Politics UK

Right-leaning mid-market tabloid. Endorsed Conservatives in 1983.

Circulation: Approx 1.8m

Murder An Assault Against Nation

The despicable murder of the Prime Minister can only be regarded as a direct attack upon the United Kingdom. Regardless of anyone’s views upon Mrs Thatcher, she was the democratically selected Prime Minister of Britain. She was the people’s choice. By assassinating her, the IRA have sent Britain a message – they are willing to subvert, overturn and destroy our democratic values in order to achieve their purposes.

The IRA has effectively declared war against every Briton in killing our leader. We can respond only in one way. Once we arrest those responsible for this atrocity, they must be charged with high treason – and face the death penalty once convicted. An attack against our country must be treated as such in a court of law. We must hand down the ultimate penalty to the guilty terrorists.

In addition to this, the Government must immediately draft legislation to reintroduce capital punishment for murder and acts of terrorism. Last year, the House of Commons failed to pass such a bill, despite strong public support. With the murder of our Prime Minister and the attempted destruction of the entire Cabinet, there can be no doubt any longer about the need for the death penalty. Our country’s democracy is under threat. Parliament must respond to the public outcry for the IRA and the other terrorist gangs to receive their just rewards at the hands of the law. They did not last year. It is time for them to put this right.

Setting aside the death penalty for the moment, however, it is clear that our police do not have the powers needed to properly protect our people. Bombings are a daily event in Northern Ireland and are all too frequent on the British mainland. The Mail suggests the following course of action for the Government:

-Increased powers of surveillance for the police and security services;
-Expanded powers of stop and search – and scrapping new rules which involve maintaining lengthy records of each person that was searched by the police;
-An immediate reinforcement of our armed presence in Northern Ireland;
-Issuing the RUC and other counter-terrorism units with arms;
-A ruthless campaign to root out and destroy IRA units in Northern Ireland

Only decisive action will finally end the threat that the IRA poses to the United Kingdom. We have been complacent for too long. The government needs to take tough and vigorous action to ensure that the threat of terrorism is defeated – and they can be sure that the British people will stand right behind them if they do.

Traynor is the Right Choice

There are two types of leader – those who lead and those who follow. There is no doubt our mind that Oscar Traynor is the type of leader who, like Mrs Thatcher, will lead the country and the Tory Party.

Mr Traynor has the benefit of a very long career spent in the service of his country. He has fought for it on the battlefield and in the Cabinet. As Environment Secretary, he has pioneered the reforms that let millions of council tenants buy their own homes at a substantial discount. As an MP for almost 30 years now, he has close and personal experience of what happens when a Labour Government is elected and spends out of control. We are convinced that this will make Mr Traynor the man who will carry out the Conservative Party’s election manifesto and ensure the party’s re-election in three years time.

There are two things in particular that commends Mr Traynor to the Mail – his stance upon the miners’ strike and the IRA. We may have personal sympathy for the miners, but this should not obscure the fact that their leaders are forcing the entirety of the coal industry into a strike, without a national ballot, in order to overturn the democratically elected government of the nation. They failed to get a Labour Government elected last year so this year they are trying to turn the Conservative Party out of office by brute force. Mr Traynor has seen this squalid manoeuvre for what it is and has pledged ‘no further’. He has stuck by the National Coal Board’s eminently reasonable and fair offers. To go further would hand Arthur Scargill victory. For this sensible stance alone Mr Traynor deserves to be elected.

What shows Oscar Traynor’s mettle, though, is his promise to crack down with force upon the IRA. They have murdered our democratically elected leader and five others. This is not the time to play soft with the IRA – this is the moment to destroy them. Mr Traynor has promised to tackle terrorism head on by ensuring that these murderers get their just desserts. We would like him to go further – by pledging a free vote on the reintroduction of the death penalty – but he is espousing the toughest measures out of all three contenders.

We believe Traynor is the right man for Britain. He will carry on Maggie’s legacy and ensure our country’s security from the ‘wild men’ in the trade unions and the IRA. We urge the Conservative Party to send a decisive message to our enemies within, and elect Oscar Traynor as their leader today.

Why the Conservatives will continue to deliver for Britain:
Guest Editorial by Charles Walter, Conservative Member of Parliament for Tunbridge Wells

It is a sad day for democracy when a country's leader is savagely taken from them, whether one was in support of that leader or not - it undermines everything we all believe in, and brings us to despair. However while the country mourns the loss of Mrs. Thatcher, we must stand strong against the tyranny of the IRA, the Iron lady would not stand for this, and as such, neither will the government.

The Leadership election is soon to be over and whilst I like many others, support Oscar Traynor, one must never forget his duty to his country - I would therefore support any victor in this election - we are fortunate to have such high calibre running to be Mrs. Thatchers successor, and for that I am grateful.

Once the election is over, the priorty for policy os for that of the new leader to decide, but the main focus of action has to be to bring the terrorist threat to justice, and show that Britain will not faulter through their murderous tactics.

Alongside we mustn't forget the strikes we are facing - united by sovereignty we may be for now, but the social issue remains - we are to work on a tough-lined basis to see to it that the Miner's issue is resolved, I for once feel that such strikes are not helping our economy in the slightest, and of course urge Mr. Skargill to end this for the sake of everyone involved. The economy is still strong however - we continue to deliver our policy of low-inflation, and low taxes - public debt is lower than when we came into government, and we still support our industry, by encouraging manufacturing here in Britian.

My best wishes of course go out to Ex-Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, after his accident, but this does not defer the ultimate problem for Labour, that they are not suitable for government. Only the Conservatives have and will continue to deliver for Britain, and I am proud to be a part of it's renewal.

Calvert's action on AIDS an indictment of homosexual vices

Milly Calvert, Health & Social Services Secretary, has recently announced that stern measures will be taken to ensure that the AIDS epidemic is contained within the United Kingdom. Basing her measures on the best available medical data, Mrs Calvert has made it clear she will not bow down to pressure to be politically correct when the country's health and safety is at stake. She should have gone further and announced that people with AIDS will be banned from entering the United Kingdom, a measure that is also being enforced in the United States. At the same time, her measures make it clear how damaging a homosexual lifestyle really is, and how unrestricted gay relationships can damage society.

Because of this, it is important that we start defending society from these vices from an early age. We have received reports of children being taught ghastly "facts" about homosexuality in schools, going against the wishes of their parents, who would like them to be raised in accordance with their values and in accordance with British tradition. The AIDS epidemic's link to homosexuals has made it clear that we should ban the promotion of homosexuality as "just another lifestyle choice" in our schools. In addition, even if we don't re-criminalise sodomy, it must be made clear that it is a dangerous, unsafe and perfidious act that will serve as a way to spread disease and misery.

Milly Calvert took the first step, Roland Knightly must take the second step. The link being homosexuality and AIDS must be taught in schools, and homosexuality must not be promoted as a simple life-style choice. We must clean our society from all ills and vices that plague us, of which homosexuality surely is one.

Government to act on gay education

The Mail has learned that the Government is planning to act on ensuring that our education system is firmly grounded on those values and traditions that have made this country strong. Roland Knightly, the Education Secretary, replied to our queries on the matter of education of homosexual relationships in schools in light of growing concerns regarding a gay lifestyle and AIDS by saying that "I have been, and will continue, consulting the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services on the issue." Mr Knightly acknowledged that teaching on morality of homosexual relationships and the ongoing health scares are interwoven, and that the Government is "in the process of writing legislation on sex education and recent facts like the ones cited must and will, of course, be taken into account."

This legislation should provide an escape route for families forced to see their children taught that homosexuality is simply "a choice" and that the traditional famility, the foundation of any sound society, and homosexual relationships are the same. This legislation should make it clear that such an active promotion of homosexuality is not in our national interest, and that it undermines our children's future because it destroys their values. That destruction then leads to the destruction of society as well, as it degenerates into a society without values, without morals, and without common decency.

Labour's foreign policy disaster

Dennis Simon, Shadow Foreign Secretary, made it clear to the world, recently, that he does not share the same planet with the rest of the world. In addition, he made it clear he actually believes the insanity that was the Labour manifesto in 1983, combined with thinly masked communist rhetoric. By picking this lunatic to be Shadow Foreign Secretary, Bill Paisley gave a clear indication to the country that Labour is a loonie bin, and that the lunatics are now firmly in charge of the asylum.

Dennis Simon believes the Cold War began as a series of "misunderstandings". Steven Andrews, the Chancellor, made it clear what those misunderstandings were: we trusted the USSR not to be a tyrannical regime and to actually show some respect for common human decency, and we were swindled. While talking about a corrupt regime that brutalises its own people, Mr Simon seems keen to follow a policy of appeasement, for some bizarre reason. If we throw away our nuclear bombs and act all nice and fuzzy and warm, the USSR will invade Afghanistan. Oh no, wait, Mr Simon thinks the USSR will in fact become warm, fuzzy and nice itself, leading to a global hug and much collective kissing. In the mouth, of course. The Russian way.

Mr Simon's idols are not even British. They are German. Even so, Mr Simon wishes to leave the EEC, which he believes is a "gargoyle". We also believe that we should leave the EEC, but that scarcely means turning the country into the basket case of the 70s. You know, when Labour was last in power. Of course, if people like Dennis Simon have their way and get into power, there will not be another Winter of Discontent. Oh no. There will be a civil war, because we won't let Soviet appeasers and traitors like Dennis Simon get his way and sell us over to the USSR by the backside.

Dennis Simon is a clear signal of what's to come from Labour: nonsense, ideological diatribes and surreality. The British people have been shown what socialism can do to one's mind when taken in large dosages. It isn't pretty. And we will not let it spread to the rest of the country.

Cold War "a success", says Bill Paisley

In a recent press conference, Labour leader Bill Paisley, while defending his Shadow Foreign Secretary, Dennis Simon, who has been under fire for his highly inflammatory speech on foreign policy, made it clear that he believed the Cold War has, so far, been a "success." "Personally, I would see the fact that the world has managed to avoid destroying itself itself over the past forty years - despite being very close on a number of occassions - as a succcess," he said. Despite the fact that nuclear weapons are felt by many commentators as having played a key role in that regard, Mr Paisley still endorsed a policy of nuclear disarmament, however.

Mr Paisley did not have much to say on Soviet aggression in the East, aside from proclaiming that "we should take a step back from the hyper-aggressive rhetoric of the past few years and look to more subtle diplomacy to influence the people and leaders of the Soviet Union." He did not explain how this weak stance, as well as unilateral nuclear disarmament, would lead the Soviet Union to change its bad behaviour.

By endorsing Mr Simon's views fully, he was also endorsing that we should "work co-operatively" with the Soviet Union. "A Labour Government would indeed be willing to work with the USSR - just like all western governments have done over the past forty years - to secure a reduction in international tensions and attempt to establish genuine global peace based on true democracy," Mr Paisley said on that issue, while also once again stating that the United Kingdom should leave the EEC. Again, he was vague on how this would be achieved.

In his statement, the Leader of the Opposition did not make it clear why there is a need to punish South Africa but, when it comes to the Soviet Union, we should "work co-operatively", nor did he address accusations that this represented a double standard. His own Shadow Transport Secretary qualified Labour's policy as a "dream", and stated that we should "dream the dream", which does not square at all well with claims that Labour's policy is not ideological in nature, and is in fact grounded in reality.

According to Labour, therefore, the Cold War is a "success", a "success" that has seen millions die in the Soviet Union and in China, millions sacrificed to the communist experiment, and a "success" they wish to maintain by appeasing tyrannical communist regimes and with that appeasement sacrificing British safety. Our foreign policy should be based on "dreaming the dream", a slogan that could have been coined by a hallucinating hippy in the 1970s. By alligning himself with Dennis Simon, a badly disguised communist sympathiser, Labour has given a clear indication that it is on the verge of falling down the communist cliff itself. With its polling figures at an all time low, it appears Labour has not learned the lesson of 1983.

The USSR is not a democracy, Mr Paisley
by Archer Graham

Bill Paisley is a man of the Left. That much we knew. Just how much a man of the left he really was did not become apparent until he opened his mouth on foreign affairs. After endorsing Dennis Simon's policy of deterring the USSR with hugs and kisses, instead of nuclear weaponry, and stating we should co-operate with a regime that kills innocent civilians without missing a heart beat (they have no heart, after all), Mr Paisley now declares the USSR to be a democracy. Like Britain, no less.

Mr Paisley, the USSR is not a democracy. Nor has the Cold War been a success. Thousands of people have died under a brutal and tyrannical regime that oppresses its people and wishes to expand that oppression over the whole world. The Cold War will have been a success when the USSR crumbles to dust and disappear into the dustbin of History. This will not be achieved through flower power, it will be achieved through a show of strength.

Rabid animals should be shot. They should not be left to wonder the streets maiming, or even killing, others. They should not be allowed to spread their disease. The Soviet Union is just like a rabid animal. It is a danger to the world, and infected with a horrific disease that it threatens to spread. The fact that Bill Paisley and Dennis Simon do not view the Soviet Union as a threat, and instead view it as a "democracy" that we should "talk to", is indicative of minds at rest, not at work. The fact that Labour is prepared to call for an inquiry into our intelligence services is nothing short of contemptible.

This "New" Labour, filled with neo-labourite Soviet appeasers, will not serve our country. Our country will only be truly safe under the capable hands of the Conservatives, who must make it clear that what our intelligence services do, or do not do, is not for public consumption. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of securing our freedom from the threat of global communism, and securing the freedom of others from the threat of global communism, and we must not go into detail on what we do or don't do. That will only strengthen our enemies. But then, maybe that's what the neo-labourites want.

Dear Editor

Your desperate attempts to twist my words have once again reached a new low and I feel forced to set the record straight. I do not believe that the Soviet Union is a democracy nor did I say that in my comments to the press. What I said was that democracies such as Britain, must stay engaged with the Soviet Union to ensure that the security situation does not further deteriorate. And for the record I have said that the Cold War was a success, instead I clearly said that British diplomacy has helped ensure that a bad geo-political situation has never deteriorated into World War Three. The efforts of the Attlee Government to prevent the use of nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War is a very good example of this.

Yours

Bill Paisley
Leader of the Opposition.

Sort It Out
By William King

Ben Walked knew when accepting the office of Prime Minister, that he had a huge task ahead of him. Not only does he have economic issues to address, but he also has murderers to catch and throw the book at. Last month the Provisional IRA, evil in their ways and manners, striked at the heart of our country and our democracy.

Silent, and unannounced they murdered, in cold blood our Prime Minister. Whether you liked her, or deplore her is not the issue here. This was an attack on our way of life, and everything that this country stands for - freedom, democracy and the rule of law. In one callous and cowardly act, they proved everything that had been said about them. They are low-lives, intent on killing and hurting anyone that comes across their path, regardless of their religion, regardless of where they come from.

Today, they have issued another cold threat to our government. Ben Walker must take take a firm grip of this situation. Throughout the province we have witnessed an escalation in violence. We have witnessed the PIRA blame the British government on leaving a bomb in a Republican area as an act of retaliation. Any sane, individual would know this is complete and utter rubbish. They are intent on painting every single British man, woman and child as the evil. They are intent on poisoning the minds of young individuals trapped in these areas through no fault of their own. And as macabre as it sounds they will be successful in recruiting youngsters into their ranks. We only have to look at the upsurge in violence in Poleglass and surrounding areas. Children as young as 12, have been spotted throwing bricks against our forces.

It is time the Ben Walker got a hold of this situation, not just for the security of our country and people, but out of memory and respect for Margaret Thatcher, and the office of Prime Minister, that he now holds.

The Liar
by Archer Graham

Dennis Simon is a liar and if Labour had any ounce of dignity and self-respect, they would sack the self-appointed Propaganda Minister. A direct quote from Mr Simon, not denied by him, has him clearly say that he wants to use propaganda to convince people to support his policies. Now, he is talking about leaving the EEC, but the principle seems equally valid everywhere.

The truth of the matter is, this quote by Propaganda Minister Dennis Simon eliminates all credibility this man could still conceivably possess. Not only is this man living in an ideleological model, instead of reality, he has now made it clear that he will back up his claims with lies. He is quite aware of that fact. This makes him a liar, a liar and a liar. I say it three times because the fact Mr Simon is so casual with this word, "propaganda", as applying to his own positions, sends shivers down my spine.

Bill Paisley backed up Mr Simon, and he is the leader of the party. He is responsible for his Propaganda Minister and has not denounced, or denied, that Mr Simon intends to spread lies to spread his infectious venom through the British population. Dylan Winters is the nominal press officer, though he has remained silent on the matter. But Mr Simon has not, and a brave soul in Labour had the guts to let the country know the truth about this liar.

If Mr Simon had an ounce of dignity or self-respect, he'd have resigned by now. But he does not. He is a liar, a propagandist, a merchant of nonsense working to spread the ideas of Soviet surrogate Paisley. So he will not resign. And Labour will fall.

They only care about the gays
by Archer Graham

JP Keppler is the leader of a political party. One would assume being the leader of a political party would have him understand what it means to be responsible. Given JP Keppler's careless, irresponsible and ignorant statements about AIDS, I must presume it does not.

JP Keppler's responses on AIDS have always focused on gay people. Gay people are discriminated against, her roars, ignoring the fact that homosexual men are a high risk group. And why are they a high risk group? Because they lead a degenerate lifestyle of promiscuity and sodomy. Always behind the scenes, in "bath houses" and "saunas" throughout the country, homosexuals have sex and, with impunity, spread AIDS.

Mr Keppler is having none of that, however. To him, gay people are everything, and medical considerations are to be ignored. He is the epitome of political correctness, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he is gay himself. He has yet to denounce sexual promiscuity and unsafe sex, of course. Those issues are not relevant to the likes of JP Keppler, because he believes that behaviour that helps spread deadly illnesses needs to be protected, respected and, maybe, taught to little children.

Milly Calvert is now testing all blood before donations occur, a cave-in to the gay lobby. A blanket ban on gay blood is a much more efficient way of dealing with the problem, as noted physician Dr Edward Friedman believes. We are going to spend money we would not have to spend so as not to stigmatise a group that stigmatised itself. They chose to have unsafe sex and be promiscuous, and now the country will pay for it, and is paying for it with this AIDS pandemic.

Nothing that concerns JP Keppler, though. To him, it's all about the gays.

The Trot at the Heart of Paisley’s Politburo

Dennis Simon the last man in Britain who should be anywhere near bearing responsibility for Northern Ireland. This is a subject that requires care, tact, diplomacy and an innate understanding of the problems of the province. These are all qualities which Dennis Simon, the Shadow Foreign Secretary and now, Labour spokesman for Northern Ireland, has never shown any sign of exhibiting in public life. Mr Simon is known for quoting German Marxist theoreticians. He likes nothing better than to make speeches redolent of something Lenin might have said when proclaiming the October Revolution in Petrograd. While this may qualify him for membership of the Communist Party, it does not make him suitable to govern Britain.

Mr Simon showed a perfect example of his unsuitability to be anywhere near the levers of power at a press conference today on Northern Ireland. He started off by proclaiming his support for a United Ireland, setting aside the fact that most Northern Irish voters have, time and time again, rejected unification and voted to stay a part of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately he is not the only Labour politician who has voiced such an outlandish policy. Harold Wilson committed himself to getting rid of Ulster in 1972 ‘within fifteen years’, while official Labour policy in last year’s general election was to support unification. If Mr Simon was a serious statesman, he would have ditched this policy and committed himself fully to respecting the will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain within the Union. That he didn’t shows Labour’s fundamental lack of seriousness about the Northern Irish issue.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. When questioned by this paper on his support for unification, he attempted to deny that he had said any such thing, instead rambling on about government industrial policy. He was then asked what the difference between nationalist and Labour policy was. Astonishingly, Mr Simon, already having managed to alienate any Unionists favourable to his party, proceeded to say that the nationalists wanted to force Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic – something that might come as news to Labour’s Northern Irish allies, the mainstream nationalist SDLP.

This episode only goes to show that Dennis Simon completely lacks any sense of political judgement or indeed, any sense at all. It takes skill to handle Northern Ireland, the most sensitive subject in British politics today. Putting Mr Simon in the spot is akin to letting a Trotskyite bull loose in a bourgeoisie china shop. There is a time and a place for Mr Simon, but it is not here and it is not in British politics – it is Russia, 1917. Dennis Simon should resign immediately, and if he does not, Bill Paisley should show something other than a rabid devotion to extreme socialism and sack him. Britain deserves serious and competent politicians. Dennis Simon is neither.

Open Letter to the Editors of the Daily Mail


Dear Editors,

With your latest editorial, the quality of your paper has reached a new level – the rock bottom. Since you have chosen to misrepresent my words on a grand scale, I am forced to straighten out the facts.

First, it is not true that I started out by proclaiming my support for a united Ireland. I started out by commemorating the death of our Prime Minister, and calling for unity against the vile acts of terrorism that the British people face day in day out.

Second, I made it clear to your reporter not once, but about five or six times that our policy is determined by whatever the communities in Northern Ireland decide on, when there is a sustainible peace. We may have individual preferences, as parties, over the course Northern Ireland should take, but it is not for nothing that I flanked our preference with the wordings “right of nations to self-determination”, “we believe it wrong to prescribe the people of Northern Ireland what should happen to them” and “it is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide their own future”, which all imply the same thing, namely, that your suggestion that I was “setting aside the fact that most Northern Irish voters have, time and time again, rejected unification and voted to stay a part of the United Kingdom” is an ignominious untruth.

Third, your suggestion that I “proceeded to say that the nationalists wanted to force Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic” is as false as your other statements. If you inspect even with only the lightest attention the minutes, you will find that I clarified this point as follows: “The Nationalist position which you have in mind [etc.]”, and I later stated that the SDLP's “nationalism is also one of union by consent. In fact, they were one of the first parties to propose this.” While there may be minor differences in our policies, both are based on the “principle of consent”. Because it obviously does not fit your despicable attempt to twist the truth, you have chosen to ignore this.

People may have political differences. This is only natural in a democracy, and there is nothing to say against this. The trouble starts when certain people deem it appropriate to misinform the public, when they seek to throw mud at politicians, when they resort to even the most crude attempts to “spin” the words of others. This has nothing to do with pluralism or democracy, it has everything to do with dishonesty, and hate-mongering. Further, this is not any issue. Our Prime Minister was killed because of this “issue”. The people of Northern Ireland cannot find peace because of this “issue”. This topic deserves more careful treatment than you have bestowed it.

In conclusion, I would remind you that, as journalists, you have an obligation, above all, to the truth, and not to your own twisted ideology of dishonesty and hate.

Yours sincerely,
Dennis Simon MP

The Alliance has died
by Archer Graham

Alex Cameron, newly crowned Liberal taxi driver, has killed the Alliance. Having rubbished the "SDP/Alliance Plan for Coal", which was apparently only the "SDP and Evan Carter Plan for Coal", having said that he wasn't happy to have seen the Liberal Party speak after the SDP during the Queen's Speech and after generally making it clear he cannot stand the SDP, Mr Cameron has killed the Alliance. How did he do that? Well, by jumping on the "let's have a by-election to punish Charles Thomas" bandwagon that Labourites seem fond of. If there is a by-election, the Liberals will run a candidate, so they can be humiliated alongside Mr Thomas in that by-election.

Alex Cameron is not your typical liberal. Your typical liberal would not spend time defending Margaret Thatcher, as Mr Cameron has repeatedly done, and a typical liberal would not propose seven days detention by the police without any judicial intervention. Your typical liberal would also not court socialists to join the Liberal Party, as Mr Cameron recently did. Cyril Smith wanted to have had the SDP strangled at birth, but your typical liberal would want the party to survive, so maybe keeping the Alliance but with a better Liberal strategy might be a good idea. Alex Cameron has decided that the SDP was strangling the Liberals and he would much rather strangle them himself. Thus, the Alliance has died.

I cannot help but feel a bit emotional about the demise of the Liberal Party. A party that used to be a real party has now approached a time when it will pass away, and its last breath will come in the form of Alex Cameron's haphazard press conferences and thrown together press releases. Meanwhile, JP Keppler and the SDP will carry on raging about the rights of gays to infect others with AIDS in hot tubs, smiling impishly at their accomplishment, their sights now set on the very same socialists the Liberal Party wants: Labourites that speak in milk and honey tones, as opposed to the Trotskyite baritone of Dennis Simon.

United we Stand, but divided we fall
Guest Editorial with Charles Walter MP, Conservative Member of Parliament for Tunbridge Wells and Secretary of State for Transport and Local Government

And so goes into the wind what was the frail and fragile Alliance of the Liberal Party and SDP - an alliance of mere convienience rather than cooperation. Someone clearly failed to recognise the weakness found in a forced truce, especially when one has dissention in the ranks over such an idea. One has to wonder whether the imfamous Charles Thomas is regretting his defection decision - after all, the chances of theSDP overtaking Labour now have almost certainly gone to the dogs, and with the 'dogs' fighting each other now, the Liberals and SDP will find difficulty in holding onto most of their seats next time. A round of applause though, if you please, for the one and only JP Keppler, who's dynamic act of a united front was the only thing seemingly keeping them up in the polls. This of course turned quite sour after Alex Camerons act of discourtesy, and I can't I blame the man. But lets face it, Mr Cameron only exposed the fatal flaws in this arrangement, and one can safely say that they are a pair of parties, with no capability to be the Government of this country. If they can't run their own affairs efficiently, how on earth do they expect to run the country? Perhaps we could be surprised and see the dramatic return of the once powerful Liberals...

I think I should tell you, not to hold your breath on that one.

Labour Reform a Sham

The Labour Party recently elected a new leader claiming to be of the reformist wing of the party. He has promised a new agenda for the country, despite his own recent origins in the formation of the Socialist Campaign Group. Publicly shunning his past socialist associations, the Labour Leader has gone to proclaim a new political age for his party. One the British people need no longer fear. His claims ring hollow now that his party has finally released a shadow budget.

Released today by Shadow Chancellor David Campbell, with no explanation for the months of delay in releasing it, the Labour Party has issued yet another policy reversal. The budget, at its core, raises taxes, raises spending even faster and seeks to nationalise industry in order to, as the Shadow Chancellor put it, “achieve a fairer distribution of wealth.”

The British people can see through this sham. The British people know where these types of policies got this country in the 1970s. The British people remember how the promised socialist panacea led only to out of control inflation, strikes and staggering government debt.

Despite the Labour Party’s claim that they have changed, they still peddle these same failed policies. Their voices proclaim a philosophy of change; their actions proclaim a philosophy of failure. The Conservative Party was elected in 1979 and again in 1983 precisely because we presented an alternate vision for this country. One where the operation of the free market generates sustained growth. We rejected Labour’s view that nationalisation was a pre-requisite for a fair and prosperous economy. The British people have seen what denationalisation has accomplished. The British people have seen what a responsible economic policy can accomplish.

The Conservative Party followed through on its promise to rein in inflation. The Conservative Party has put an end to the constant strikes and walkouts that brought out economy to a standstill. The Conservative Party has promoted growth through denationalisation and the promotion of a market free of socialist fetters and restrictions.

Britain today is undeniably on the road to recovery because of these firm measures put in place by the Conservative Party. The Labour Party can sputter all they want but the economic facts speak for themselves. They are the reason the Labour Party wanted someone who would speak of reform in the first place. The question then, is why do the Labour Party’s actions not follow through on their words?

The Labour Party’s promises of reform remain as hollow as the promises of economic growth in their shadow budget. Their increased borrowing requirement from the huge spike in spending is utterly unsustainable. If their policies were followed for only a year or two, the Treasury would be as bankrupt as their commitment to true reform.

The socialist panacea of higher taxes, higher spending and greater government regulation of the economy has been tried and has failed. The British people know this. The question we must ask ourselves is if the Labour Party, despite its rhetoric, still intends to foist these policies upon the public, what other policies might they continue to support? Their shadow budget pays for their corporate welfare by cutting defence spending. Why not? They probably still intend to unilaterally disarm our country removing both our ability to deter foreign attack and also limiting our international influence and ability to apply diplomatic pressure abroad.

It should come as little surprise to anyone that the one tax that would be lower in Labour’s shadow budget than in the budget that the Government tabled before Parliament is the betting and gaming duty. Labour is so fond of gambling with the economic well-being of our country, that it seems only sensible that they not tax themselves too much.

In presenting this recipe for economic disaster, the Labour Party has done one great favour to the British people. Those who were sceptical of Labour’s claims to a reformed agenda now have conclusive proof that Labour has no intention of changing. Their willingness to give lie to their claims of reform may well be the greatest gift our economy ever receives.

Rupert Camden-Heathcote is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Brent North.

Have you seen this woman?


Suzy Lamplugh, an estate agent in the Fulham area of London has been missing since the end of July. Her last known whereabouts are sketchy, but what is known that the last person to see her was a prospective buyer for a house on Shorrolds Road, Fulham. The person she was meeting was listed in her diary as “Mr Kipper”.

The Police are desperate for any information that could piece together the final moments before Miss Lamplugh disappeared. They suspect that the mysterious Mr Kipper may in fact be of Dutch origin, and his name might be Kuiper, or De Kuiper, although at this time, the Police admit this is speculation.

Miss Lamplugh’s White Ford fiesta was found the evening of her disappearance, with her purse in a door pocket. No money or valuables were taken from the purse.

Her mother, Diana Lamplugh, issued this plea for information:

”If anyone knows where my daughter may be, or has information that could lead the Police to my daughter, I implore you to come forward. The Police are investigating many lines of enquiry but they could be missing one vital bit of information. You could have that information?”

“Were you on Shorrolds Road the evening of her disappearance? Did you see a white fiesta with a young lady in it? Did the young lady have someone with her? Were you the person who met my daughter to view the house on Shorrolds Road? Please, if you have any information, please come forward and help end this agony; it is simply unbearable to not know where my daughter is and if she will be ok.”

We at the Daily Mail also ask that our readers who live in this area to try to remember where you were the afternoon of the 28th July; you might have the key to the case?

The Reign of Fear

Over a year ago our Prime Minister died in office. The last Prime Minister to die in office before her was Lord Palmerston in 1865, of natural causes. Prime Minister Thatcher did not die of natural causes. Indeed it is not sufficiently descriptive simply to say she died: she was assassinated by terrorists. This unprecedented act in modern times has been met by this Government by nothing other than an unprecedented lack of action!

What has this government done to stop these terrorists? Nothing! Have the opposition complained or held them to account for this? Of course not!

Our country is now under siege by terrorists. This spineless lack of response has shown the terrorists they have a free hand to attack our country. Worse yet, the only action the Government has taken on Northern Ireland would charitably be labelled Appeasement. The Hillsborough Agreement is nothing more than attempt to appease nationalist terrorist political fronts at the expense of loyal citizens of this country who simply want to remain here.

This government needs to build up some backbone and challenge the terrorists. It must lay down the gauntlet before our society becomes completely lawless. We need more troops in Northern Ireland. We must crack down on the gunrunners and terrorists who use the border with the Irish Republic as a safehouse to escape the work of the RUC in tracking them down to punish them for their crimes.

The Chancellor has spoken of how fond he is of “investment.” When will he commit to investing in the safety and security of our country and fellow citizens by putting some money in the budget to fight these terrorists?

After Margaret Thatcher’s assassination the Government promised action. Oscar Traynor, who succeeded Viscount Whitelaw as Home Secretary did not provide any action. He renewed the Prevention of Terrorist Act, true. He even amended it so it would only need to be renewed every 5 years instead of annually. He did not, however, take any action to fight terrorism.

Nathan Eaton was our next Home Secretary, and he took no actions either. His only flirtation with terrorism was to label a few rioting immigrants as terrorist and threaten them with stern action. Where was the plan of stern action against the terrorists who assassinated the Prime Minister or who blew up Stormont?

Edward Parker came to the Home Office with a reputation as a man of action. He is swiftly developing the same do-nothing attitudes of his predecessors, however. No plans to combat terrorism have been announced. No policies to secure our country. No legislation to empower the fight against terrorism.

How long will this country be forced to wait for a government to take action? The Labour Party has all but praised the do-nothing attitude of the Government. There are rumours of a third party in Parliament, but their stance is more ethereal than the Government’s.

Britain needs someone, a leader, to stand up to these terrorists and show them that we will not be cowed by their acts of violence. We will respond, with force where necessary, to preserve the liberties and rule of law that underpin our society.

It is what Margaret Thatcher would have done.

The Mail Sits Down With Grosvenor


Conservative Party leadership contender Robert George Grosvenor

The Daily Mail
The Government's budget has been in the news lately. During the budget you were a visible presence supporting the budget, numerous times claiming the budget represented a return to economic policies supported by Margaret Thatcher. The Mail disagreed with your assessment wholly; would you care to comment on your views and why they differed from that of the Mail?

Robert George Grosvenor
Certainly. The budget that was proposed, and I am confident shall soon pass division, maintains the goals of tax cuts, incentives for business and the private sector, and reductions in public borrowing. I believe those are all policies in line with the magnificent precursor of Mrs. Thatcher's.

The Daily Mail
As our readers know, we have been critical of some of the spending plans introduced in the budget that no one could imagine Mr. Howe or even Mr. Lawson introducing had they still been Chancellor. Do you truly feel that the budget was in the spirit of Mrs. Thatcher, then would you allow these policies to continue if you were elected leader?

Robert George Grosvenor
Well, one aspect of financial policy, and one I have already discussed with my colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the need to re-institute a Medium Term Financial Strategy. I am a firm believer in the strict targeting of the money supply's growth and the principled setting of goals for reducing public expenditure. Goals we must and shall meet. Goals to which the British public may hold us accountable.

The Daily Mail
Of the three Chancellor's this country has seen since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, whose style do you feel most closely mirrors your own?

Robert George Grosvenor
In totality? Mr. Lawson. His budget in 1984 showed an adherence to monetarism whilst also allowing for radical measures to empower the private sector, raising tax allowances, and creating an economic environment beneficial to both employers and employees ... all whilst trimming public spending in line with the Medium Term Financial Strategy is just the sort of financial management I would hope to perpetuate.

The Daily Mail
Steven Andrews has claimed that financial investment is needed in order for the economy to continue to grow. If you advocate for public spending cuts, how will you be able to bring a government together that differs greatly on the economic future of the country?

Robert George Grosvenor
Mr. Andrews and I have discussed the economic future of the country and the course which the government needs to take to direct that future, at length. He is entirely committed, as I am, to reinvigorating and re-emphasising the foundational economic policies which have reinforced the Conservative Party as the natural party of government. Financial investments can be made, by reducing waste, contracting out services that can be just as easily and more efficiently managed under private oversight, like NHS laundry, food services, and other support mechanisms, and focusing anew on Civil Service reforms. The moneys saved can, under the overall goal of reducing public expenditure, and keeping those reductions in line with a principled, monetarist strategy, be invested elsewhere. Under Mr. Howe and Mr. Lawson, let us not forget, government services saw not only significant increases, but in several sectors the sort of increases which were worlds beyond anything the top-heavy welfare state Labour would impose could afford.

The Daily Mail
Over the last number of months Parliament has been treated by certain Cabinet Ministers as some drop in centre. Ministers appearing whenever it befits their personal preferences. Under your leadership how would such an attitude be reversed. How will you show the public that Parliament is being treated with the respect it deserves? And overall, what changes would you make to ensure such complacency doesn't creep into government thinking again?

Robert George Grosvenor
I have made it clear to the parliamentary party that under my leadership, there will be no patience for dereliction of duty or complacency. I believe we have, in the party today, the greatest braintrust of talent and visionary policy the Conservative Party has ever known. I mean to utilise it fully, and to encourage Ministers to be constantly and regularly developing and presenting new policies, legislation, and initiatives to Parliament and the British public. I do have ideas of my own on some things we need to strike for. I have mentioned them both publicly and in the collegial atmosphere of Smith Square. I mean to be a leader who leads from the front, as I hope I have displayed in the recent budget debate. I do not accept idleness in myself, and I will not suffer it in any government of Her Majesty's over which I might have the honour and privilege of being premier. The Cabinet will become an even more cooperative mechanism, and I will open myself and the statements and policies I espouse to the input of the Cabinet. As well as the party and, where possible, general membership.

The Daily Mail
In 1985, this newspaper endorsed Mr. Traynor against Mr. Walker on the basis of a fairly right-wing campaign. Mr. Traynor's subsequent Premiership has largely considered to have fallen on the left. What assurances can you give our readers that this would not be the case under your leadership?

Robert George Grosvenor
I believe I have made clear where I stand on the issues of the day. My involvement in the No Turning Back Group, in how it was presented to the public by the very ... full-throated Mr. Brinkley, may have been ill-advised. That being said, I make no apologies for the policies that underpinned that endeavour. I said then that the promises made in 1979 and re-affirmed in 1983 must be the pledge of the Conservative and Unionist Party in 1986 and beyond, and I mean it today as much as I did then.

The Daily Mail
How do you think the public will relate to these constant changes in party direction?

Robert George Grosvenor
I intend to provide the leadership, stability, and direction of policies to ensure that there is no mistake where we stand. I don't believe we have changed direction. Our message has not changed, but the frequency and confidence with which it has been transmitted may have been impeded by the tumult of these last two years. We are still the party for which Britons voted in 1983. I intend to prove that before the next time the electorate is summoned to the polls.

The Daily Mail
On to another topic that greatly concerns our readers. The Mail has criticized the government on their clear complacency in regards to terrorism. Since the murder of Margaret Thatcher the government has done absolutely nothing to crack down on terrorists. There have been no new policy initiatives. How would you deal with the rising activity of terrorists and how will you put an end to the violence?

Robert George Grosvenor
We must remove the ambiguity of how Her Majesty's Government regards terrorism. They must be shown, by our actions and those of our security forces, that no amount of intimidation will bring about the surrendering of Ulster to their wiles. We must also seek a renewed commitment from the Republic of Ireland in combating these enemies of peace... An eventually devolved government is, in my mind, the only way for lasting peace. BUT, it can only come with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland and the cooperation of the Republic of Ireland against terrorism. Those two things are key, and an absolute requirement, before the subject of self-government can even be considered. The terrorists must know, or must come to know, that we shall not give one inch. Murderous intimidation will not soften the resolve of the British people or their government.

The Daily Mail
Mr. Grosvenor, thank you for your time.

The Right Direction

The Conservative Party has been plagued in recent years by leaders attempting to do what they felt would be popular rather than what was necessary to fix this country. Margaret Thatcher said that this country was at a turning point, and that reforms were necessary, however unpleasant the short term effects, in order to secure a better future.

Mr. Grosvenor does not commit, in our mind, to a full return to the principles Margaret Thatcher espoused in 1979 when she told this country of a need for change, but surely he brings us a vision closer to hers than either Oscar Traynor or Ben Walker.

Mr. Grosvenor is soft on terrorism. There is no getting around it. He prefers negotiation a devolution to any crackdown on the terrorists that threaten the safety and security of the British people. No one is perfect.

He has promised no patience for the layabouts in Cabinet who never bothered to show up to Parliament. Perhaps his Government will be spared the ignominy of the Speaker suspending members for their failure to attend.

A number of high profile Conservatives have come out in support of Mr. Grosvenor and some of the other candidates, including three former Chancellors and a number of members of the Thatcher Cabinet. Not all have been in support of Mr. Grosvenor. This election features a slate of candidates who have all espoused a number of views that the Mirror agrees with, but none has so far espoused the full values this paper has promoted as necessary for the Government to pursue. We encourage all candidates, and especially Mr. Grosvenor, to continue to look to the example of Margaret Thatcher’s first term for inspiration as they move forward to secure the votes of their colleagues and ultimately to accept the position of Prime Minister.

The Right Direction?

Guest Editorial by the former Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, and former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Rt. Hon. Nathan Eaton

I’ve always believed Britain could once again regain the mantle of “greatness”, and retake its position as one of the most superior nations on earth. Our country has a lineage of history which has been defined on taking the right approach to making this country the greatest it could be. The dark days of the 1970s did not help improve Britain one ounce; I entered politics to try and solve the rut we seemed to have experienced. I never dreamed of being the Prime Minister; no, that was for the men who had been dreaming for it their entire lives. No, I entered Politics to try and help make Britain great again.

Like many in 1979, I entered parliament believing firmly in the rationale of what was to be the Thatcherite revolution. I did honestly believe that through the right approach and strict fiscal decision making, Britain could regain the greatness mantle once again. I think, in all honesty, all those entering either in 1979, or 1983, firmly stood because they believed Margaret Thatcher’s vision and determination was key to this country’s future.

We all know of the subsequent events that meant our electing a new leader. Ben Walker, then Oscar Traynor, then Robert George Grosvenor were all men of conviction and stature. All men of good Thatcherite breed. Although the constant change we experienced meant there was some stumbling blocks along the way, we held an honest Thatcherite policy agenda that shaped the way for this country; albeit a little slower than Mrs Thatcher herself might have intended.

And now we come to the latest round of elections. I’ve known Steven Andrews for a long time; indeed I served in the Cabinet with him throughout the Walker, Traynor and Grosvenor premierships. I have no doubt in my mind that his belief that this country can once again be great is steadfast. All the Conservative Cabinet members – whomever they will be – will be picked not based on favouritism, but the willingness to do good.

Whether they do good is another story. Gone are the names of Calvert, Brinkley, Holmes. And who do we have in replacement? Knightly? Robertson? All good men – all good men who have stood in support of strong Thatcherite principles. All good men who have supported the ideals of Thatcher and the policies of a property owning democracy. All good men who have stood up for the party and supported their leader though thick and thin.

One question does arise – are these good men following their leader for the good of the party, or because they believe in the principles? If it is the former, then I commend them, but how do they reconcile their policy statements with that decision? If it is the latter, then why the sudden change? Is it right for these men to lead our country with such dishonest integrity? We must remember Knightly’s comment, when endorsing Oscar Traynor the first time round, “I see it as the mission of the Conservative Party to keep the spirit of 1979 alive in 1984.”

I don’t mean to disrespect the decision made by the party – but we do have to ask, which direction are we planning to take? Do we still believe that this nation should return to being a property owning democracy, full of potential and hope? Do we still believe that government should be removed from the day-to-day running of people’s lives? Do we still have the inherent belief that people know what is best for them, and in the end we are their servants and not their masters?

We’ve had a rough few years, I don’t think anyone has doubted that. Four Prime Ministers in so many years. But at least we’ve kept a steady track. The new Prime Minister doesn’t have the mandate to veer off course and chart a new policy direction. For that he must call a General Election. Conservative MPS across the country have the mandate to implement one thing – the policies we supported in 1979, and again in 1983 – those of Margaret Thatcher. For we must stand strong in our convictions and support the policies we all fought on, and the policies we know to be true.

Every Conservative MP should stand up for what they believe in, they should stand up for what they were elected on. Forget the short term perks and the bonuses one receives for sucking up to the Leaders – the real benefit comes from the support you will receive from the country when you stand up for what is right.

The National Curriculum-
"How the Conservatives are getting on with the job of reforming Education"

The 1990s are fast approaching and will undoubtedly present a number of challenges for our nation, as we move ahead. It is the Conservative Government’s aim that Britain maintains her strength, and economic competitiveness into the future. Central to our plan to keep Britain strong in the future, is ensuring that we have a modern education system which gives our students the best start and provides them with the tools of success for later life. Rather than just talking about these issues, the Steven Andrews Conservative Government has acted to introduce a National Curriculum; a bold and visionary framework for establishing the best education system in the world. Whilst it was my predecessor who introduced this legislation into parliament, it has been my privilege to oversee its passage through the House of Commons. If the 1980s have been anything to go off of, the 1990s will provide incredible opportunities for our nation and will test this country in new ways. It was a previous Conservative Prime Minister, Disraeli, who said, speaking in the House of Commons in 1874: “Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.” Truer words have never been spoken.

Over the last 40 years there hasn’t been any meaningful reform to the education system beyond what was implemented by another Conservative Government in 1944. It would seem that former governments have lacked the vision, or perhaps political courage to build on that past reform. We now need to inject a new vitality into that system. It has not proved sensitive to the demands for change that have become ever more urgent over the past 10 years. The National Curriculum Act will create a new framework, which will raise standards, extend choice and produce a better-educated Britain. The National Curriculum is a clear example of this Government’s attitude when it comes to education- whilst support for a National Curriculum goes back some years, we feel that the time for talking has ended and the time for action has come. There can be no doubt that the programme of reform outlined in the Act is the most far-reaching since the war.

The urgency of this matter cannot be overstated, and we feel that it is vital that we act now in order to reverse the depressing decline in standards in our education system which has occurred at the hands of Local Education Authorities for too long. Ever since we were elected in 1979 we have increased funding to the education department every year, with last year being no exception. However, despite the much needed injection of funds into the system under this Government, we feel that it is a tragedy that in the modern Britain of 1986 that a small minority of our young people are leaving school still unable to read or write. There is no doubt that people who have problems in such simple communication skills are more likely to be unemployed and likely to remain unemployed for longer than those who have the skills. This is something that we should not tolerate in our society today. Regardless of the fact that it is only a small number of students leaving school with such limited abilities, we feel it is important that we act.

The Conservatives believe that all pupils, irrespective of where they go to school, where they live, or what background they come from, should be entitled to have access to a broad and balanced curriculum which meets their needs and helps ignite a desire for learning and education fulfilment in every pupil throughout the land. Therefore we believe that the Government, in consultation with experts in the field, should intervene to secure pupils' entitlement to that broad and balanced curriculum. The National Curriculum Board which I will appoint will consist of a diverse range of interests and skill sets and will be tasked with developing a curriculum based on some very sound principles. This is a process which will be conducted armslength of Government, and all final decisions about the content of the National Curriculum will be made by the Board.

Remarkably, the Shadow Minister for Education has attempted to take credit for the idea behind the National Curriculum on the basis of a paper he recently released, entitled ‘First Steps.’ I am staggered that such an outstanding contribution to the Labour party's policy was not acted upon from 1974 to 1979. Whilst one would think that developing the best education system in the developed world would be an aspiration shared by all major parties, the Labour Party has chosen to abstain on this crucial piece of Legislation. Labour claim they believe in a National Curriculum (and assert as much in their Manifesto) but when it has come to the test of their commitment, not a single Labour MP has voted in support of this initiative. This once again proves that Labour is all spin and no substance and that John Donald lacks the vision or commitment to reforming the education system he professes to hold. The British public can’t be taken for dills and they can see clearly through the headline grabbing approach of the Opposition, and will judge them harshly over their shallow conviction on education reform, which was put on display in the Division Lobby of the House.

Parents want the National Curriculum because they know it will lead to real improvements in the quality of education provided to our young people in the classroom. We recognise the need to improve transparency and expand choice in order to provide students with the greatest possible opportunities. One of the claims made in the debate by the opposition is that some teachers are worried that the national curriculum will prescribe how they go about their professional duties. Again, let me put such fears at rest. We want to build upon the professionalism of the teacher in the classroom—the professionalism of the many fine and dedicated teachers throughout our education system. We do not intend to lay down how lessons should be taught, how timetables should be organised, or which textbooks should be used. The National Curriculum will provide scope for imaginative approaches developed by our teachers. For example I have visited many primary schools in my own constituency and across the country and have seen the enormous advance in the teaching of science in primary schools. We wish to continue to encourage that.

Once the National Curriculum Act passes the House of Lords, then I will be consulting with those listed in the Act as being represented on this Board, about the Board’s membership. We intend for this process to be an open and transparent one which engages key stakeholders in the development of the best education system in the world. Contrary to what has been speculated by opposition members, the Government is not beholden to any interest other than the expectations and the obligations placed upon us by the British public. We believe that all members of the Board will have a valuable contribution to make and their combined efforts will see a curriculum emerge which places a high premium on lifting standards in our schools.

The last 7 years of Conservative Government has seen an unprecedented leap forward made in the education of our young people, and a real commitment to reform which the previous Labour Government did not show. Under the leadership of Steven Andrews we will continue to build upon what we have already achieved. This initiative is but one plank in our ongoing education agenda, I look forward to announcing more changes to the education system of this country in coming weeks. Only a Conservative Government can be relied upon to confront the challenges of our education system with courage, vigour and conviction.


By Andrew Howe
Secretary of State for Education and Science

The Long Goodbye

We sincerely hope that our readers were spared the longest political exit that has graced British politics. Yes, we are of course talking about the decision of Judy Maxwell to exit the stage as a Conservative representative. There have been stories printed in the press recently about clashes between Mrs. Maxwell and her colleagues within the government. Of course these stories are yet to name a credible source.

This newspaper however, cannot sit by without speaking the truth. If you bothered to listen to Mrs. Maxwell’s closing, droning speech you will be aware that she tried to embarrass the government on a number of occasions. She even had the audacity to try and discredit the party over the changes in its leadership, completely ignoring the changes that have happened in other parties. Judy Maxwell, who on a number of occasions has declared her absolute loyalty to the party and to her constituency, appears to have kept a list of private conversations. She has used these records to embarrass the government. We must ask ourselves however, just what exactly does this tell us about the character of Mrs. Maxwell? Only last year she stated her loyalty to “being a blue”, yet it is clear she has been keeping these records of private conversations for some time. It is aware to us, and to anyone else that Mrs. Maxwell was bidding her time to stab the government in the back. That is evident through her speech.

The great economist Judy, then turned her daring attention to the economic record of the government. She said “But why is unemployment still a huge problem, why hasn’t it been tackled? It is clear to see that following the strategy of the Conservative party at present has failed us. It has failed this country, it has failed individuals, it has failed businesses and it has made improvement to the few and not to the many”. We at this newspaper find this claim very bizarre. It is a claim that further discredits the character of Judy Maxwell. Only last year it was Maxwell who stood up in public bowing down and praising the budget that the Chancellor delivered to the house. In this press release Maxwell couldn’t contain her excitement for the future and for the economic policies that awaited Britain:

“Today is a great day to be a Conservative and to live within Conservative Britain. The budget was unveiled by the Chancellor which sees continued investment in our economy to ensure a strong future for Britain.”

In her closing statement Judy Maxwell argued that “This just shows that Britain is better off with a Conservative Government and it would be dangerous to turn any other way at this point in time due to the security we need to keep Britain growing and strong.” It is quite clear to everyone that Judy Maxwell is a funny character, in two minds about everything. It was her who devoted her entirety to the government as early as last year. Now she has turned her back on the government and attempted to blacken its name. She has clearly been waiting for the opportunity that graced her this week. The government have bigger issues to deal with. They must not be side tracked by petty incidents such as this. Everything that has been said is on record. The great British people can see these records for themselves and judge who is in the wrong. We here at the Daily Mail will come out publically and say what we have to, rather than waiting and waiting for ample opportunity. We won't say one thing in public and say something else behind our readers back.

This newspaper declares that the public character of Judy Maxwell has been duly discredited. The government must focus on the bigger issues of the day. They will not be forgiven by the British public, if they get side tracked by the issues surrounding Judy Maxwell. Onwards and upwards.