Michael Lambert: How Brexit Has Wrecked the UK Economy

Jun 28, 2025 | Last week saw the 9th anniversary of the referendum in which the UK voted to leave the EU. Since Brexit, the UK has struggled economically and faces several major challenges.

Jonathan 'Johnny' Reynolds is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry charged with spearheading the UK's push for growth. Reynolds who was previously a trainee solicitor and then an assistant to MP James Purnell has no previous business experience. Despite this, he boasts of three major trade deals with, India, the EU, and the USA. It is estimated that these three deals will add less than 1% to the UK GDP in about ten years’ time. Leaving the EU has cost the UK at least 4% of GDP.

Since growth in the UK is very slow owing to the overall economic conditions, and since it is now almost impossible for small and medium sized businesses to sell to the EU given the onerous post-Brexit paperwork and expense involved, it is difficult to see where growth can be found.

Since leaving the EU, the UK has suffered from a shortage of workers in many sectors of the economy, including the NHS, care, hospitality, construction, food processing, and agriculture.

Whilst some EU workers were initially replaced by those from countries such as Nigeria, Bangladesh, and India in response to calls from Nigel Farage, the government has now introduced minimum salary requirements of almost £40,000 per annum for anyone seeking work in the UK. The result is likely to be much more severe shortages.

The government plans to train up British citizens to do the work formally done by foreign workers. Inward investment, often amounting to foreign companies buying UK infrastructure and businesses has dried up, although it is expected that major US asset managers will soon start buying up and renting back UK housing stock.

1m People to Have Disability Benefits Cut by Labour

THE TIMES: Rachel Reeves vows to ‘get a grip’ on the burgeoning welfare bill but cabinet ministers express disquiet over £5 billion savings

A million people face having their ¬benefits reduced under an overhaul of the welfare system that means only the most severely disabled will qualify.

Cost-cutting reforms due to be ¬announced next week are set to deny payments to many people with mental health conditions and those who ¬struggle with washing, dressing themselves and ¬eating.

The changes to eligibility criteria have been estimated to hit about a million people and are set to be applied to new claims and reassessments of ¬existing claimants. » | Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor | Friday, March 14, 2025

Michael Lambert: Will Targeting the Poor Really Fix Britain's Financial Issues?

Mar 15, 2025 | The UK economy is doing very badly. Donald Trump is ensuring that the US economy will also suffer by applying tariffs to America's neighbours and others all over the world. This is likely to seriously damage the US economy just as Brexit has damaged the UK economy.

T rump last week applied 25% tariffs to all imports into the US of aluminium and steel. The EU and others immediately responded with reciprocal tariffs. The UK did nothing, but will be sending the Secretary of State for Business to the US for talks.

In the meantime, Trump's state visit is still going ahead and promises to be a major embarrassment for the UK and King Charles.

The Labour government of Kier Starmer has decided to investigate benefit recipients for fraud. This is likely to be very expensive and to yield very little compared to the vast losses associated with Brexit, supplies of faulty PPE, and the writing off of £19.7 billion of unpaid Bounce Back loans.

The government under Starmer seems wary of offending the rich, whilst dirty money floods into London, often to take advantage of our tax havens.

Council tax needs reform when a £150 million house in London only pays £4000 per year.

Many retail businesses throughout the UK seem to be unviable and yet are able to continue to operate in what is almost certainly money laundering.

The government appears to be afraid of offending the many rich who come to London for whatever reason.

Do Starmer and Reeves Have a ‘Big Idea’ to Save the Economy?

Amid turmoil in the bond market and a plummeting pound, Sir Keir Starmer has had to defend his chancellor Rachel Reeves while dealing with the resignation of the former anti-corruption minister Tulip Siddiq. So, can Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves turn it around?

The Prime Minister says it will take 10 years to solve some of the chronic issues facing the UK, but will he even get a second term with Labour's support sliding in the polls and Nigel Farage's Reform UK breathing down his neck?

In this episode of the Fourcast, Matt Frei is joined by the Financial Times’ columnist Katie Martin, psephologist Luke Try and Channel 4 News' political editor Gary Gibbon.

Produced by Calum Fraser, Silvia Maresca and Ka Yee Mak.

Labour’s Islamophobia Definition ‘Forbids Discussion of Asian Grooming Gangs’, Says Badenoch

THE TELEGRAPH: Tory leader urges Sir Keir Starmer to scrap use of characterisation that means people may be too ‘scared to tell the truth’

Labour’s definition of Islamophobia bars discussion of grooming gangs, Kemi Badenoch has told MPs.

The Tory leader used Prime Minister’s Questions to ask Sir Keir Starmer to cancel his party’s adoption of the definition used by the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on British Muslims.

She also asked whether the Prime Minister intended to introduce a law to ensure the Government had to abide by the Islamophobia definition and he declined to rule it out. » | Daniel Martin | Deputy Political Editor | Wednesday, January 8, 2025

There should be no Islamophobia law. People must be free to say whatever they like about Islam. In fact, this should apply to ALL RELIGIONS.

The Islamic world has been kept back in its development because Muslims have been denied the right to criticise their religion. Is this what we in the West now wants for itself? Stunted development?

We owe Islam NOTHING! We must treat Muslims no differently than we treat people of other faiths and none. To do so would not only stunt our future development, but it would also put Muslims on a pedestal in our own country! We shall be able to criticise Christianity by law, the faith that is the foundation stone of the West, but we won’t be able to criticise Islam! How much sense does that make?

If Starmer and his cronies get an Islamophobia law through Parliament, it MUST be repealed at the very earliest convenience.

In England and Wales, the blasphemy laws were abolished in May 2008. We really ought not return to the age of darkness. Say a firm NO to a law on Islamophobia. Or else we shall be little freer than people of Iran! – © Mark Alexander

Labour ‘Will Drop Plans for Outdoor Smoking Ban’

THE TELEGRAPH: Policy set to be axed after industry opposition amid fears for pubs, according to reports

Plans to ban smoking outside pubs are reportedly being dropped after opposition from the hospitality industry.

Proposals leaked earlier this year suggested the Labour Government would ban smoking in some outdoor areas, such as at restaurants and hospitals, to improve public health.

Concerns were raised over the new rules, which could include bans in beer gardens and outside stadiums.

The Guardian reported that Downing Street is now blocking the ban on outdoor smoking, citing one official who called it an “unserious policy”.

No 10 was understood to be watering down the plans, according to The Sun. » | Telegraph Reporters | Friday, October 25, 2024

This is good news. Now Labour should go one step further and abandon that ridiculous, draconian, undemocratic, illiberal generational smoking ban. In a world in which so many young people are into all sorts of extremely unhealthy and damaging drugs like cocaine and pink cocaine, it makes no sense whatsoever. Especially since increasingly fewer young people take up cigarette smoking anyway. – © Mark Alexander

Drunk on Authoritarianism

SP!KED: Starmer’s crackdown on pubs reveals the megalomania of the technocrats.

Sometimes I think we need to retire the phrase nanny state. It has its uses. It’s a good shorthand. People know what you mean when you say it. But it rather downplays the activities of the control freaks and megalomaniacs who are hell bent on dictating how we should all live our lives. It makes them sound almost quaint, and ultimately benevolent.

The truth is quite the opposite. You do not need to be the sort who hysterically compares sugar taxes to something out of North Korea to realise that the preoccupation of the 21st-century state with policing what we eat, drink and do in our private time speaks to a depth of authoritarianism that is not at all normal – and upstream from more potent flavours of authoritarianism.

Logically speaking, if we are not to be trusted to dine unchaperoned, why should we be allowed to think, speak, even vote, for ourselves? There’s a reason why the same people who want to punish you for what you stick in your gob also want to punish you for what comes out of it.

Well, those people now run the country, it seems. Not only has this new Labour government embraced lifestyle despotism with a remarkable zeal – with plans to ban smoking in beer gardens, ban junk-food ads and weigh people at their workplaces already being announced – it has clearly emboldened all the joyless nags and bores of the ‘public health’ blob, too.

Labour is now floating the idea of curtailing licensing hours. Public-health minister Andrew Gwynne – apparently displeased that only 50 pubs a month are closing down at the moment – told the Labour Party conference this week that it’s time to consider ‘tightening up on some of the hours of operation’. » | Tom Slater, Editor | Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Who wants to be weighed in the workplace?: ‘Health MoTs’ for middle-aged men are the latest harebrained scheme from Starmer’s nanny state. »

We need a smokers’ revolt: A smoking ban in pub gardens is the final, joyless straw. »

You can support SP!KED here.

Labour Must Deliver or Risk Populist Rise - Ministers

Read the accompanying BBC article here.

Promise of a Changed U.K. Comes Wrapped in Royal Tradition

THE NEW YORK TIMES: From plans to tackle climate change to ending the role of hereditary legislators, the ceremonial King’s Speech showcased the progressive priorities of Britain’s Labour government.

At last, a “King’s Speech” that the king himself might have written, at least in its bridge-building, planet-saving passages.

On Wednesday, King Charles III formally opened Britain’s Parliament, presenting the priorities of Britain’s new Labour government, a center-left legislative agenda that chimes with some of his own cherished projects, from curbing climate change to cultivating close ties with the European Union.

It was a stark contrast to last year, when Charles presented the agenda of the Conservative government, which included plans to expand oil and gas drilling in the North Sea. Critics said that was at odds with Britain’s “net zero” emissions goals; the Labour government has promised to end new oil and gas exploration.

Nothing in the king’s demeanor suggested that he was any more enthusiastic speaking the words drafted for him by Prime Minister Keir Starmer than he was with last year’s speech, prepared by Mr. Starmer’s predecessor, Rishi Sunak. His poker face spoke to a lifetime of studied political neutrality, a central tenet of Britain’s constitutional monarchy. That job requirement is rarely tested more than on the day the king opens Parliament, wearing the jewel-encrusted Imperial State Crown to deliver a speech jam-packed with politics. » | Mark Landler, Reporting from London | Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Watch excerpts from the King’s speech here.

Immigration Boom Under Labour Changed Face Of Britain Faster Than Any Major Country Except Italy, Oxford Experts Reveal

MAIL ONLINE:  Immigrant population soared by 22% during Labour's open door policy  During past two decades number of foreign-born residents has doubled  Only Italy - with rise of 44.6% over same period - recorded bigger rise  Watchdogs say figures show why it will be hard to reduce immigration

The immigration boom under Labour led to the face of Britain changing faster than any major nation except Italy, a study by an Oxford University think tank revealed.

During the five-year peak of the influx, the UK’s migrant population soared by 22 per cent – double the average of G8 countries, figures from the Migration Observatory show.

Over the past two decades, Britain’s foreign-born population has increased from 3.8million – or 7 per cent of the total population - in 1993 to almost 7million, or 12 per cent per cent in 2010.

During the same period, the number of foreign-born residents without British citizenship doubled from just under two million (4 per cent of the population) to over four million (7 per cent).

Net-migration – the number arrivals minus those leaving - increased from 564,000 during the five years from 1996-2000, to 923,000 in 2001-2005 and 1,044,000 during 2006-2010.

In 2010, net-migration reached 252,000, its highest level for a single calendar year on record. Read on and comment » | Julian Gavaghan | Thursday, April 19, 2012

My comment:

So why was the Queen asleep during all of this? Isn't the Queen supposed to offer advice and wise council to the sitting prime minister? – © Mark

This comment also appears here.

Labour Hid ‘Scorched Earth’ Debts
THE SUNDAY TIMES: Labour ‘left poison pills’ for Cameron’s government

THE government last night accused Labour of pursuing a “scorched earth policy” before the general election, leaving behind billions of pounds of previously hidden spending commitments.

The newly discovered Whitehall “black holes” could force even more severe public spending cuts, or higher tax rises, ministers fear.

Vince Cable, the business secretary, said: “I fear that a lot of bad news about the public finances has been hidden and stored up for the new government. The skeletons are starting to fall out of the cupboard.”

The new cabinet has been discovering previously unknown contracts and uncosted spending commitments left by their spendthrift predecessors. >>> Marie Woolf and Jonathan Oliver | Sunday, May 16, 2010

Labour Is 'Worst Government Ever', Says Mark Serwotka
THE TELEGRAPH: The Labour government has been branded the "worst in the history of this country” by the head of one of Britain’s biggest trade unions.

Mark Serwotka Photo: The Telegraph
Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, said the government’s poor treatment of public sector workers meant it was a worse employer than the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher or John Major.

In a bitter attack, he called for unions to take “united industrial action” as a last resort to defend jobs, pensions and services.

The comments – in an address to the National Union of Teachers’ annual conference in Liverpool – drew an extraordinary response from activists.

In scenes reminiscent of union rallies of the 60s and 70s, teachers chanted “the workers, united, will never be defeated” as they gave Mr Serwotka a standing ovation.

It was a further signal that the incoming government is likely to face a bitter battle with public sector unions over major cuts imposed to reduce Britain’s multi-billion pound deficit.

The move came as the NUT – Britain’s biggest classroom union – passed an emergency resolution rejecting plans by “all major parties" for cuts which they claim will impact on children’s education.

It called for a “coordinated campaign of action, up to and including strike action where needed” to oppose pay freezes, threats to pensions and cuts to jobs.

One NUT member said the union should be put on a "war footing". >>> Graeme Paton, Education Editor | Easter Monday, April 05, 2010

Blair, the Consummate Liar Talks BS – Again!
THE TELEGRAPH: Tony Blair has hailed the leadership of Gordon Brown, praising him for setting the country on the road to recovery after the financial crisis.



In his first intervention into the pre-election fray, the former prime minister declared he was ''optimistic'' about the prospects for the future under his successor.

Speaking to activists in his former constituency in Sedgefield, Co Durham, he hit out at David Cameron, dismissing the Conservative leader's ''time for change'' slogan as ''the most vacuous in politics''.

Mr Blair said that while Britain was not yet ''out of the woods'' following the financial crisis, it was ''on the path out'' as a result of the actions taken by Mr Brown.

''At the moment of peril the world acted. Britain acted. The decision to act required experience, judgment and boldness. It required leadership. Gordon Brown supplied it,'' he said.

Mr Blair acknowledged that it would be a "big thing" for Labour to win a fourth successive general election - something it had never achieved before. Tony Blair: Gordon Brown's leadership led us out of economic peril >>> | Tuesday, March 30, 2010

If the British electorate fall for this crap yet again, they deserve all they get! This is the government which has decimated the economy and taken so many freedoms away from the British people. The best thing the British electorate can do on polling day is vote this shower OUT OF OFFICE. By the way, Tone, if anyone's words are "vacuous", yours are! – © Mark

Labour Has Taken 13 Years of Diabolical Liberties with Britain
THE TELEGRAPH: Individualism and autonomy used to be prized – now they are held in contempt, argues Simon Heffer

A danger of the Government's having made such a mess of the economy is that one risks forgetting all the other horrors for which it is responsible. Between now and the election I shall make a point of discussing some of these other factors that an intelligent voter should want to consider before casting his or her ballot. Despite stiff competition from matters like Europe, immigration, law and order and the near-destruction of our education system, one is perhaps worse than all the others: the insidious and at times quite terrifying assault on our civil liberties.

I have been prompted to think more about this after reading a new book by one of Cambridge University's most impressive young political philosophers, Ben Colburn. In Autonomy and Liberalism (Routledge, £70), Dr Colburn seeks "an understanding of what a liberal political philosophy is committed to". In this country, "liberal" is still just a term of approbation. Mrs Thatcher was a 19th century liberal. I have always considered myself a Gladstonian liberal. However, in America the word is used by people whose politics are broadly the same as Mrs Thatcher's and mine as a term of abuse. Perhaps the difference is that we think of liberalism in predominantly economic terms and the Americans think of it as defining something social.

This creates what Dr Colburn calls "a cacophony" surrounding the term, and in his book he seeks to restore order. To his mind, individual autonomy is central to the liberal political philosophy. Although a political philosopher, Dr Colburn takes a view of autonomy that verges upon the spiritual: "What is distinctive and valuable about human life is our capacity to decide for ourselves what is valuable in life, and to shape our lives in accordance with that decision".

There has, he argues later in his book, to be equality of access to autonomy; and he points out that autonomy is not a term interchangeable with freedom, and demonstrates how increased freedom may actually restrict the autonomy of some individuals simply because they do not have the knowledge or the means to handle it. These are rarified points, worthy of a political philosopher, but perhaps not with an immediate practical application to our politics. However, it is precisely this sort of philosophical underpinning that has been absent from so much policy during the past 13 years, and which has caused unnecessary restrictions to our autonomy: and, in the process, created a state that is becoming progressively more and more authoritarian, and therefore unpleasant, to live in. >>> Simon Heffer | Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Taking the ‘Great’ Out of Britain! Plans for Abolition of House of Lords* to Be Unveiled
THE TELEGRAPH: Plans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-strong, wholly elected second chamber are to be unveiled by ministers in a key political move ahead of the general election.

New House of Lords is likely to be a more partisan body but with no party in control. Photograph: The Telegraph
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is this weekend consulting cabinet colleagues on a blueprint which would represent the biggest change to the way Britain is governed for several decades.

The proposals, which have been leaked to The Sunday Telegraph and which are expected to be announced soon, would sweep away centuries of tradition and set ministers on a collision course with the current 704-member House of Lords, which is resolutely opposed to having elected members.

Ministers are ready to announce their plans, which follow years of fruitless cross-party discussions and several votes in the House of Commons, in a bid to wrong-foot the Tories with polling day less than two months away.

Labour's plan is to provoke elements inside the Conservative Party to object to the reforms – which would allow it to paint David Cameron as wedded to old ideas of privilege.

The proposed changes also follow various House of Lords-related controversies, including the recent furore over the admission by Lord Ashcroft, the Tory deputy chairman, that he was a "non-dom."

Members of the new-style chamber will have to be both UK residents and domiciled here for tax purposes. >>> Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor | Saturday, March 13, 2010

*If this rotten Labour government thinks it will rid Britain of privilege by abolishing the House of Lords, it had better think again. All that will be achieved is that a group of privileged patricians will be replaced by group of overpaid privileged plebeians. It will achieve nothing except denude Britain of its wonderful heritage and incomparable traditions. – © Mark

New Death Tax for All Shock
DAILY EXPRESS: LABOUR wants to hammer every home owner in Britain with a spiteful 10 per cent death tax, it emerged yesterday.

The levy would be charged on all estates up to the current inheritance tax threshold of £325,000.
Any amount above the existing threshold is already taxed at 40 per cent. But the extra charge would add a huge £32,500 on top of the tax bill for such properties.

It means people with an estate valued at £500,000 would find their relatives hit with a bill of £102,500 after their death. >>> Sarah O’Grady | Thursday, March 11, 2010

Broken? Britain Is Not Just Broken, It’s In Smithereens!
Speaking of democracy when referring to Britain is a JOKE! The country deserves the fate it so obviously has before it. The British are simply too complacent and too apathetic to do anything about the fate that awaits them. They are lame and accepting of anything and everything this disgusting government dishes them. The country has a glorious past; but a dark, bleak future! – © Mark
Secret Labour Plan to Increase Immigration for Social Reasons Dismissed Public's Opposition as 'Racist'
MAIL ONLINE: Labour encouraged mass immigration even though it knew that voters opposed it, Whitehall documents confirmed yesterday.

The Government said the public disagreed with immigration because of 'racism' and ministers were told to try to alter public attitudes.

The thinking on immigration among Labour leaders was set down in 2000 in a document prepared for the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, but the key passages were suppressed before it was published.

The paper was finally disclosed under freedom of information rules yesterday. It showed that ministers were advised that only the ill-educated and those who had never met a migrant were opposed to immigration.

They were also told that large-scale immigration would bring increases in crime, but they concealed these concerns from the public.

Sections of the paper, which underpinned Labour policies that admitted between two and three million immigrants to Britain in less than a decade, have already been made public.

These have showed that Labour aimed to use immigration not only for economic reasons but also to change the social make-up of the country. >>> Steve Doughty | Tuesday, February 23, 2010

This Disgusting Government! The Disgusting Face of the Labour Party!
THE TELEGRAPH: The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends.

The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.

However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.

Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door ­policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.

Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour. Labour's 'secret plan' to lure migrants >>> Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor | Tuesday, February 09, 2010

How Labour Threw Open Doors to Mass Migration in Secret Plot to Make a Multicultural UK
MAIL ONLINE: Labour threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK, secret papers suggest.

A draft report from the Cabinet Office shows that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’.

The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000.

Labour has always justified immigration on economic grounds and denied it was using it to foster multiculturalism.

But suspicions of a secret agenda rose when Andrew Neather, a former government adviser and speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’. >>> James Slack | Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Queen's Speech Sets Out Election Battle Lines
THE TELEGRAPH: The Government has unveiled its final legislative package before the General Election, with the Queen's Speech containing pledges to help the neediest pensioners and crack down on excesses in the financial sector.

The unashamedly political address made clear to the public Labour's "aspirations" for a fourth term, including free care in old age for the elderly, and action on child poverty, according to Lord Mandelson, the First Secretary.

Speaking ahead of the speech on BBC Radio 4's today programme, Lord Mandelson denied accusations that this year's speech was lacking in substance.

With less than seven months before the country must go to the polls, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, put forward a series of populist bills designed to set out election battle lines in what is the final legislative programme before next year's vote.

As well as ensuring free personal care for 280,000 elderly and disabled people with the highest needs, there were guarantees on health care and schooling as well as a crackdown on "risky" bank bonuses.

With parliamentary time running out, few, if any, of the streamlined package of around 15 new bills stand much chance of making it to the statute book before Parliament is dissolved.

The Queen told the assembled MPs and peers: "My Government's overriding priority is to ensure sustained growth to deliver a fair and prosperous economy for families and businesses, as the British economy recovers from the global economic downturn. >>> Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent | Wednesday, November 18, 2009



TIMES ONLINE: Queen's Speech: 15 Bills, but only 33 days left of Parliament >>> Sam Coates, Chief Political Correspondent | Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Britische Regierung will Staatsdefizit halbieren: Regierungserklärung von Queen mit traditioneller Thronrede verlesen
NZZ ONLINE: Die britische Regierung plant für das kommende Parlamentsjahr ein Gesetz zur Halbierung des Staatsdefizits und zur Begrenzung der Sonderzahlungen für risikofreudige Bankmanager. Diese Absicht gab die Queen in ihrer Thronrede bekannt.

Traditioneller Pomp: Die Queen beim Einzug in das Oberhaus vor ihrer Thronrede. Bild: NZZ Online
Die alles übertreffende Priorität meiner Regierung liegt darin, in der gegenwärtigen Phase der Erholung von der globalen Rezession ein nachhaltiges Wirtschaftswachstum sicherzustellen und eine faire und florierende Wirtschaft für Familien und Geschäftsleute zu ermöglichen», hiess es in der sogenannten Thronrede zur Eröffnung des neuen Parlamentsjahres.

Zugleich mit der Reduktion des Staatsdefizits soll das soziale Netz enger geknüpft werden, besonders für bedürftige Rentner. Dies sind einige der Kernpunkte in Premierminister Gordon Browns alljährlicher Regierungserklärung, die am Mittwoch nach alter Tradition von Königin Elizabeth II. im Londoner Oberhaus verlesen wurde. Viele Beobachter werteten die Erklärung vor allem als Wahlkampfmanifest der Labour Party. >>> ap | Mittwoch, 18. November 2009

WALL STREET JOURNAL – Photogallery: Queen’s Speech Opens Parliament: Royal pageantry met hard-nosed electioneering as Queen Elizabeth II donned the diamond-encrusted Imperial State Crown to announce the government’s plan for the next parliamentary session >>>

Related WSJ article >>>

People Must Be Free to Hold Intolerant Views about Homosexuality
THE TELEGRAPH: Ministers seem set on eroding yet another safeguard to our liberty, says Philip Johnston.

An important blow for free speech was struck in the dying hours of the last parliamentary session, despite a desperate rearguard action by the Government to quash it. Ministers wanted to remove a protection inserted into a law, passed only last year, which made it an offence to express hatred of homosexuals. But they were twice beaten back in the Lords and eventually ran out of time.

They may try again in the coming session that starts on Wednesday, the last before the general election.

This story encapsulates much that has been so pernicious about the 12 years of misrule to which the country has been subjected. No one can remember a government returning in the very next session to try to undo something to which it had agreed (albeit reluctantly) in the preceding parliamentary term. The free speech protection was proposed by Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary. It stated: "For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices, shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

This was done for a purpose. There are too many instances of people being questioned by the police under existing public order legislation for holding views that may be considered offensive or intolerant for yet another measure to be passed without setting out the circumstances in which it is meant to be used. These instances include a grandmother, Pauline Howe, who was visited by two constables because she wrote to her local council to complain about a gay rights march and what she considered a "public display of indecency". She was told she might have committed a "hate crime".

A similar experience befell Joe and Helen Roberts, a Christian couple lectured by Lancashire police on the evils of "homophobia" after criticising gay rights in a letter to Wyre Borough Council. A few years ago, Lynette Burrows, a family campaigner, was the target of a police inquiry after saying on the radio that she did not believe homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former head of the Muslim Council, had his collar felt, as did the Bishop of Chester for making remarks in a religious context that no sane person could have taken as stirring up hatred against homosexuals. The most preposterous example was the Oxford student who was arrested and threatened with prosecution for calling a police horse gay. >>> Philip Johnston | Monday, November 16, 2009