web analytics



Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.


Call For Free 15/M Consultation



Westlake Legal Group > Priti Patel MP

Owen Paterson: Enough is enough. We must leave the EU by October 31 – and not a day later

I am today signing the “Brexit Pledge”, calling for the UK to leave the EU the EU on time, with or without a deal, on October 31st.   Boris Johnson has made the EU a very generous offer, with a view to negotiating, as quickly as possible, a mutually-beneficial Free Trade Agreement.

This is – and should always have been – the right tack for the negotiations to take. It is encouraging that the Prime Minister’s talks last week with Leo Varadkar appeared positive.  But concerns remain that the EU will seek to trap Northern Ireland permanently in the EU Customs Union by trying to reheat the failed ideas of “customs partnerships” or “single customs territories” that proved so disastrous for Theresa May.

As the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, the May Withdrawal Agreement is dead. It was defeated in Parliament three times and the Conservatives, the only Party supporting it in the European elections, got just 8.8 per cent of the vote and came fifth.  We await the full details of the new deal to see exactly how they address the objections to the dead Theresa May “deal” but dual-tariff systems like this would be, as Priti Patel has said, “unacceptable.”

When would any other country ever give up part of its territory as part of trade talks? It would be particularly absurd for Northern Ireland. 85 per cent of sales by Northern Irish companies are in the UK. Just five per cent are with the Republic and around three per cent with the rest of the EU. How could we saddle Northern Ireland with EU costs and regulations, and shut it out from trade deals which the rest of the UK would strike?

It would shatter the Belfast Agreement’s principle of consent and completely undermine Northern Ireland’s status as an integral part of the UK. We must not go down this route.

The EU must not indulge its long-established instinct of ignoring popular votes which do not go its way. The chicanery of Remainers in the Commons has done enormous damage to public trust in democracy; they have sunk the public standing of Parliament to new lows with the ridiculous “Surrender Act”.  The UK must leave the EU. 17.4 million people – more people than have ever voted for anything in British history – decided that in 2016.

Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to build “a special relationship with neighbouring countries.” But if it continues to be unreasonable, refusing both Boris’s offer and ultimately a Free Trade Agreement, facilitated by the temporary arrangements of GATT XXIV, then he must take us out without a formal deal on October 31. At some point, we have to say “enough is enough” and that is why I have signed the Brexit pledge.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Priti Patel: If the left think I’m hardline on law and order, they should try meeting the British public

Priti Patel is Home Secretary, and MP for Witham.

The longest parliamentary session since the English Civil War has finally ended and the new government can finally set out its domestic agenda. We are being ambitious.

Obviously getting Brexit is the top priority. It has taken up so much bandwidth over the past three and a half years that everything else has been at a virtual standstill. When we get Brexit done, we can focus on what people really want us to: the NHS, schools, the cost of living and the scourge of violent crime.

Unfortunately, most of those on the Opposition benches would rather stick their fingers in their ears and continue to frustrate the referendum result with pieces of procedural trickery and the Surrender Bill.

The 2016 referendum should have been a wake-up for the political class but many of them have chosen to wag their fingers at the voters instead. The disconnect between the people and politicians is greater now than at any time I can recall in my career.

Nowhere is this disconnect greater than when it comes to law and order.

I am told almost every day by left-wing campaign groups, politicians and newspapers that I am “hardline”. Do these people ever meet the British public?

People sick and tired of hearing about serious violent and sexual offenders being let out of prison after serving half of what already looked like a lenient sentence. This government is going to end this and ensure that they serve an absolute minimum of two-thirds of their sentence.

The worst offenders should be spending more time being bars. Victims will lose trust and confidence in our justice system if we don’t make sure they do.

There won’t just be tougher sentences for British criminals, though. As it stands, Foreign National Offenders get away with a slap on the wrist for returning to the UK in breach of deportation orders. The typical ten-week prison sentence isn’t much of a deterrent for the 400 or so criminals who return each year. We will end the soft-touch approach to deter them from returning and ensure that those who do spend years, rather than weeks behind bars.

And when it comes to fugitives wanted by our trusted allies, we are removing obstacles to their arrest. Currently, police have to apply for a warrant to arrest on the basis of an Interpol Red Notice. This takes at least six to eight hours. When time is of the essence, this is simply too long. We will remove the need to apply for a warrant in these cases, but only when the country issuing the notice has a trusted criminal justice system.

But we can’t do all of this unless we back the police. That’s why we’re recruiting 20,000 new police officers and giving them the tools and resources to do their jobs as safely as possible. At Party Conference last week, I announced that the number of officers carrying tasers would be drastically increased in response to the spate of serious assaults on police officers which has appalled those of us who back the police.

But it’s not just about kit, it’s about the powers they have. They can’t be expected to keep the streets safe if they have one hand tied behind their backs. That’s why one of the first things this government did was to lift restrictions on the use of stop and search powers for all 43 police forces in England and Wales.

Again, this is an area where there is an enormous disconnect between the public and SW1.

In my first few weeks as Home Secretary, I visited Peckham Police Station to hear first hand experiences of officers. I was shown three tables piles high with weapons that could not, under any reasonable definition be described as “knives.” They had all been seized in the past 24 hours. The officers I spoke to, and indeed all the senior officers I have spoken to, have been unequivocal about stop and search: it works.

These are not “right-wing” policies as our opponents will no doubt claim– they are policies that deliver on the people’s priorities.

If Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP want to vote against them, then good luck explaining why to the public.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Patel stonewalls on the American diplomat’s wife, the Harry Dunn death, immunity – and extradition

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Moore on Major’s part in Thatcher’s downfall, and why she considered women superior to men

On Monday night, Boris Johnson hailed Charles Moore’s biography of Margaret Thatcher as “the greatest recent work of biography” and “the greatest work of modern British history”.

Johnson observed that at the heart of the third and final volume, Herself Alone, now published, lies “a single glittering and terrible event, an assassination”, and said of those who carried it out: “They are all honourable men, Brutus, Cassius and the rest.”

In this interview, Moore describes the conduct of John Major during her downfall as “not noble, but understandable”, though had she known Major was playing a double game, and was “shafting” her, she would not have “anointed him her heir”.

And Moore explains why Thatcher regarded women, not as the equals of men, but as their superiors. For women

“suffer from fewer illusions, they’re closer to reality, more conscientious, and more aware of the human factor, and less likely to be patronising, pompous and jargon-ridden.”

Moore has written a history, so declined to speculate about how Thatcher, who died in 2013, would regard the present Prime Minister. But he did remark on one of the reasons for her success:

“People were always telling her she must have a strategy. She said no, I mustn’t, because politics isn’t like that. So what she had is big aims, and big principles, but no strategy. 

“And this used to drive people, particularly with a business background, mad. Her phrase for it was, ‘We don’t want to get stuck on graph paper.’”

Johnson is always being told he must have a plan, when what he actually has is a big aim. He can perhaps derive some comfort from his great predecessor’s example.

ConHome: “What influence has Thatcher had on women politicians today?”

Moore: “Well of course a lot of women politicians admire her, or are very interested in her – Liz Truss for example, Priti Patel and Nicola Sturgeon – the last not being a fan in terms of her politics, but a student of how she did it.

“Only a very foolish aspiring politician, particularly a woman politician, would not be interested in her.

“There is a school of thought, I see, from Corbynistas that she is almost literally the devil incarnate – there’s nothing to learn from her except how to exorcise her spirit.

“But otherwise I’ve found that people right across the political spectrum study her, and the particular thing they’re interested in is, from the woman point of view, how do you do it, how do you thrive in what even now is probably a man’s world, though of course she so comprehensively shattered the glass ceiling that it is much less of a man’s world.”

ConHome: “You’ve said in the last few days that she reckoned women are better than men. Did she actually say that?”

Moore: “She didn’t say it in so many words. But she liked Kipling, ‘more deadly than the male’; she said the famous thing about the cocks may crow but the hen lays the eggs, and she said that men just talk and women do.

“And all those things plus lots and lots of other things amount to saying women are better than men as – not needless to say in every respect – but they suffer from fewer illusions, they’re closer to reality, more conscientious, and more aware of the human factor, and less likely to be patronising, pompous and jargon-ridden.”

ConHome: “Do you agree with all that?”

Moore: “Well it’s not really for me to agree or disagree. I think she exhibited the truth of some of those propositions.”

ConHome: “Did John Major help you with this book?”

Moore: “Yes, a lot.”

ConHome: “Because he’s quite astute about the whole thing, when she’s in desperate trouble in November 1990 and he’s having his wisdom teeth out, but his conduct is also a little bit underhand.”

Moore: “You need to read that very closely, and it’s very subtle and clever of him, the way he shafted her.

“And it’s important to be fair to him on this. He did shaft her, he did conspire against her, I think that’s undoubted.

“But it was very difficult for him, because if he felt there was good reason to think that after not doing well enough on the first ballot she ought to go, it was natural for him to have the ambition to succeed her.

“And if his nomination had gone through for her on the second ballot, he would not have been able to compete to succeed her.

“So that’s why he did this very complicated manoeuvre, which I expose, by which he only promised to nominate her on condition that his nomination was not used.

“And she did not know that. And if she had known that, she would not have anointed him her heir.

“So the effect was to deceive her. But I wouldn’t say the motive was ignoble. I’d say it was not noble, but understandable.

“Because she was going anyway. There was a danger of being linked to a corpse. He didn’t bring her down. He was one of many who did not try to prevent her fall.

“He was positioning himself very carefully and very well.”

ConHome: “In one of our previous conversations, you said that among other things she was ‘a great twister and turner’, as well as a conviction politician.

“Would you say that is an indispensable part of politics? You have to adapt to circumstance, and circumstance changes.

“People have this naive idea of politics that as long as you have a plan, and it’s the right plan, and you stick to it, everything will be fine.

“But of course, nothing could be more damaging, once circumstances change.”

Moore: “Exactly. Because if you say you’re going to go along that railway line, and in fact you’ve learned there’s a carriage lying across it, your promise to go down that railway line must be aborted if you wish yourself and everyone else to survive.

“And she knew that. The way she expressed it was always to do with her resistance to the idea of having a strategy. People were always telling her she must have a strategy.

“She said no, I mustn’t, because politics isn’t like that.

“So what she had is big aims, and big principles, but no strategy.

“And this used to drive people, particularly with a business background, mad.

“Her phrase for it was, ‘We don’t want to get stuck on graph paper.’”

ConHome: “Yes. In fact Boris is rather like that, having big aims, but no strategy.”

Moore: “Yes. She was more focussed in her aims I think than Boris, and she had more of them. And she knew much more about the detail than Boris.

“But it was the same essential political understanding of the need for tactical flexibility.

“A famous example is her capitulation to the miners in 1981. She wasn’t ready. Which made it absolutely clear to her that she had to be ready for the miners when they next came round, which was in 1984. And she was ready.”

ConHome: “The Tories are very good at putting on these tremendous leadership contests every 20 or 30 years.”

Moore: “Every 20 or 30 minutes now.”

ConHome: “Did her manners get worse towards the end of her time in office? I remember John Whittingdale saying he’d never seen anyone be as rude to anyone as she was to Geoffrey Howe.”

Moore: “I think they did get a bit worse, but I think it’s partly because the context was different. She’d been the doyenne, the senior leader of the western world, the longest-serving from 1982 onwards, and very dominant at home, with three resounding victories under her belt.

“So there were fewer and fewer people who could answer her back, and she fights fiercely if they do, and that deters them, and they get more resentful.

“Howe and Lawson were the only two remaining senior ones, and they fall out with her.

“So there’s almost nobody who can say, ‘Come on Margaret, stop it.’ Denis can. He couldn’t stop her remaining in office. He tried to get her out in May ’89, but she wouldn’t do it.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Jonathan Glanz: Allowing tents on the public highway is the wrong way to help rough sleepers

Cllr Jonathan Glanz represents West End Ward on Westminster City Council and is the Council’s Lead Member for Broadband and Connectivity

If somebody pitched a tent on the front lawn of your home, you would be within your rights to remove them from your property immediately as they would be trespassing. If somebody pitches a tent on the Public Highway, as we have seen examples on Regent Street, Piccadilly and Whitehall, the Local Authority has no power to remove them without first serving 30 days’ notice on the occupants. That is the minimum requirement, and it is only then that a Court Order can be made to remove the tent. The process therefore often takes considerably longer.

The Court Order applies not to the individual within the tent, nor to the tent itself, but to the specific location of the tent at the time. If the tent has been moved, even by just a metre or so, the Order is invalid, and even when a valid Order is obtained, the recipients, fully wise to the current law, can move the tent and the whole process starts again.

The tents provide immediate shelter for rough sleepers, but they also provide a space where they can undertake activities unseen from the prying eyes of neighbours or law-enforcement officers.

Tents pitched in Soho have frequently been used as drugs dealing points, for drug consumption, prostitution and other crimes. As they amount to a private space or dwelling, neither the police nor the Council can require the occupants to open the tent flap and reveal the activity within without a warrant.

Those occupying the tents often use the nearby street for dumping, as a lavatory and a queue for drug users or prostitutes’ punters. You can imagine the frustration of living above or besides such activity and having no effective remedy.

This is part of the increasing challenges faced by Local Authorities and police with rough sleeping in our city centres. Westminster spends over £7 million per year reaching out to rough sleepers in an attempt to bring those living on the streets indoors where they can receive medical attention and help to start rebuilding their lives.

Westminster has always had more than its fair share of people living on the streets. Historically, it was Meths drinkers in and around the Strand, many of whom suffered from substance misuse or mental health, who lived (and in many cases prematurely died) on our streets.

However, the new tent-dwelling cohort are part of significant Roma population who have come to London simply to beg and indulge the generosity of the resident and visitor population. Whilst many visitors salve their conscience by thinking they are helping the individual concerned, those who understand the problems know that these people, often victims themselves, are part of sophisticated organised crime.

Literally, millions of pounds per year are taken out of the West End economy by such activity. Unfortunately, little if any of this goes to help the individuals concerned, who are merely pawns in the organised crime game. They themselves are the victims of modern slavery as they are forced to beg on the streets, and then account for their monies to their gang masters. Those giving money believe they are helping the individuals concerned to buy a sandwich because their piece of cardboard, provided to them at the beginning of their shift, says “I’m hungry”. In fact, they are providing money which is more likely to go to fund the next Range Rover for Mr Big back in Romania.

The agencies involved in seeking to help rough sleepers and the police will tell you that it is not unusual for these beggars to take £500 or £600 cash per session in central London. Indeed, a Senior Police Officer told me that he recently arrested one who had £6,500 in cash on them.

Roma beggars now live in our parks, squares, subways and doorways. Men and (even heavily pregnant) women often spend their nights on the streets and then await their gangmaster who will allocate spots to them and organise their shifts and arrange to collect their monies afterwards. They are extremely well-organised.

This behaviour has now has become further entrenched with the tents. Last week saw a huge operation to clear 15 tents from the central reservation of Park Lane and a similar number from Hanover Square, where Crossrail is building one of its Bond Street Stations. Needless to say, they are already back. Residents and businesses are at their wits’ end, complaining that neither the police nor the Council have sufficient resource to undertake the necessary enforcement, but the fundamental problem lies elsewhere.

As Romania is in the European Union, its citizens are free to travel, and free to work in the UK. They claim to be here exercising their Treaty Rights, and the Courts have decided that they have a right to be here, even when they have no intention of seeking work (presumably decided by a judge who does not live in the West End). Consequently, there have been further emboldened by this process, and we must now, as we leave the European Union, revisit the Legislation, so that we can have appropriate enforcement action coordinated between UK Borders Authority and with the full support of the Council, police and Home Office to ensure that this arrangement, facilitating and providing monies for organised crime comes to a swift end.

I am therefore calling on Priti Patel to ensure that Local Authorities be given the necessary powers to deal with such problems. Whilst this problem is by no means confined to the West End or indeed London, without the necessary powers both the police and the Council struggle to make any effective progress.

The idea that tents on the Public Highway require 30 days’ notice for their removal is nonsensical, and, in the same way, as you would be entitled to remove a tent from your front lawn with immediate effect, Local Authorities must be given the same power to deal with tents on the Public Highway.

I am also calling on her to prioritise the necessary legislation to ensure that people who come to the UK as part of an organised begging gang can be swiftly and effectively repatriated.

Without such powers, our city centres, already blighted by begging, antisocial behaviour and criminality will become no-go areas for residents, law-abiding citizens and visitors.


Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Iain Dale: Were it not for the fringe at each year’s Conservative conference, what would be the point of coming?

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.

What a strange conference that was. Given the content of the sessions that took place in the main auditorium, you could be forgiven thinking that there were some people at the top of the party who would rather it hadn’t taken place at all.

I’ve been going to Conservative conferences since 1985, and I think there are only two in that period I have missed. It’s a form of masochism, I suppose. But I can never remember a conference where the sessions only started at 10am and finished before 5pm. The normal running times have always been 9.30-5.30.

I’m told that people in Number Ten tried to cancel the whole thing, but rowed back when they understood the financial consequences. I do think the Party needs to conduct a root and branch review into the future of party conferences.

They can’t just be looked at as an opportunity to earn money. What is the actual point of them apart from that? Are they rallies, are they just opportunities for Party members to be told what the government is doing, or should they switch back to being real exercises in consulting Party members on future policy ideas?

There was supposed to be a lot more opportunity for party members to get involved with the panel sessions, but this usually had to be done via an App, rather than spontaneously from a microphone. I chaired two different sessions and I have to say most of the questions submitted via the app were so inane as to be unaskable. I suspect the dead hand of censorship might have been involved somewhere along the line.

The only session which did provoke a bit of controversy was the ‘Meet the Chairmen’ session on Sunday afternoon, where I gave James Cleverly and Ben Elliot a good grilling, as did members of the audience. And I think both they and the audience enjoyed it. Conference needs to have a bit of risk about it. If you try and run a conference without risk, it becomes anodyne and boring.

No wonder the hall is half empty for a good proportion of the time. People find the Fringe much more , would rather spend time in the exhibition hall gossiping rather than be bored rigid by a series of tedious, autocued speeches from a bunch of boring Cabinet Ministers. Even Priti Patel couldn’t quite fill the hall. There were even a few empty seats near the front during Boris Johnson’s speech.

– – – – – – – – – –

Boris Johnson’s conference speech was very different to those of previous leaders. For one thing, it only lasted for some 35 minutes – way shorter than usual. He didn’t use those awful gigantic autocue screens secreted at the back of the hall which virtually every other speaker had read from. Thank God for small mercies. Two small glass screes in front of the podium are one thing, but the giant screens are an obscenity which should be banished forthwith.

There was precious little new in his speech, but that wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. He spent time explaining his new proposals to the EU, and then outlined what the Government’s priorities would be after Brexit.

I was encouraged by the section in which he said it was important to look at how to encourage areas outside London to thrive and expand. There are a lot of areas in this country with hidden levels of poverty, and they feel left behind.

Many of them are on the coast. North Norfolk is considered by most people as a lovely, pretty area populated by quaint market towns, but there are lots of areas where poverty levels can be compared with some of our inner cities. Many people in these areas voted Brexit to send politicians a message. Enough. I’m glad that the Prime Minister seems to have heard the message loud and clear.

– – – – – – – – – –

One thing will stick in my mind from this week’s conference and that’s the fact that I could barely walk twenty yards without being stopped by someone asking for a selfie or telling me they love my LBC show.

Believe it or not, I am quite a shy person (I know, I know), and I never quite know what to say to people who tell me they love what I do. Of course, I say thank you, and it’s much appreciated, but I often feel I leave people feeling a bit underwhelmed because I can’t think what else to say!

And quite how I was supposed to respond to the people who marched up to me telling me they loved me… well… suffice to say, I didn’t reach for their thigh…

There was one amusing incident, though. I was having a fairly in-depth chat with a friend who works at CCHQ when a lady decided it was quite OK to break in and try to engage me in conversation. I explained, perfectly politely, that I was talking to someone, and would she mind waiting a moment until I had finished my current conversation? She marched off blustering about how rude I had been. Self-knowledge is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Priti Patel: I will give the police the powers they need to defeat crime. Full text of her conference speech

“Today, here in Manchester, the Conservative Party takes its rightful place as the Party of Law and Order in Britain once again.

We stand with the brave men and women of our police and security services.

And we stand against the criminals.

The gang leaders, drug barons, thugs and terrorists who seek to do us harm.

We say that proudly and without apology.

As the Party that has always backed the forces of law and order, and we always will.

We ask them to do the most difficult of jobs.

To run toward danger, to ensure that we are not in danger.

Being here in Manchester it is impossible to forget that.

Just over two years ago, this city was victim to one of the most sickening terror attacks our country has ever witnessed.

Manchester truly experienced the worst of humanity that night.  But, also the best.

That spineless coward met with the heroism of our emergency workers and Britain’s finest intelligence agencies.

And as they face up to such danger, they need to know they are not alone.

They need to know they have a Prime Minister, a Home Secretary, and a Government that stands beside them.

I am that Home Secretary.

Boris Johnson is that Prime Minister.

The Conservative Party is that Government.

One of my first acts as Home Secretary was to start recruiting 20,000 new police officers.

Giving them the strength in numbers they need.

Giving them new and immediate funding.

And supporting and equipping them with the powers they need to keep us safe.

Including lifting restrictions on emergency stop-and-search powers for all forces across England and Wales.

Giving police officers the confidence they need to clamp down on violent crime.

These are the powers police chiefs tell me they need.

I have heard their voice.

I am answering their call.

And I want to tell you why.

There are three reasons:

Firstly, because backing the forces of law and order is central to our DNA as Conservatives.

Giving people the security they need to live their lives as they choose is an essential part of our freedom.

We recognise that freedom and security are not opposites, but equals. And that ensuring people can live their lives free from fear is the essential foundation for a life of liberty.

Because the people posing the threats are ever more callous and the job we ask the police to do is ever more difficult and dangerous.

These are the facts that I never forget.

Almost every day, I pass the gates of the Houses of Parliament.

There stands the memorial to PC Palmer killed in the line of duty on 22nd March 2017, during a terror attack at the heart of our democracy. His sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Around the corner from my office stands the National Police Memorial, and a book containing the names of 4,000 men and women killed as they went about their work.

Tragically, we must now add a new name to that proud roll of honour. PC Harper, a 28-year-old newlywed, senselessly and brutally killed in the line of duty on 15th August this year. He too will always be remembered.

I will always remember visiting Thames Valley police the day after he was killed. The shock and sorrow was palpable.

But the determination to come together, to carry on and continue the relentless pursuit of justice was inspiring.

Their safety, their dedication and their loyalty are what I think of every single day.

The second reason we must back the police is to remove the grip gangs and organised criminals have on our communities. They just don’t care who they hurt or abuse.

The kingpins of these criminal gangs are exploiting children.

Forcing them to carry crack cocaine and heroin across rural and coastal communities.

Threatening them into carrying guns and knives as “protection”.

Manipulating them into killing innocent people.

Faced with this new and growing danger, our police will know that I will back them to get this under control.

If there has been any doubt about that commitment in the past.

Let that end here today.

Recruiting 20,000 police officers is just the start.

I am equipping Police Officers with the kit and tools they need to protect themselves and others from harm.

I have created a new fund to give police chiefs the ability to train and equip police officers with tasers.

It is the job of Chief Constables to make that operational decision.

It is the job of the Home Secretary to empower them to do so. I am giving them that power.

And today I am announcing a £20 million package to roll up county lines drugs gangs.

To stop them terrorising our towns and villages and exploiting our children.

And a new £25 million Safer Streets fund for new security measures for Britain’s worst crime spots.

And as well as giving the police the kit and powers they need, we must do more to recognise their commitment, their bravery, and their professionalism.  

I have been humbled by the officers I have met and the experiences they have shared with me. This is why I have personally accelerated work to establish the Police Covenant.

This is a pledge to do more as a nation to help those who serve our country.

To recognise the bravery, the commitment and the sacrifices of serving and former officers.

And we will enshrine this into law.

We will also ensure that anyone who assaults a police officer receives a sentence that truly fits the crime, to make the thugs who would attack an officer, think twice.

That’s what I mean by backing the police.

And there’s a third reason we must back our police. It is because this is what the people want and what they expect us to do.

This is a Government driven by the people’s priorities.

Hardworking, honest, law-abiding people whose needs are humble, whose expectations are modest and whose demands of their government are simple.

They want us to listen.

They ask us to respond.

And they expect us to do what we say.

From crime, to immigration, to leaving the European Union, we are ready to listen and to do what they want.

It’s called democracy.

That shouldn’t really be a controversial statement.

They are the masters and we are their servants.

Our job is to deliver on their priorities.

But too many people are losing faith in politics and politicians. And they are questioning the health of our democracy. Because over three years ago, the British public turned out to vote in their millions.

They knew what they were voting for. They were told that the final result would be delivered.

But their euphoria and optimism of that referendum day has given way to frustration and anger.

As a group of politicians led by Jeremy Corbyn think they know better.

And have done everything possible to stand in the way of democracy, ignoring the will of the people.

I was proud to be part of the referendum campaign. A campaign that was electrified by one man. Who encouraged us to believe in a brighter Britain.

And I am proud to serve in his government as we work as a team and focus on getting Brexit done.

And as Home Secretary at this defining moment in our country’s history, I have a particular responsibility when it comes to taking back control.

It is to end the free movement of people once and for all.

Instead we will introduce an Australian style points-based immigration system.

One that works in the best interests of Britain.

One that attracts and welcomes the brightest and the best.

One that supports brilliant scientists, the finest academics and leading people in their fields.

And one that is under the control of the British Government.

Because, let me tell you something. This daughter of immigrants, needs no lectures from the North London metropolitan liberal elite.

That’s what you get with a government that is driven by the people’s priorities.

Of course, there will be only two dissenting voices.

Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn.

Because the choice isn’t just who the people want to be our next Prime Minister.

It’s also about who the people want to be their next Home Secretary.

Do we really want a Labour Home Secretary who would leave our communities and our country less safe?

A Labour Party who won’t even attempt to take back control of our borders.

Because they want to surrender our border control and extend free movement.

And on policing The Labour Party would stop the police from doing their job.

And when it comes to our brilliant intelligence agencies, well – what can I say?

The Labour Party trust our foes more than our friends.

To all of this, I say, no, no no.

Only the Conservative Party is driven by the people’s priorities and that means backing our police, our communities and our great country.

That pragmatic approach, grounded in the good sense of the British people, keeps us focused on what truly matters today.

That’s the lesson I took from the person who inspired me to join our Party.

A Conservative Prime Minister first elected forty years ago, this year.

Margaret Thatcher knew that if you made the British people your compass.  If you took time to understand their lives and their priorities, then your direction would always be true.

“My policies”, she said, “are based not on some economics theory, but on things I and millions like me were brought up with: an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay; live within your means; pay your bills on time; and support the police”

That advice is as sound today as it was forty years ago.

Support the police we will.

This Party, our Conservative Party, is backing those who put their lives on the line for our national security.

So as we renew our place as the Party of Law and Order in Britain, let the message go out from this hall today:

To the British people – we hear you.

To the police service – we back you.

And to the criminals, I simply say this:

We are coming after you.

We stand for the forces of right, and against the forces of evil.

We stand for the law-abiding majority, not the criminal minority.

We stand by those who seek to do right by themselves, their families and their communities.

And we stand by Britain, ready to give the leadership our great country deserves.

So as Conservatives, we must remind the public what we stand for.

And as the Party of the United Kingdom, we will get Brexit done and deliver on the people’s priorities.

Thank you.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: “To the criminals, I simply say this: We are coming after you,” warns Priti Patel

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Javid keeps the gold but Johnson and Rees-Mogg fail to medal in our Cabinet League Table

Westlake Legal Group Cabinet-League-Table-Sep-19-1024x956 Javid keeps the gold but Johnson and Rees-Mogg fail to medal in our Cabinet League Table ToryDiary Thérèse Coffey MP Theresa Villiers MP Steve Barclay MP Sajid Javid MP Robert Jenrick MP Robert Buckland MP Rishi Sunak MP Priti Patel MP Paul Davies AM Oliver Dowden MP Nicky Morgan MP Natalie Evans (Baroness) Michael Gove MP Matthew Hancock MP Mark Spencer MP Liz Truss MP Kwasi Kwarteng MP Julian Smith MP James Cleverly MP Jake Berry MP Jacob Rees-Mogg MP Grant Shapps MP Geoffrey Cox MP Gavin Williamson MP Esther McVey MP Elizabeth Truss MP Dominic Raab MP ConservativeHome Members' Panel Brandon Lewis MP Boris Johnson MP Ben Wallace MP Andrea Leadsom MP Alun Cairns MP Alok Sharma MP Alister Jack MP

Another month in and once again the Johnson Ministry appears to be holding fairly steady in the affections of grassroots activists.

There has been a slight downward drift, illustrated by the top scores no longer breaking the plus-80 barrier, but there are no ministers with negative scores and compared to the tail end of Theresa May’s time in office these are healthy scores.

Yet is it the calm before the storm? We are now only a month away from the October 31 Brexit deadline, which the Prime Minister insists he’s going to meet but nobody can really see how he can. Our next survey will be conducted as he runs into that tempest – it will be interesting to see what affect it has.

A few details:

  • Javid gold again… The Chancellor has seen his score slip a little but, as that is in line with the overall trend, he remains the most popular member of the Government amongst party members for the third month in a row.
  • …as Johnson slips… Last month the Prime Minister was ranked second by our panellists and just a couple of points shy of Javid. This month he slips to sixth after losing more than 12 points. Is this simply a response to various stories this month, or a foretaste of a backlash next month?
  • …and Rees-Mogg stumbles. It’s been an even worse month for the Leader of the House, who has fallen from a bronze-medal position last month to 11th place now after a fall of almost 15 points.
  • …but Brexiteers benefit. The beneficiaries of the above moves are principally Michael Gove, Geoffrey Cox, Dominic Raab, and Stephen Barclay. It is not until Liz Truss, in tenth position, that we find a Remainer.
  • Two departures. It’s goodbye to Amber Rudd and Jo Johnson, who both resigned from the Cabinet this month, and hello to Thérèse Coffey, who takes over from Rudd at Work & Pensions. Johnson’s successor, Chris Skidmore, is not attending Cabinet.
  • Wallace rebounds. Last month we asked what might have caused the Defence Secretary to suddenly slump to near the bottom of the table. Whatever it was, it’s passed – he’s now just below Rees-Mogg after gaining 20 points.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: The Cameron memoirs. “There is no point in going over the past,” says Patel.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com