A liberal Democrat parliamentary colleague leaned over the gangway towards me on Monday, confiding that he had been listening to James Obrien’ s LBC news programme as he drove to Westminster: Danny Kruger’s defection from the Conservative Party to Reform was under discussion; Obrien asked for listeners to text him with their prediction of who would be the next turncoat.
Apparently, I was the most favoured choice!
Well, I suppose that I should be mildly flattered that the listeners even know my name.
I accept that I have been very critical of my own party when I thought that it properly deserved such criticism. Nevertheless, I remain a ‘Church and King’ Tory, even though I have also picked up much that was part of the Whig, and indeed, National Liberal traditions. Furthermore, I’m a former whip: A parliamentary political party is so much like a pack, where colleagues are bound together, not just in a common purpose, but also in friendship and loyalty. More often than not, it is the loners and semi-detached, that tend to peel off, being les encumbered by those bonds.

I do not underestimate Nigel Farage, he is a very clever politician who, in the estimate of Professor Vernon Bogdanor ‘makes the weather’. But I could never reconcile myself to his fondness for President Trump, his equivocation over Ukraine, and his stated admiration for Putin. To say nothing of some of the superficial and ill thought through policy positions he has recently taken.
Nevertheless, many constituents have urged me to support some form of electoral pact between Reform and the Conservative Party in order to prevent a right-of-centre split among voters, which would ensure another Labour victory at the next election. My answer is that no such arrangement is on offer: Farage believes that he can destroy and replace the Conservative Party and secure a majority in Parliament.
(I doubt it, and current polling doesn’t support such a conclusion).

Notwithstanding the Government’s current difficulties, the probability is that we are still three and a half years from the next general election. Anything can happen in that time.
 Political parties have come and gone in our modern history, but the Conservative Party has endured. Given the form of the parties over recent years, were I to take a bet on the one most likely to implode, it wouldn’t be mine.
Even if it  were it so, I’d prefer go down with the ship.

On the 5^th September I added a post Parent of parliaments? In which I expressed my surprise at one of the parliamentary lavatories being converted to a ‘gender neutral’ facility, by having the urinals boarded up, and leaving only the two WC cubicles that had previously been available. This represents a reduction of three fifths, in terms of service provision. Since when, I have had correspondence condemning my selfish approach by only measuring the reduction of provision for gentlemen, without considering an increased provision of two WCs now available to ladies.
My wife, however, assures me that Ladies use lavatories very differently, they often use them as safe spaces in which they can adjust their make-up etc. The last thing that would suit them would be to have some bloke intrude, whilst on his way to the remaining closets.
I conclude that, as far as lavatories are concerned, gender neutrality suits neither sex.

We often have to identify ourselves by providing our date of birth, for example when we collect a prescription at the chemist’s.
So, I am very surprised at the number of complaints I have received, demanding repeal of the Online Safety Act 2021, because of its recently implemented requirement that verification of age be provided before access to adult content can be had.
I doubt that this deluge of emails has been prompted alone, by the call from the Reform Party that the Act be repealed.
No doubt, the complaint is one of principle, entirely prompted by the infringement of liberty that requires one to give an account of oneself before proceeding with lawful business.
Were it just prompted by a reluctance to provide adult content websites with sufficient bona fides to identify oneself, then surely complainants would have been too embarrassed to bring the matter to my attention (just as, as a schoolboy,  I was embarrassed, when I sought to avoid disapproving looks, as I reached for the top shelf at the newsagent’s, for the latest edition of Health and Efficiency).

I voted for the age verification provisions in the Online Safety Act and I believe that they provide important protection for children. The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, has expressed her dismay at the quantity and nature of pornography that has been circulating on social media amongst young children. The early sexualisation of children is deeply disturbing.
Of course, no system is fool proof, and those so determined, will find ways of getting around the identity requirement. Nevertheless, the provisions have already led to a very significant reduction in access to adult content and certainly prevent children stumbling across it by accident.

One of the ways that the age verification can be circumvented is through the purchase of virtual private network (VPN) software. There has been an exponential rise in the sale of this software since the identity requirement was implemented on 25^th July. VPN provider Proton has revealed a 1,800% increase in demand!
Well, as I said, if people are really determined, they will find a way to get access without having to identify themselves. In any event, I would be very reluctant to restrict access to VPNs because they are essential for exiles and political dissidents, in order to conceal their whereabouts from authoritarian regimes that are determined to silence them.

There are however, legitimate concerns about the Online Safety Act and the chilling effect it can potentially have on freedom of expression, to which I will return.

I Chaired a debate commemorating the Battle of Britain on Tuesday. Here is a gobbet from Sir Ian Duncan -Smith’s contribution:
“I was fortunate enough to sit next to Jock Colville, who was assistant private secretary to Churchill throughout the war. They were visiting Uxbridge on 15 September, when a huge armada gathered. Churchill was watching as, one by one, the lights went up, until everything was up. He said to the air officer commanding, “What are you going to do now? Where are your reserves?” The officer said, “We have no reserves, Prime Minister.” Churchill asked, “What will you do?” The officer said, “I don’t know about you, but I’m going to pray.” Jock Colville told me that, with that, Churchill stayed silent for three hours, something he never did, but that when he got into the car, he turned to him and said, “Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

I was surprised went went to the lavatory at Westminster, to discover that the three urinals had been boarded up, leaving only the two WC cubicles: a significant reduction of three fifths in service provision.
 Then I spotted the notice announcing that this was now a ‘gender neutral toilet’.
Change is usually for the worse.

The announcement that the Government is considering introducing a digital ID system for everyone, as a means of tackling the UK’s ‘pull factors’ which fuel the channel crossings, has prompted a large number of constituents to send me their objections.
I share their concerns and I opposed the last Labour Government’s proposals for ID cards under Tony Blair.
We would be sacrificing a great deal of our privacy and our right to go about our lawful business unimpeded. Once available, many more uses would be found for such technology, which would increasingly require us to account for ourselves.
I accept that levels illegal migration are overwhelming our resources and putting enormous strain on our social fabric. A further tragedy is that the endeavour to accommodate the migrants is being funded by our foreign aid budget, which should properly be being spent in the regions from which the migrants are coming, and where it would so much further in helping many more people.
Were I persuaded that digital ID’s were solution to our problem I could at least consider if such a surrender of our privacy and liberty was worth it. I am not so persuaded. Employers, banks and landlords are already under an obligation to check the bona fides of employees and tenants. Means already exist by which that information can be had.
The existence of a more convenient tool for checking will have no impact in the black economy where there is no intention of checking, in any event.

The reality is not that we can’t identify illegal migrants, we have hotels and other accommodation burgeoning with them. Our problem isn’t finding them, it is finding somewhere to send them.
The main effort must be to find a safe place to send them, which was the whole point of the Rwanda agreement that the Government scrapped before it was implemented, despite the fact that £700 million had already been spent setting it up. I believe that it would have worked: Even before we were anywhere near getting it up and running, the Government of Ireland were complaining that illegal migration was increasing sharply to the Republic as migrants sought to avoid UK with the possibility of deportation to Rwanda.
Now other jurisdictions are looking seriously at the prospect of Rwanda, including the facilities that British tax-payers provided before our government abandoned the endeavour.
 Digital IDs won’t go any way salvage the opportunity lost.

As the aggressor escalates the war, this Russian regime is no better than its Soviet predecessor in its determination to subjugate parts of Europe and enforce its malign influence throughout the world.
The tragedy is that we could have seen it crushed once and for all, only had we the will to do so. The reality is that we have forced Ukraine to defend itself with one arm tied behind its back: We forbad it to use our munitions to take the fight to Russia, and we consistently failed to implement a sanctions regime that would have brought its relatively small and hydrocarbon-based economy to its knees.

Even as things stand, there are enormous strains in Russia’s fuel markets as a consequence of sustained Ukrainian drone attacks on attacks on Russian refineries.  With the result that kilometre-long queues at petrol stations are not in Russia’s eastern Regions, and wholesale prices for petrol and diesel have hit record highs. Officially, the reasons are no longer hidden – refineries are shutting down after Ukrainian drone strikes. During peak summer days, up to 14% of processing capacity was idle. Some of the largest refineries have stopped receiving supplies of crude oil.

Ukraine’s drones are also targeting the export terminals and pipelines.
In addition, Russian refineries were constructed by Western oil companies and they are fast running out of parts, only some of which can be supplied by China

Russia’s problem is that its refineries are concentrated in closer to Europe, within reach of Ukraine’s drones, but industrial consumption had been growing in the east thousands of kilometres away, creating a logistical vulnerability, hence the queues at petrol stations.

Lest any Russian stuck in a queue at the petrol station complains, the state is increasing its surveillance of all its citizens.
Starting this month, the Russian Messenger Max will become mandatory for preinstallation on all devices in Russia. The app accesses the device’s camera every 5-10 minutes, even when running in the background. In effect, a smartphone turns into an Orwellian monitor for the security services, switching on without the owner’s knowledge.
The app collects all your contacts and text input, it tracks location. All the user’s conversations will be available to state security services.

And what might they do with recalcitrant Russians, and anyone else for that matter, caught expressing dissent?
Well, reports indicate that Russia is about to withdraw from the European Convention on the Prevention of Torture (not that its membership made any difference to the citizens of Bakhmut).

As the sell-out of plucky and resourceful Ukraine proceeds, we should reflect on the missed opportunity to remove the greatest challenge to world peace, prosperity, and freedom.

Together with France we announced our intention to recognise a Palestinian state. In this column on 26^th July I remarked that, although  this was ‘gesture politics’ nevertheless, I acknowledged that sometimes in politics a gesture is called for. Recognising Palestine – gesture politics?
Our gesture was to give vent to our growing despair at the consequence for civilians of the ferocity of Israel’s assault on Gaza. Equally, the accumulation of years of frustration at a growing policy of ‘apartheid’ in Israel’s stewardship of the occupied West Bank (this will be received as a controversial statement but, having once been the minister responsible for our assistance to Palestinians, I believe it to be justified: It is time to call a spade a bloody shovel).

For years the objective of our policy has been the implementation of a Palestinian state based on the occupied West Bank. Throughout this time however, Israel’s actions have been designed to thwart any such prospect.
Now that we have announced our determination to recognise Palestine, Israel has brought forward its most controversial development: building some 3,500 dwellings in the East 1 corridor, linking East Jerusalem with existing illegal settlements, and cutting the West Bank in half. The intention is clear, and has been made explicit by Israel’s Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich:
“they’ll keep talking about a Palestinian dream, and we’ll keep on building a Jewish reality…a reality that buries the idea of a Palestinian state, because there’s nothing to recognise’.

How are we to respond?
Equally, how are we to respond to man-made famine in Gaza, as well as the continuing devastation of civilian life?
Every time ministers come to the Commons to face the anger at what is being done in Palestine, they reiterate that they are very cross about it; They refer to the actions that they have taken – some modest reductions in arms sales and the sanctioning of a handful of individuals. When MPs point out that these measures have had no impact, the Secretary of State, David Lammy refers to ‘further action’ that we will consider.
What action?
Well, I did ask:

 Hansard 20 May Column 934

Sir Desmond Swayne
The House wants to know, and Israel needs to know, exactly what the Foreign Secretary means by “further action”.

Mr Lammy
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Oxford English Dictionary and look at the two words.

I think Mr Lammy demeaned himself with that answer, but I understand his difficulty. He is appalled and angry about what is happening in Palestine but he is at a complete loss. We are in thrall to the Trump administration and know that it will not tolerate any effective sanctions on Israel. We have other fish to fry. So, we stand and watch as Gaza burns and the West Bank is swallowed. We will be judged accordingly.

Some of the striking headlines indicating what the Free World’s media made of the Trump/ Putin Summit in Alaska:

— Sky News: “Putin behaved as if he was in control and running the show.”

— Politico: “Putin’s triumph in Alaska”;

— The New York Times: “President Trump gave President Vladimir Putin a warm public reception, effectively ending his diplomatic isolation”;

— Bloomberg: “The US-Russia summit showed how little Europe matters in Trump’s world”

— CNN: “Putin still achieved significant successes”;

— The Washington Post: “Putin won, regardless of the outcome”;

— Financial Times: “Negotiations ended without a ceasefire, despite the warm reception given to the Russian leader by the US president”;

— Al Jazeera: “A big victory for President Putin” at the summit with Trump in Alaska”;

— El País: “Trump ended Putin’s isolation without achieving a ceasefire in Ukraine”;

And my own assessment: I thought it was utterly revolting.
To have to watch the murderous assassin and war criminal, the abductor of thousands of children, the author of the atrocities in Bakhmut, being welcomed with pomp and ceremony, even the red carpet, it was truly disgusting.
Trump and Putin were all over each other like a rash. The way they flattered and complimented each other was grotesque. They clearly deserve one another. As my Granny used to say,  ‘judge a man by the company that he keeps’.
Contrast all that with the way that Zelensky was ambushed in the White House back in March.

So Trump’s advice to Ukraine is to ‘do a deal’ by giving up sufficient territory to satiate Putin’s appetite.
How can you do a deal with someone that has a track  record of breaking them?
And with someone who has made it clear that Ukraine should not exist as an independent nation at all?
Anyway, there was a deal: It was called the Bucharest Memorandum of December 1994. The deal was that Ukraine -then possessing the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons- agreed to give them all up, in return for a guarantee of its independence and territorial integrity. The deal was with Russia, USA and ourselves.
 Is Ukraine supposed to just shrug of the abrogation of that deal and trust Russia with another one?

*

The Alaska Summit was preceded at Chevening with a ‘love fest’ between David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary and the USA Vice-President. Mr Lammy has said some pretty uncomplimentary things about Trump in the past. In 2017 he called him a ‘tyrant in a toupee’, and much worse.
I gently reminded him about this in the Commons on 25^th February (Hansard column 526):

Sir Desmond Swayne
Does the Secretary of State regret recanting the views he originally expressed in assessing Trump? When the time is right—it is certainly not any time now—can I urge him to consider following the example of Archbishop Cranmer by plunging the offending hand first into the flame?

Mr Lammy, Secretary of State
Er—[Laughter.] This is a serious debate and a serious discussion. As I have said, that is, in a sense, old news; there is so much news before us, and so much history to be forged, which requires diplomacy …