popular of pledges, this being the transfer of the UK’s gross contribution of £350,000,000 per week to the EU, which would in the near future be used to fund the NHS. The pledge was made by the Vote Leave campaign, led by Johnson, Michael Gove, and other Tory Brexiteers – a cabal who now control the government. The chief strategist of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings, is now the supposed mastermind (and definitely unelected advisor) guiding the charlatan Johnson in 10 Downing Street. In 2016, Vote Leave did not look at how the funding of agriculture, regional development, and other items, met by the return, from the EU, of about half the gross contribution would be replaced. In 2019, during his first few weeks as Prime Minister, Johnson has made plenty of announcements, one of which offered more money to the NHS – which turned out to be a recycling of existing funding – but there has not been any sign of the Tory “magic money tree” sprouting £350,000,000 per week for the NHS. Johnson has defied constitutional convention, by advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, during September and October, in an attempt to prevent scrutiny of his Brexit plans. Johnson’s rationale for this is that “The whole September session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot Cameron to show the public that MPs were earning their crust” – a truly ridiculous thing for a Prime Minister to write in an official government memo. With Parliament passing emergency legislation to compel Johnson to seek an extension of EU membership, if a deal is not agreed by mid-October, we have Gove, Johnson, and others in the government, floating the possibility that they may simply ignore the law. As Bevan demonstrated in 1944, we always need to be wary of what the Tories say and do. The 2019 Tories are trying the repeat a cycle of deception that Bevan traced back to 1918. Why not trust the Tories? There are so many reasons!

Brexit: Meaningful Votes and Alternative Arrangements


As I write this, on March 17 2019, the United Kingdom is just 12 days away from possibly leaving the European Union without a deal. This is the default legal position, and a no deal exit will happen unless Parliament agrees a deal, or the government agrees an extension of Article 50 with the EU. I think the other possibility, of revoking Article 50, is very unlikely this week or next week.

There has been much debate among politicians, and pundits, about what might happen. What are the possible alternatives to the deal Theresa May has agreed with the EU, only for it to be overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Commons twice (the margins being 230 votes and 149 votes)? I thought it might be a useful exercise to set out the number of votes gained for the various propositions put to the Commons since the start of 2019. The following list, in descending order of support, features almost all of the motions and amendments voted upon. The three exceptions are the final votes on three separate days, January 29, February 27, and March 13. Each of those votes agreed a motion in which an initial government position had been amended by a previous vote that day. On the first two dates the final motion was carried without a division, while on March 13 there was a division. The relative strengths of support for what was agreed on those days can be consistently gauged by looking at the votes for the individual amendments that were carried.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Citizens’ Rights to be guaranteed (Costa February 27)

520 CARRIED Second Meaningful Vote to be held by March 12, followed by votes to potentially rule out deal and extend Article 50 (Cooper February 27)

412 CARRIED Extend Article 50 to June 30 2019 if Withdrawal Agreement passed by Parliament by March 20, to enable Brexit legislation to be passed. Motion notes that if Withdrawal Agreement not passed by March 20, EU would probably require clear purpose for extension. (May March 14)

318 CARRIED Rule out no deal (Spelman / Dromey January 29)

317 CARRIED Replace Northern Ireland Backstop with unspecified alternative arrangements (Brady January 29)

312 CARRIED Rule out no deal (Cooper March 13)

312 Extend Article 50 for unspecified time, and allow cross-party group of backbenchers to propose alternative plans in House of Commons (Benn March 14)

311 Extend Article 50 to June 30 2019, and allow cross-party group of backbenchers to propose alternative plans in House of Commons (Powell March 14)

306 Second Meaningful Vote to be held by February 27 (Corbyn February 14)

302 Extend Article 50 for unspecified time, and the government should allow time for House of Commons to find a majority for an alternative plan (Corbyn March 14)

301 Alternative options to be voted on by Commons across six days, during February and March (Grieve January 29)

298 Extend Article 50 for up to nine months, to avoid no deal Brexit (Cooper January 29)

296 Rule out no deal, renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement to include a Customs Union and strong relationship with Single Market, with an agreement to be subject to a public vote (Corbyn January 29)

290 Postpone Brexit for unspecified period (Reeves January 29)

288 Rule out no deal (Blackford February 27)

258 Endorse government current strategy of leaving March 29 with or without deal (May February 14)

242 Withdrawal Agreement second meaningful vote (May March 12)

240 Renegotiate the Political Declaration, to include a Customs Union and strong relationship with Single Market (Corbyn February 27)

202 Withdrawal Agreement first meaningful vote (May January 15)

164 Malthouse plan for a managed no deal (Green March 13)

93 Delay Brexit by at least three months (Blackford February 14)

85 Hold a second referendum (Wollaston March 14)

39 Delay Brexit and rule out no deal (Blackford January 29)



Post Navigation