Ann Widdecombe: 5 shocking things Brexit Party candidate has said and done From chaining up pregnant prisoners to backing "abhorrent" gay conversion therapy, here are some of the most controversial acts to the Brexit Party candidate's name
When Nigel Farage launched the Brexit Party just weeks ago, he claimed it would be "intolerant of intolerance".
1. She supported 'gay conversion' therapy
In 2012 she defended "gay conversion" therapy - which Theresa May has branded "abhorrent" and vowed to ban.
2. She backed chaining up pregnant prisoners
As a Shadow Home Office minister in 1996, Ms Widdecombe infamously defended the practice of chaining up female prisoners in jail. Labour's Jack Straw said it was "inhuman, degrading and unnecessary for a prisoner to be shackled at any stage of labour". And the Royal College of Midwives said the policy put the health of mothers and babies at risk.
3. She left the Church of England in protest at female priests
Ms Widdecombe famously left the Church of England and joined the Catholic church in 1992 - in protest at the decision to ordain female priests. Even in 2010 she was unrepentant, saying "it's theologically impossible to ordain women".
4. She voted against a whole string of gay rights
Ms Widdecombe has persistently voted against LGBT rights and equality. Those included voted against equalising the age of consent at 16, civil partnerships and the repeal of Section 28. In 2000 she told MPs she "rejected" the idea "that there is somehow equal validity between the homosexual lifestyle and marriage and family." Last year she was branded "homophobic" by drag star Courtney Act when they both appeared on Celebrity Big Brother . Labour MP Wes Streeting said: “The Brexit Party is shaping up to be a weird assortment of people who’ve fought tooth and nail against hard-won rights and freedoms, epitomised by Ann Widdecombe."
5. She branded women's pension age activists 'self-indulgent and entitled'
Ms Widdecombe branded a women's pension age campaigner "self-indulgent and entitled" during a TV documentary. The Tory ex-Pensions Minister was in the 1990s an architect of changes that will hike the pension age of 1950s-born women to 66 by 2020.
Widdecombe, 71, told Ms Wignall: "I'm sorry I'm going to be blunt here. "It is unreasonable, self-indulgent and entitled to think that you can retire at the same age with a much longer life expectancy at the state's expense.
Some People are meant to be Great others have Greatness thrust upon them. Some will never be Great or popular, loved or revered " Eleanor Rigby" of this World. Where do they fit , where do you fit, where do I fit .......... me the later. sigh!
People need to be aware as to what exactly they are voting for, particularly in the European election.
A vote (and victory) for the Conservative Party is likely to lead to a Canada-style Brexit. People who wanted to leave on such terms would logically be seeking to promote leadership candidates from the Right wing of the Conservatives.
Instead, the Right Wing of the Conservatives appear to want to vote for the Brexit or UKIP parties, which (due to no General Election being due) will have no say in the UK Parliament where any Brexit will actually take place. Instead, the left/centre of the Conservatives will be the part that will be taking the Party forward, at least in the Short-Term. That is not going to help getting the sort of Conservative leader that will produce the sort of Brexit that the ERG (and many other Conservatives) want.
A vote/victory for Labour will likely lead to a softer, Norway-style Brexit. A mandate for them in the European/Local elections would likely force the current Government to make serious concessions which would allow a consensus in Parliament, and for us to leave.
I can see why it is attractive to vote for the Brexit Party. I get that people want to show dissatisfaction with the lack of progress since 2016. The problem is that a substantial vote for the Brexit Party is likely to cause further delays to Brexit, not speed it up. People need to decide whether they want to register a protest, or achieve their aims.
People need to be aware as to what exactly they are voting for, particularly in the European election.
A vote (and victory) for the Conservative Party is likely to lead to a Canada-style Brexit. People who wanted to leave on such terms would logically be seeking to promote leadership candidates from the Right wing of the Conservatives.
Instead, the Right Wing of the Conservatives appear to want to vote for the Brexit or UKIP parties, which (due to no General Election being due) will have no say in the UK Parliament where any Brexit will actually take place. Instead, the left/centre of the Conservatives will be the part that will be taking the Party forward, at least in the Short-Term. That is not going to help getting the sort of Conservative leader that will produce the sort of Brexit that the ERG (and many other Conservatives) want.
A vote/victory for Labour will likely lead to a softer, Norway-style Brexit. A mandate for them in the European/Local elections would likely force the current Government to make serious concessions which would allow a consensus in Parliament, and for us to leave.
I can see why it is attractive to vote for the Brexit Party. I get that people want to show dissatisfaction with the lack of progress since 2016. The problem is that a substantial vote for the Brexit Party is likely to cause further delays to Brexit, not speed it up. People need to decide whether they want to register a protest, or achieve their aims.
What would the Brexit party winning the European Elections actually change?
Even with all the volatility in British politics right now, it is still remarkable that the Brexit party are favourites to win the European Elections just a week after launching. But will the Brexit party winning actually change anything, I ask in The Sun this morning.
I think there are a several ways it which it will have an impact. First, it’ll make MPs more cautious about a second referendum. One of the reasons why support for the idea has grown in parliament is a belief that Remain would triumph. A Brexit party victory would challenge that assumption.
Next, I suspect that Farage’s new party topping the poll would make the Tory Brexit holdouts less inclined to compromise. They’ll see it as a sign that the public backs no deal, though I suspect that the Brexit party’s success has more to do with the delays to the UK leaving than anything else.
The Brexit Party’s vote will come at the expense of the Tories more than any other party. The debate will quickly shift to how the Tories can win these voters back, and that will boost the chances of the Brexiteer leadership contenders. Indeed, the return of Farage has already led to Tory MPs taking a second look at Boris Johnson.
The other great question is, what effect will a win for the Brexit party have on Labour? If the Brexit party is taking votes from Labour in its traditional heartlands, it will strengthen the hand of those in the party who just want to get a Brexit deal done so the issue is off the stocks before the next election.
But a cross-party deal is still unlikely to happen given how bitterly it would divide Labour. Some in government do, though, hold out hope that a Brexit party victory might lead to some more Labour MPs being prepared to back the deal; a mere five Labour MPs voted for the withdrawal agreement last month. But with the DUP and hardcore Brexiteers determined not to back the deal, it would require 30 or more Labour MPs to come over—which is a hard ask—for the deal to pass.
The most significant consequence of a Brexit party triumph, though, is that it would finish off Farage’s old party, Ukip.
Ukip’s flirtation with Tommy Robinson street thuggery and YouTube stars who make light of rape has been a disaster for the party. The electorate will simply have no truck with such extremist nonsense and so Ukip won’t be the beneficiaries of the public’s anger at the Brexit delays.
People need to be aware as to what exactly they are voting for, particularly in the European election.
A vote (and victory) for the Conservative Party is likely to lead to a Canada-style Brexit. People who wanted to leave on such terms would logically be seeking to promote leadership candidates from the Right wing of the Conservatives.
Instead, the Right Wing of the Conservatives appear to want to vote for the Brexit or UKIP parties, which (due to no General Election being due) will have no say in the UK Parliament where any Brexit will actually take place. Instead, the left/centre of the Conservatives will be the part that will be taking the Party forward, at least in the Short-Term. That is not going to help getting the sort of Conservative leader that will produce the sort of Brexit that the ERG (and many other Conservatives) want.
A vote/victory for Labour will likely lead to a softer, Norway-style Brexit. A mandate for them in the European/Local elections would likely force the current Government to make serious concessions which would allow a consensus in Parliament, and for us to leave.
I can see why it is attractive to vote for the Brexit Party. I get that people want to show dissatisfaction with the lack of progress since 2016. The problem is that a substantial vote for the Brexit Party is likely to cause further delays to Brexit, not speed it up. People need to decide whether they want to register a protest, or achieve their aims.
What would the Brexit party winning the European Elections actually change?
Even with all the volatility in British politics right now, it is still remarkable that the Brexit party are favourites to win the European Elections just a week after launching. But will the Brexit party winning actually change anything, I ask in The Sun this morning.
I think there are a several ways it which it will have an impact. First, it’ll make MPs more cautious about a second referendum. One of the reasons why support for the idea has grown in parliament is a belief that Remain would triumph. A Brexit party victory would challenge that assumption.
Next, I suspect that Farage’s new party topping the poll would make the Tory Brexit holdouts less inclined to compromise. They’ll see it as a sign that the public backs no deal, though I suspect that the Brexit party’s success has more to do with the delays to the UK leaving than anything else.
The Brexit Party’s vote will come at the expense of the Tories more than any other party. The debate will quickly shift to how the Tories can win these voters back, and that will boost the chances of the Brexiteer leadership contenders. Indeed, the return of Farage has already led to Tory MPs taking a second look at Boris Johnson.
The other great question is, what effect will a win for the Brexit party have on Labour? If the Brexit party is taking votes from Labour in its traditional heartlands, it will strengthen the hand of those in the party who just want to get a Brexit deal done so the issue is off the stocks before the next election.
But a cross-party deal is still unlikely to happen given how bitterly it would divide Labour. Some in government do, though, hold out hope that a Brexit party victory might lead to some more Labour MPs being prepared to back the deal; a mere five Labour MPs voted for the withdrawal agreement last month. But with the DUP and hardcore Brexiteers determined not to back the deal, it would require 30 or more Labour MPs to come over—which is a hard ask—for the deal to pass.
The most significant consequence of a Brexit party triumph, though, is that it would finish off Farage’s old party, Ukip.
Ukip’s flirtation with Tommy Robinson street thuggery and YouTube stars who make light of rape has been a disaster for the party. The electorate will simply have no truck with such extremist nonsense and so Ukip won’t be the beneficiaries of the public’s anger at the Brexit delays.
The bit that I particularly agree with is the bit I have highlighted. but that is going to delay Brexit, not speed it up. Unless you think the Government is keen to call an Election where it may lose 100-200 seats.
Only time will tell whether the leadership of the Conservative Party centres on the lost votes, or the ones that it still has. That fight is going to be nasty, and take a considerable amount of time. In the meantime, of course, no compromise/no general election means more and more delay.
It also seems rather optimistic to think that a vote for the Brexit Party will have an effect where the 2016 referendum did not, particularly where that Party has 0 MPs. Europe's position will also likely harden, making No Deal more likely. That scenario is undoubtedly worse than all other forms of Brexit.
LONDON — Who’s afraid of a no-deal Brexit? These days, almost everyone.
With the help of shareholder bosses of major corporations and politicians who never wanted Brexit to happen, most people agree “crashing out” is not a good idea.
But with 18 days until we’re legally bound both by Article 50 and by our own Brexit legislation to leave the bloc, the European Union is not budging on the backstop (aside from adding "legal assurances" to try and placate Britain) and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s grip on the process could soon be dealt its final blow by another humiliation in the Commons.
Like it or not, a no-deal scenario looms large. And far from being afraid, we should be cheering it on.
To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country's GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal.
Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them.
Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry.
But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides.
With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU.
The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world.
As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers.
Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations.
Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27.
To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris.
All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.”
So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters?
The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down.
The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it.
But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity.
To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry.
It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this.
If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around.
Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected.
So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave.
If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked.
Why post-Brexit Britain is done for – unless we radically change our economic model Whatever the outcome of Brexit negotiations, it’s clear the UK economy needs a major change of direction.
The neoliberal experiment of the last 40 years has hollowed out the economy and the government inflicted austerity has to end. The House of Commons Treasury Committee has questioned the government’s policies. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has urged the government to increase its spending to stimulate the economy. And the Tories are £5bn short of fulfilling their pledge to end austerity.
Neoliberal economic policies have neither balanced the books, nor secured economic stability or growth. Government borrowing (public sector net debt excluding public sector banks) at the end of December 2018 was £1,809bn compared £952bn in September 2010. Yet the misdirected policies achieved little. The economy has yet to fully recover from the 2007-08 financial crash. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has reported that the economy grew by only 0.2% in the final quarter of 2018. There are troubled times ahead.
The government has used low interest rates and cuts in corporation tax to stimulate the economy and failed: since 2009, the UK has had rock-bottom interest rates, averaging at around 0.5%, but the investment in low. Amongst the EU countries, the UK invests around 16.9% of its gross domestic product (GDP) in productive assets compared to the average of 20.1% for the EU.
In the EU investment league table, only Greece and Portugal invest less than the UK. Sweden (24.9%). Estonia (23.7%), Austria (23.5%), Ireland (23.4%), Belgium (23.3%), Romania and Finland (both 22.6%) as well as France (22.4%) all had investment rates of over 20% of GDP. The UK is also lagging behind in research and development (R&D). Since the 1990s, the UK R&D expenditure has fluctuated between 1.5% and 1.7% of GDP. This is well behind the EU average of 2% and about half the level in Sweden. Low investment in productive assets and R&D has inevitably resulted in low productivity. Despite working almost the longest hours in the EU, the output per hour worked in the UK is about 16% below the average for the rest of the G7 advanced economies. The UK productivity is around 27% below that of Germany.
Rather than taking a direct role in reinvigorating the economy, the government has showered tax cuts on corporations. The corporation tax rate has declined from the rate of 30% in 2007 to 19% and is set to decline to 17% in 2020. But tax cuts have not resulted in higher investment or a focus on the long-term.
Short-termism dominates virtually every sector of the UK economy. Andrew Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England noted that in 1970, major UK companies paid out about £10 of each £100 of profits in dividends, but by 2015 the amount was between £60 and £70, often accompanied by a squeeze on labour and investment. UK companies have paid out a higher proportion of their earnings in dividends compared to their counterparts from the EU, Japan, emerging markets and the USA.
The stock market has become a cash extractor from companies. Haldane notes: “Among UK companies, share buybacks have consistently exceeded share issuance over the past decade. In other words, over the past decade the equity market no longer appears to have been a source of net new financing to the UK corporate sector”. A Bank of England survey showed that only around 25% of finance raised by companies is spent on investment, with the remainder split between purchasing financial assets, distributing capital to shareholders and keeping it as cash.
A necessary condition for economic renewal is that people must have high amounts of purchasing power. Yet neoliberals have ignored that. The government squeeze on trade unions, destruction of skilled and semi-skilled jobs have eroded workers’ share of GDP to 49%, compared to 65% in 1976. This boosted corporate profits which have been squandered on short-term returns.
Household debt has soared to £1.616 trillion and even those at work are queuing at foodbanks. People’s strength to stimulate the economy has been sapped. The old policies of cheap policies and corporate tax cuts have failed.
The state has to take a central role in rebuilding the economy. Wealth needs to be redistributed by increasing corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthy. The government will need to spend more to restructure the economy. Of course, this immediately raises the ire of neoliberals.
Yet a government which used £1,162 billion to support distressed banks can also find resources to invest in newer industries. Neoliberals forget that biotechnology, airlines, engineering, telecommunications, computers, shipbuilding and many other industries were started or stimulated by investment from the state, as private capital showed little appetite for long-term risks or investment.
It’s time to look at the investment crisis in the round. Everyone agrees that the UK needs to build more houses – but that cannot be achieved without increasing the capacity to manufacture bricks, cement, mortar, or having building carpentry, plumbing, electrical and other skills. The post-Brexit uncertainties demand that the government change its economic policies – and get started now.
Prem Sikka is Professor of Accounting at University of Sheffield and Emeritus Professor of Accounting at University of Essex
Nigel Farage says his party will FIGHT next General Election He said he wants to run candidates for Parliament in future to stop Remainer MPs blocking Brexit. Mr Farage's new party is on course to come top in next month's EU elections just months after it was founded. The former Ukip leader said: "We want the European election to be the first step of a massive change that 'resteps' entirely British politics and actually makes it look more like the country. MPs will realise that if they carry on trying to stop Brexit, they'll lose their seats at the next general election. I think they will be very fearful of what the Brexit Party can do to them"That'll give them two choices - either they change and start to deliver Brexit, or we'll replace them at that general election.
"It's a springboard. If you show people you're capable of winning in one set of elections, people will start to believe that it's possible in a general election too."
A string of polls have shown the Brexit Party is likely to come top in the European Parliament elections which will take place on May 23 if the UK is still in the EU by then.
The party has signed up candidates including ex-Tory minister Ann Widdecombe and Jacob Rees-Mogg's sister Annunziata. Six new candidates unveiled yesterday included lawyer Elizabeth Babade, who was born in London before her family moved back to Nigeria.
Mother of four Mrs Babade, 44, who lives in Buckinghamshire, said: "A lot of people would wonder why someone from an ethnic minority like myself would be standing for the Brexit Party.
"Well the answer is simple. I believe in democracy."
Fellow candidate James Wells, who is standing in Wales, told a press conference in Manchester that as a civil servant banned from political involvement, he resigned from his job as head of UK trade at the Office for National Statistics only on Tuesday.
BBC comedian launches SCATHING RANT against Brexit Party - 'We didn't vote for Blitz' BBC comedian Mark Steel let out his frustration over Brexit as he launched a ferocious tirade against the Brexit Party and MPs causing chaos in Parliament with their refusal to agree on a way forward to quit the European Union.
The Brexit Party that believes there shouldn’t be such elections are, of course, the first people to be out campaigning.
Marvellously, they keep coming back with these new candidates that they reveal and the one they’ve come up with this week is Ann Widdecombe. "The Brexit Party is like Channel 5 when they have one of these new reality shows and, bit by bit, they reveal all their contestants. It’s Ann Widdecombe and, over the weekend, they’ll have Timmy Mallett and Jimmy Greaves and the woman who threw her cat into a wheelie bin. And that’ll be their candidates.
Mr Steel continued his rant suggesting the UK may be forced to swallow additional demands from Brussels before securing a withdrawal deal. He said: "It’s funny because you don’t know what chaos we’ll get out of here. "We’ll find out they’ve agreed to make us a village in Poland or we’ve agreed to feline plus – we’re only allowed into Europe through a giant flap and we all have to c**p in a tray. "You put on the news and there’s another of them votes and nothing will surprise you and all the MPs were naked and one of them was in a canoe and Jacob Rees-Mogg was on a llama wearing a monocle and they’re all firing trifle to each other. And the Speaker was going, ‘the jellies have it, the jellies have it.’"
Move over Jacob, it's MY turn to be top Mogg: They're so posh, they even battled over who inherited the family nanny. Now Annunziata Rees-Mogg tells JAN MOIR why she's ready to step out of her brother's shadow
Annunziata, left, had a visitation recently when driving to Lincolnshire, where she lives with her businessman husband Matthew Glanville and their daughters Isadora, eight, and Molly, one. Passing under a bridge upon which someone had spray-painted 'Don't Vote, Act', her rich Moggian blood stirred in her blue Moggian veins. It was a sign! A calling for sure. Some might have gone home and tidied the laundry basket - Annunziata joined the Brexit Party. 'I want to deliver democracy,' she says today. 'I am prepared to give up a lot to do it.' As befits her status as a candidate for the Brexit Party in a huge Midlands constituency that takes in six counties, she seems to have developed a serious, sonorous way of talking I don't recall before
Brexit Party candidate claimed Tory Islamophobia was 'made up by the left' EXCLUSIVE: Lance Forman, who is standing for Nigel Farage's party in London, was criticised by the Muslim Council of Britain
Is this feast of fruitcakes really the future of British politics?
An opera singer, an ex-lads’ magazine editor and Ann Widdecombe walk into a parliamentary chamber: not the beginning of a joke – or a game of kiss, marry, kill – but the current leadership hopefuls for Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party. Which is very different from Ukip, obviously, as it has the word “Brexit” in the title. Anyhow, this is what our political future looks like – or might, come the European Elections on May 23. Others in the running include a former Communist, a toboganning-obsessed businessman and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s sister. Some colour from our leaders – beyond a lacklustre leopard print kitten heel – might well lift our crumpled collective spirit. But let us not mistake a “spark”...
Why does Nigel Farage keep coming back to Clacton? Because it is nothing like Britain Nigel Farage is talking the language of betrayal, but the only thing he and the rest of the Brexiteers have been betrayed by is reality
Nigel Farage moves through Clacton like it’s his own strip club. A handshake here, an incline of the head there, and always, always, the shallow smile that belies the knowledge that the longer the losing game is allowed to run, the more he wins. He and everybody else knows he is the biggest fish in the narrow Brexit ocean, and Clacton is his birthing ground, where the tides and the currents of **** will always return him, so that the lies may be renewed again.
Comments
This must be quite conflicting for you Dobie, seeing as you're a big fan of both Tommy and Nigel, but Tommy isn't a fan of Nigel.
2 great men, either would be very deserving of your precious vote and they clearly only want what is best for the country and not for themselves.
From chaining up pregnant prisoners to backing "abhorrent" gay conversion therapy, here are some of the most controversial acts to the Brexit Party candidate's name
When Nigel Farage launched the Brexit Party just weeks ago, he claimed it would be "intolerant of intolerance".
1. She supported 'gay conversion' therapy
In 2012 she defended "gay conversion" therapy - which Theresa May has branded "abhorrent" and vowed to ban.
2. She backed chaining up pregnant prisoners
As a Shadow Home Office minister in 1996, Ms Widdecombe infamously defended the practice of chaining up female prisoners in jail.
Labour's Jack Straw said it was "inhuman, degrading and unnecessary for a prisoner to be shackled at any stage of labour". And the Royal College of Midwives said the policy put the health of mothers and babies at risk.
3. She left the Church of England in protest at female priests
Ms Widdecombe famously left the Church of England and joined the Catholic church in 1992 - in protest at the decision to ordain female priests.
Even in 2010 she was unrepentant, saying "it's theologically impossible to ordain women".
4. She voted against a whole string of gay rights
Ms Widdecombe has persistently voted against LGBT rights and equality.
Those included voted against equalising the age of consent at 16, civil partnerships and the repeal of Section 28.
In 2000 she told MPs she "rejected" the idea "that there is somehow equal validity between the homosexual lifestyle and marriage and family."
Last year she was branded "homophobic" by drag star Courtney Act when they both appeared on Celebrity Big Brother .
Labour MP Wes Streeting said: “The Brexit Party is shaping up to be a weird assortment of people who’ve fought tooth and nail against hard-won rights and freedoms, epitomised by Ann Widdecombe."
5. She branded women's pension age activists 'self-indulgent and entitled'
Ms Widdecombe branded a women's pension age campaigner "self-indulgent and entitled" during a TV documentary.
The Tory ex-Pensions Minister was in the 1990s an architect of changes that will hike the pension age of 1950s-born women to 66 by 2020.
Widdecombe, 71, told Ms Wignall: "I'm sorry I'm going to be blunt here.
"It is unreasonable, self-indulgent and entitled to think that you can retire at the same age with a much longer life expectancy at the state's expense.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ann-widdecombe-5-shocking-things-14561493
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/25/accept-british-empire-dead-brexit-has-failed-top-mep-tells-brexiteers/
Some People are meant to be Great others have Greatness thrust upon them.
Some will never be Great or popular, loved or revered " Eleanor Rigby" of this World.
Where do they fit , where do you fit, where do I fit .......... me the later. sigh!
Not totally unloved Sky want to keep me. Ha!Ha!
A vote (and victory) for the Conservative Party is likely to lead to a Canada-style Brexit. People who wanted to leave on such terms would logically be seeking to promote leadership candidates from the Right wing of the Conservatives.
Instead, the Right Wing of the Conservatives appear to want to vote for the Brexit or UKIP parties, which (due to no General Election being due) will have no say in the UK Parliament where any Brexit will actually take place. Instead, the left/centre of the Conservatives will be the part that will be taking the Party forward, at least in the Short-Term. That is not going to help getting the sort of Conservative leader that will produce the sort of Brexit that the ERG (and many other Conservatives) want.
A vote/victory for Labour will likely lead to a softer, Norway-style Brexit. A mandate for them in the European/Local elections would likely force the current Government to make serious concessions which would allow a consensus in Parliament, and for us to leave.
I can see why it is attractive to vote for the Brexit Party. I get that people want to show dissatisfaction with the lack of progress since 2016. The problem is that a substantial vote for the Brexit Party is likely to cause further delays to Brexit, not speed it up. People need to decide whether they want to register a protest, or achieve their aims.
Even with all the volatility in British politics right now, it is still remarkable that the Brexit party are favourites to win the European Elections just a week after launching. But will the Brexit party winning actually change anything, I ask in The Sun this morning.
I think there are a several ways it which it will have an impact. First, it’ll make MPs more cautious about a second referendum. One of the reasons why support for the idea has grown in parliament is a belief that Remain would triumph. A Brexit party victory would challenge that assumption.
Next, I suspect that Farage’s new party topping the poll would make the Tory Brexit holdouts less inclined to compromise. They’ll see it as a sign that the public backs no deal, though I suspect that the Brexit party’s success has more to do with the delays to the UK leaving than anything else.
The Brexit Party’s vote will come at the expense of the Tories more than any other party. The debate will quickly shift to how the Tories can win these voters back, and that will boost the chances of the Brexiteer leadership contenders. Indeed, the return of Farage has already led to Tory MPs taking a second look at Boris Johnson.
The other great question is, what effect will a win for the Brexit party have on Labour? If the Brexit party is taking votes from Labour in its traditional heartlands, it will strengthen the hand of those in the party who just want to get a Brexit deal done so the issue is off the stocks before the next election.
But a cross-party deal is still unlikely to happen given how bitterly it would divide Labour. Some in government do, though, hold out hope that a Brexit party victory might lead to some more Labour MPs being prepared to back the deal; a mere five Labour MPs voted for the withdrawal agreement last month. But with the DUP and hardcore Brexiteers determined not to back the deal, it would require 30 or more Labour MPs to come over—which is a hard ask—for the deal to pass.
The most significant consequence of a Brexit party triumph, though, is that it would finish off Farage’s old party, Ukip.
Ukip’s flirtation with Tommy Robinson street thuggery and YouTube stars who make light of rape has been a disaster for the party. The electorate will simply have no truck with such extremist nonsense and so Ukip won’t be the beneficiaries of the public’s anger at the Brexit delays.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/what-would-the-brexit-party-winning-the-european-elections-actually-change/
The bit that I particularly agree with is the bit I have highlighted. but that is going to delay Brexit, not speed it up. Unless you think the Government is keen to call an Election where it may lose 100-200 seats.
Only time will tell whether the leadership of the Conservative Party centres on the lost votes, or the ones that it still has. That fight is going to be nasty, and take a considerable amount of time. In the meantime, of course, no compromise/no general election means more and more delay.
It also seems rather optimistic to think that a vote for the Brexit Party will have an effect where the 2016 referendum did not, particularly where that Party has 0 MPs. Europe's position will also likely harden, making No Deal more likely. That scenario is undoubtedly worse than all other forms of Brexit.
LONDON — Who’s afraid of a no-deal Brexit? These days, almost everyone.
With the help of shareholder bosses of major corporations and politicians who never wanted Brexit to happen, most people agree “crashing out” is not a good idea.
But with 18 days until we’re legally bound both by Article 50 and by our own Brexit legislation to leave the bloc, the European Union is not budging on the backstop (aside from adding "legal assurances" to try and placate Britain) and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s grip on the process could soon be dealt its final blow by another humiliation in the Commons.
Like it or not, a no-deal scenario looms large. And far from being afraid, we should be cheering it on.
To be sure, there are risks involved. There is near-unanimous agreement among economists, the U.K. Treasury and the Bank of England that the country's GDP will be hurt by a disorderly withdrawal.
Tariffs will likely be imposed on both sides of the Channel, making goods more expensive to consumers at least until a trade deal is worked out. Some international firms may decide to move out of the U.K. to avoid those tariffs, taking jobs with them.
Many also fear significant delays to the flow of goods through the Dover-Calais link and shortages of goods that currently benefit from easy passage into the country, including medicines, certain types of food and even materials for industry.
But most of these drawbacks would be temporary, and pale in comparison to the potential upsides.
With a free hand, the U.K. can immediately pursue trade deals with other countries, which we are legally prevented from pursuing while we are a member of the EU.
The CANZUK initiative, for example, is a well-advanced proposal for a trade deal with Canada and New Zealand and has the enthusiastic backing of the leaders of those countries. A hat full of deals like this would be of immense benefit to the U.K., allowing us to export much more cheaply to markets around the world.
As we are the fifth-largest economy in the world, many more will follow: Tariff-free access to the lucrative British market will be a hot commodity around the world. Every trade deal we do means cheaper exporting for our businesses and cheaper products for our consumers.
Our parliament and courts will once again be the final word in domestic matters, meaning we can untie ourselves from burdensome regulations.
Compliance is expensive, and deregulation will accelerate innovation as businesses find they can be nimbler and more creative. The country as a whole will become more competitive by freeing business to work in ways that suit the U.K., not the EU27.
To attract global businesses to set up new offices and jobs here in Britain, we could create any number of tax incentives, as we would be free to set corporation tax and VAT as we please. One wonders if the exodus from the City will still be a threat if taxes in London were at half the rate of Frankfurt or Paris.
All of these benefits are foregone under May’s deal — which the EU itself has described as “the only deal possible.”
So, if there are so many obvious advantages to be had, why is there not widespread support for a no-deal scenario? How did it become such an unwelcome specter, even to many Leave voters?
The answer lies in the days and weeks after the 2016 EU referendum, when an important change happened in the debate: The referendum result was reframed to define one of its choices — a clean break with the EU — as “extreme” and in need of watering down.
The referendum did not ask the electorate whether they prefer a “hard or soft” Brexit, or whether they wanted “Brexit, as long as a decent deal is negotiated.” It simply asked if we wanted to leave the EU or remain in it.
But soon after the poll, the only reasonable position a Brexiteer could take, if you were not to upset people at dinner parties, was that the U.K. needs some concession-laden “deal” in order to leave the EU. Anything else was insanity.
To recast one choice of a binary question as being inherently “hard-line” in a way that can be “softened,” as opposed to a legitimate option that simply means what it says, is nothing short of casuistry.
It’s not just Brexiteers who stand to gain from rethinking the terms in which we consider a potential no-deal Brexit. Remainers, too, have a stake in this.
If some day — the world will continue to go round after Brexit, after all — there is another surge of “populism” in the U.K., voters will be much less trusting of a system and discourse that worded them into a corner the last time around.
Just look across the pond, where U.S. President Donald Trump is a living lesson to anyone who thinks attacking legitimate democratic choices as extremist does not create the conditions for truly extreme people to be elected.
So forget the £350 million on the side of a bus, and Empire 2.0. Forget blue passports and two fingers to French fishermen. Forget chlorinated chicken and tax-slashing Tory bonanzas. The real reason no-deal should be on the table until the last gasp of Brexit, is that Leave does in fact mean Leave.
If you change the meaning of voters’ words once they have spoken, if they feel sufficiently cheated of their ballot paper, they may not use such polite ones the next time they’re asked.
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-case-for-no-deal-brexit/
The above article lends itself quite nicely to another well presented one on short - termism >>>>
Whatever the outcome of Brexit negotiations, it’s clear the UK economy needs a major change of direction.
The neoliberal experiment of the last 40 years has hollowed out the economy and the government inflicted austerity has to end. The House of Commons Treasury Committee has questioned the government’s policies. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has urged the government to increase its spending to stimulate the economy. And the Tories are £5bn short of fulfilling their pledge to end austerity.
Neoliberal economic policies have neither balanced the books, nor secured economic stability or growth. Government borrowing (public sector net debt excluding public sector banks) at the end of December 2018 was £1,809bn compared £952bn in September 2010. Yet the misdirected policies achieved little. The economy has yet to fully recover from the 2007-08 financial crash. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has reported that the economy grew by only 0.2% in the final quarter of 2018. There are troubled times ahead.
The government has used low interest rates and cuts in corporation tax to stimulate the economy and failed: since 2009, the UK has had rock-bottom interest rates, averaging at around 0.5%, but the investment in low. Amongst the EU countries, the UK invests around 16.9% of its gross domestic product (GDP) in productive assets compared to the average of 20.1% for the EU.
In the EU investment league table, only Greece and Portugal invest less than the UK. Sweden (24.9%). Estonia (23.7%), Austria (23.5%), Ireland (23.4%), Belgium (23.3%), Romania and Finland (both 22.6%) as well as France (22.4%) all had investment rates of over 20% of GDP.
The UK is also lagging behind in research and development (R&D). Since the 1990s, the UK R&D expenditure has fluctuated between 1.5% and 1.7% of GDP. This is well behind the EU average of 2% and about half the level in Sweden. Low investment in productive assets and R&D has inevitably resulted in low productivity. Despite working almost the longest hours in the EU, the output per hour worked in the UK is about 16% below the average for the rest of the G7 advanced economies. The UK productivity is around 27% below that of Germany.
Rather than taking a direct role in reinvigorating the economy, the government has showered tax cuts on corporations. The corporation tax rate has declined from the rate of 30% in 2007 to 19% and is set to decline to 17% in 2020. But tax cuts have not resulted in higher investment or a focus on the long-term.
Short-termism dominates virtually every sector of the UK economy. Andrew Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England noted that in 1970, major UK companies paid out about £10 of each £100 of profits in dividends, but by 2015 the amount was between £60 and £70, often accompanied by a squeeze on labour and investment. UK companies have paid out a higher proportion of their earnings in dividends compared to their counterparts from the EU, Japan, emerging markets and the USA.
The stock market has become a cash extractor from companies. Haldane notes: “Among UK companies, share buybacks have consistently exceeded share issuance over the past decade. In other words, over the past decade the equity market no longer appears to have been a source of net new financing to the UK corporate sector”.
A Bank of England survey showed that only around 25% of finance raised by companies is spent on investment, with the remainder split between purchasing financial assets, distributing capital to shareholders and keeping it as cash.
A necessary condition for economic renewal is that people must have high amounts of purchasing power. Yet neoliberals have ignored that. The government squeeze on trade unions, destruction of skilled and semi-skilled jobs have eroded workers’ share of GDP to 49%, compared to 65% in 1976. This boosted corporate profits which have been squandered on short-term returns.
Household debt has soared to £1.616 trillion and even those at work are queuing at foodbanks. People’s strength to stimulate the economy has been sapped. The old policies of cheap policies and corporate tax cuts have failed.
The state has to take a central role in rebuilding the economy. Wealth needs to be redistributed by increasing corporate taxes and taxes for the wealthy. The government will need to spend more to restructure the economy. Of course, this immediately raises the ire of neoliberals.
Yet a government which used £1,162 billion to support distressed banks can also find resources to invest in newer industries. Neoliberals forget that biotechnology, airlines, engineering, telecommunications, computers, shipbuilding and many other industries were started or stimulated by investment from the state, as private capital showed little appetite for long-term risks or investment.
It’s time to look at the investment crisis in the round. Everyone agrees that the UK needs to build more houses – but that cannot be achieved without increasing the capacity to manufacture bricks, cement, mortar, or having building carpentry, plumbing, electrical and other skills.
The post-Brexit uncertainties demand that the government change its economic policies – and get started now.
Prem Sikka is Professor of Accounting at University of Sheffield and Emeritus Professor of Accounting at University of Essex
https://leftfootforward.org/2019/02/why-post-brexit-britain-is-done-for-unless-we-radically-change-our-economic-model/
He said he wants to run candidates for Parliament in future to stop Remainer MPs blocking Brexit. Mr Farage's new party is on course to come top in next month's EU elections just months after it was founded. The former Ukip leader said: "We want the European election to be the first step of a massive change that 'resteps' entirely British politics and actually makes it look more like the country. MPs will realise that if they carry on trying to stop Brexit, they'll lose their seats at the next general election. I think they will be very fearful of what the Brexit Party can do to them"That'll give them two choices - either they change and start to deliver Brexit, or we'll replace them at that general election.
"It's a springboard. If you show people you're capable of winning in one set of elections, people will start to believe that it's possible in a general election too."
A string of polls have shown the Brexit Party is likely to come top in the European Parliament elections which will take place on May 23 if the UK is still in the EU by then.
The party has signed up candidates including ex-Tory minister Ann Widdecombe and Jacob Rees-Mogg's sister Annunziata.
Six new candidates unveiled yesterday included lawyer Elizabeth Babade, who was born in London before her family moved back to Nigeria.
Mother of four Mrs Babade, 44, who lives in Buckinghamshire, said: "A lot of people would wonder why someone from an ethnic minority like myself would be standing for the Brexit Party.
"Well the answer is simple. I believe in democracy."
Fellow candidate James Wells, who is standing in Wales, told a press conference in Manchester that as a civil servant banned from political involvement, he resigned from his job as head of UK trade at the Office for National Statistics only on Tuesday.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1119352/nigel-farage-the-brexit-party-fight-general-election
BBC comedian Mark Steel let out his frustration over Brexit as he launched a ferocious tirade against the Brexit Party and MPs causing chaos in Parliament with their refusal to agree on a way forward to quit the European Union.
The Brexit Party that believes there shouldn’t be such elections are, of course, the first people to be out campaigning.
Marvellously, they keep coming back with these new candidates that they reveal and the one they’ve come up with this week is Ann Widdecombe.
"The Brexit Party is like Channel 5 when they have one of these new reality shows and, bit by bit, they reveal all their contestants. It’s Ann Widdecombe and, over the weekend, they’ll have Timmy Mallett and Jimmy Greaves and the woman who threw her cat into a wheelie bin. And that’ll be their candidates.
Mr Steel continued his rant suggesting the UK may be forced to swallow additional demands from Brussels before securing a withdrawal deal. He said: "It’s funny because you don’t know what chaos we’ll get out of here.
"We’ll find out they’ve agreed to make us a village in Poland or we’ve agreed to feline plus – we’re only allowed into Europe through a giant flap and we all have to c**p in a tray.
"You put on the news and there’s another of them votes and nothing will surprise you and all the MPs were naked and one of them was in a canoe and Jacob Rees-Mogg was on a llama wearing a monocle and they’re all firing trifle to each other. And the Speaker was going, ‘the jellies have it, the jellies have it.’"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1119573/Brexit-news-BBC-comedy-Brexit-Party-Theresa-May-UK-EU-withdrawal-election-latest
Annunziata, left, had a visitation recently when driving to Lincolnshire, where she lives with her businessman husband Matthew Glanville and their daughters Isadora, eight, and Molly, one. Passing under a bridge upon which someone had spray-painted 'Don't Vote, Act', her rich Moggian blood stirred in her blue Moggian veins. It was a sign! A calling for sure. Some might have gone home and tidied the laundry basket - Annunziata joined the Brexit Party. 'I want to deliver democracy,' she says today. 'I am prepared to give up a lot to do it.' As befits her status as a candidate for the Brexit Party in a huge Midlands constituency that takes in six counties, she seems to have developed a serious, sonorous way of talking I don't recall before
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
EXCLUSIVE: Lance Forman, who is standing for Nigel Farage's party in London, was criticised by the Muslim Council of Britain
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-party-candidate-claimed-tory-14716386
Join us at the Neon Theatre Newport at 7:00pm on Tuesday 30th April.
Date And Time
Tue, 30 April 2019
19:00 – 21:00 BST
Location
The NEON
Clarence Place
Newport
NP19 7AB
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-brexit-party-newport-tickets-60816787649
An opera singer, an ex-lads’ magazine editor and Ann Widdecombe walk into a parliamentary chamber: not the beginning of a joke – or a game of kiss, marry, kill – but the current leadership hopefuls for Nigel Farage’s new Brexit Party. Which is very different from Ukip, obviously, as it has the word “Brexit” in the title.
Anyhow, this is what our political future looks like – or might, come the European Elections on May 23. Others in the running include a former Communist, a toboganning-obsessed businessman and Jacob Rees-Mogg’s sister.
Some colour from our leaders – beyond a lacklustre leopard print kitten heel – might well lift our crumpled collective spirit. But let us not mistake a “spark”...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/27/feast-fruitcakes-really-future-british-politics/
Nigel Farage is talking the language of betrayal, but the only thing he and the rest of the Brexiteers have been betrayed by is reality
Nigel Farage moves through Clacton like it’s his own strip club. A handshake here, an incline of the head there, and always, always, the shallow smile that belies the knowledge that the longer the losing game is allowed to run, the more he wins.
He and everybody else knows he is the biggest fish in the narrow Brexit ocean, and Clacton is his birthing ground, where the tides and the currents of **** will always
return him, so that the lies may be renewed again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-brexit-party-clacton-ann-widdecombe-european-elections-theresa-may-latest-a8884601.html