Dear Leftist/liberal elite: A lot of people don’t like you or your policies, bigly. In fact, if you really think about it, Donald Trump is how much they hate your Leftism and open-border globalism that you foisted upon them. What do you think that says about you?

Catching up on the celebrity death match that was the papers review on Marr, between Nigel Farage and Ayesha Hazarika the chasm was there for all to see.

Farage was explaining the Trump position, ultimately saying that Hazarika was out of touch. In response Hazarika got in the triple whammy of insults against Trump, namely that he is ‘racist, misogynistic and Islamophobic’. Further, he is ‘not fit to hold that office’ of President. It’s like that American Revolution never even happened.

I don’t think that the man who was a liberal New York Democrat until about two minutes ago is racist, misogynistic or Islamophobic. Racists tend to not make videos saluting Rosa Parks.

But sure, Trump made a mess of his Charlottesville responses. And he shouldn’t have retweeted the Britain First videos. I’m not going to engage in what-aboutery, because I am never a fan.

For a moment, let’s just go with the Nasty Trump argument. Has it ever occurred to those on the Left that perhaps they should ask themselves why people voted for Trump? It is not, as no doubt they would like to believe, because the voters are as racist as they accuse Trump of being.

The unemployed, blue-collar, ex-Democratic voters of the Rust Belt are not racists, any more than the Labour voters of former mining towns in the North of England who voted for Brexit are racists.

No, what they resent, what they loathe, is the elitism, the experts, the patronising liberal elite who for so long did not do things for them but did things to them. And the biggest thing they did was to open the borders without their consent.

Yes, Leftists on the Left, and globalists on the Right, this policy was so unfair, so immoral, so undemocratic that in America, at least, people decided to vote for the reality TV star with the fake tan and the bad hair. They didn’t vote for him because of his character flaws, they voted for him in spite of them. They voted for Trump, because the alternative – you and more of the same – was worse. When will you get it, that for many people, you are worse than Trump? And it was the same with Brexit.

At risk of making you come over faint, let me tell you that the majority of people who voted for Trump did not even do so ‘despite’ him, but actually because of him – because he looked the candidate most likely to lay siege to your modern liberal citadel (and promote a new nationalism). Which is why, damaging disclosures notwithstanding, reckless retweets notwithstanding, Republican voters are still offering Mr Trump their unwavering support.

What we have witnessed until the Trump and Brexit votes was a period of neo-medieval rule. In medieval times those who were chosen by God ruled over all the serfs. The monarchs didn’t have to ask for permission to go to war, or levy a tax – they just did it, obviously, as they were chosen by God and therefore better than the lower orders. That was what made them legitimate.

The Enlightenment said No, those doing the governing must get the consent of the people to rule – that is what made the governance legitimate.

But we know that the electorate did not consent to King Tony Blair’s open-border policy that saw the population increase by more than 5million in just over a decade, from 2005 to 2016. The previous 5million rise took 35 years to achieve, between 1970 and 2005.

No government had the consent of the people to run net migration figures of 330,000 a year. But they ran them anyway. They were the new chosen people – not chosen by God as such, but simply chosen by virtue of them being better, smarter, and more civilised than the lower orders, viz. the voters.

So the elite knew best, and anyone who did raise concerns about immigration was shouted down as a racist bigot. Hell, you could have been an immigrant who came to Britain in the 70s or 80s and you were still a racist bigot. Let’s not forget that well-known hater Gillian Duffy who after raising her concerns to Gordon Brown was dismissed as just another ‘bigoted woman’.

It was the same in America. Trump’s promise to get control of the borders was attractive to voters. He had to stare down the Republican establishment, the crony capitalists who can pay their workers lower wages if there is uncontrolled immigration. And he has to tackle the Democrats who just want more Democratic voters, to hell with their own blue-collar workers. Whether Trump will succeed or not, we don’t know. But that’s what people want – and it doesn’t make them racists.

So perhaps our ruling elite should take a moment to examine themselves. Donald Trump and indeed Brexit is how much people reject your agenda. Slinging insults at ordinary voters will only work for so long. Right until they vote for the side that you denounced as deplorable.


  1. Increasingly it can be seen that there is a disconnect between the ruling elite with their lefty cheerleaders and the ordinary working or even middle class electorate. The grandiose schemes of lavishing billions on themselves is causing a tide of rising anger. The worker bees seem to be fed up supporting an increasingly large non-productive section of our population.
    Could it be we need a reduction in their numbers? We could perhaps start by reducing the house of Lords to a 100 odds and sods. We could look at enforcing our borders and even repatriating a few million chancers thereby reducing our benefit bill. Throw in an English archers Agincourt salute and we could save a few bob from the EU. Reduce the number of lefty citadels, namely universities, and save even more. Apply the same to our courts, their judges and their lawyers and we might just be able to Trump the lefty elite in this country.

    • Perfect! And spend the £50 bn Danegeld the EU are after on the Armed Forces, especially the Navy (we’ll need them to keep trespassers out of our fishing waters).

  2. They voted for Trump, because the alternative – you and more of the same – was worse. When will you get it, that for many people, you are worse than Trump?

    Well, that’s hit the nail squarely on the head …

  3. Fact free again Laura.
    At 27%, not many people actually, really voted for the ‘nasty’ Trump-and that was somewhat less than your pariah Clinton.
    You also conflate US and UK ‘sloganology’ into a new gibberish which in and of itself is akin to a form of globalisation.
    Trump is in trouble so watch out for more irrational diversions.

        • Is that the latest lefty trolling gambit (© The_Mocking_Turtle) picked up in your groupthink and Borg-wired manipulation of the English language – to ask what is a “lefty” and therefore slyly deny that they exist?

          You is a lefty. Every one of your smug, sneering “monitoring” comments reeks of it.

          You might not not be able to smell yourself but that doesn’t mean you don’t stink.

          • Actually I’m interested to know how much thought is going on vs.simple reaction and vehemence.
            I’ve got one answer…

          • I have a sceptical view on one particular belief based on faith and sacredness, like those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. You now, the barmy stuff like “people are all born equal”, or “people are all good, it’s the unfair system that spoils them”, or “there is such thing as natural rights, and those rights are sacred”. Those are pure medieval anti-scientific gibberish, a laughable piece of nonsense for every educated person.

            They don’t call me “lefty” though.

          • I wouldn’t call it “a belief”, but I try to accept the biological reality with the minimum amount of interpretations.

            As I see it, humans are descendants of chimps – social, territorial, hierarchical. Humans are self-centred from birth to death. Hence all of us are “malevolent” in almost every widespread moral system that ever existed. A lot of us evolved to hide self-interest under the mask of altruism though, so social demagogy is everywhere. Humans vastly vary in our abilities and traits, reflecting massive genetic variation between individuals and groups of individuals. No amount of nurture can change that. Hence any form of resource redistribution is a waste of both resources and time.

            If in your World the bearded old guy that runs this world is called Darwin, the obvious choice for a lasting society is Darwinism.

            On the other hand, if you are still a Christian inside, you can’t accept the reality for what it is, you have to bend it to your religious interpretation of the world. So your only choice is some flavour socialism – precisely what we have in the West now.

          • I think a lot of this would come under the umbrella of the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. More specifically, how do you distinguish ‘distribution’ from ‘redistribution’, or is the status quo always for the best?

          • > naturalistic fallacy

            Naturalistic fallacy implies moraj judgement. I do not say that reality-based approach leads to a “good” society (I believe that morality is instrumental, hence relative, so the word “good” have no particular meaning) – merely that it produces the most sustainable society.

            > More specifically, how do you distinguish ‘distribution’ from ‘redistribution’, or is the status quo always for the best?

            I am not sure what “best” means because what’s good for you might be bad for me. I also do not believe in “maximum happiness for maximum people” as it implies equality, “two happy people are more desirable than one, doesn’t matter who those people are”.

            I consider that whatever happens is “just” by the fact that it happened. There is no such thing as “injustice”. The latter is merely a rhetorical move to fabricate a casus bely for a power grab.

          • Call it what you like, but the idea that the biological aspects of human nature will lead to only one set of outcomes, irrespective of the institutional environment we create, is a fallacy.

            So, if a power grab happens, whether it counts as ‘distribution’ or ‘redistribution, it is just? Is that correct?

          • > the idea that the biological aspects of human nature will lead to only one set of outcomes, irrespective of the institutional environment we create

            Whatever institutions we create will eventually fail if they chose to ignore the reality. Social-Darwinism is the default stable state. Every move away from it will end with an inevitable return.

            > So, if a power grab happens, whether it counts as ‘distribution’ or ‘redistribution, it is just? Is that correct?

            I wouldn’t consider it to be an injustice. On the other hand, if a lynching mob will be met with flak cannons, I wouldn’t consider this to be an injustice either.

            Was the Bolshevik revolution an injustice? Well, if hey had enough power to manage it – no, it wasn’t. The only lesson that history has is “don’t be weak and indecisive”.

            Was the communism a viable, sustainable system? No. Furthermore, the attempt to get rid of the biological realities almost destroyed Russia.

          • That ‘social Darwinism’ (which is not fully defined unless you specify what counts as ‘fitness’ and ‘survival’) is the ‘default stable state’ can have no logical basis. Self-sustaining institutions are perfectly possible as emergent phenomena from just about any biological ‘reality’, let alone one as complex as human nature. That is the fallacy to which I refer.

          • For me, “fitness” and “survival” are related to gene propagation, in a broad sense: both having enough children, and creating the long-term environment that allows them to do the same.

            That is why I consider the mix of progressive taxation and the welfare state (specifically, state child support) to be the most anti-Darwinian – and hence suicidal – policy ever. Penalising the most productive members of the society to give a chance for the least productive to continue their genetic lines – without putting any effort to it – makes no sense to me.

            > Self-sustaining institutions are perfectly possible as emergent phenomena from just about any biological ‘reality’

            I can’t see how “fluid gender”, “the welfare state” and “feminism” – to name just a few modern (less than a 150 years) fads, – can be self-sustainable in a biological reality of sexual dimorphism and females making their mating decision based on male’s position in the dominance hierarchy (hence forcing men to continually create and climb on top of those hierarchies).

          • There’s the confusion. There’s no necessary connection between the reproductive fitness of a specific gene and its belonging to a ‘productive’ member of society unless we have an institutional environment that makes that connection. The idea of society itself, whether market-based or otherwise, makes no sense unless human beings have already transcended pure competition at the genetic level. Unless of course we have some genetic programming to be co-operative!

        • About the same as “fascist”, “racist”, “sexist” or “bigot” – a person, who one doesn’t like.

    • Here we go again. Usual lefty and “Tethys” tactic of playing fast and loose with election statistics to de-legitimise the result.

      Over 62 million Americans in 30 states voted for Trump, you chump. If you think that is “not many people” you must be a product of Blair’s “education, education, education” which has produced only “brainwashing, brainwashing, brainwashing”.

      • As a proportion of the electorate a little over one quarter positively supported Trump.
        It is not a landslide, it is what it is, is, is…

    • Tethys, you need to find a stronger argument than banging on about Trump not winning the popular vote. In American elections, it is not about winning the popular vote. That is exactly why Hillary failed. It is about winning the electoral colleges state by state, which can be achieved without having the majority of the votes. Trump knew that and worked on it. Hillary thought she had swing states wrapped up and didn’t work on them. Trump was smart, Hillary was stupid.

      You have no case against the legitimacy of Trump’s election because it was achieved according to the Constitution of the USA. Presidents are not elected by plebiscite, however much you may wish that one could be applied retrospectively to overturn the true result just because your gal didn’t get her grubby hands on the big prize. Please desist from dragging red herrings across the picture. It does you no credit, fools nobody and is just irritating.

      • Different electoral systems each have their own slant but the underlying point is that it is not correct to imply a great majority vote here.

    • > At 27%, not many people actually, really voted for the ‘nasty’ Trump-and that was somewhat less than your pariah Clinton.

      That’s still 27 percent points more that voted for gay marriage or legalisation of abortions.

      But then again the dictionary definition of a Leftist is: “a loser that blames the unfair system as the only reason for his or her misfortunes”.

  4. In medieval times those who were chosen by God ruled over all the serfs. The monarchs didn’t have to ask for permission to go to war, or levy a tax – they just did it, obviously, as they were chosen by God and therefore better than the lower orders. That was what made them legitimate.

    I’ll pedantically, though I think accurately, disagree with this though …

    These flaws in the system of the Ancien Régime arose over the course of the 15th-17th Centuries, from the corruption of the Borgias at Rome up to the institution of absolute monarchy by Louis XIV of France (“L’Etat, c’est moi“) — so you’re attributing to the Middle Ages the invention of totalitarian centralist authoritarianism by the so-called “enlightenment” !!! (which also invented the industrialisation of slavery BTW)

    Whereas the feudal system when it still worked, and as BTW can still be seen to this day in some rare locations where some vestigial traces of it remain, was a form of local quasi-democratic councils where the heads of each family, of each “feu” (hearth, in English) from which “feudalism” is derived, gathered in regular Council meetings with their local Lord to devise political responses or decisions for current, ongoing, or emerging local problems. This was the heart of that political system, and this basic structure of Councils carried up from the base up through the County and Duchy level right up to the King’s Council, as a manner of subsidiarity in reverse.

    The system was ruined just as soon as some of the more powerful Lords decided that it would be simpler to just start acting like tyrants instead, but that didn’t occur on any significant scale until the 15th Century IIRC. Niccolò Machiavelli’s satirical “The Prince” is a denunciation of this trend in the politics of his time.

  5. The Enlightenment said No, those doing the governing must get the consent of the people to rule – that is what made the governance legitimate

    In fact, the endarkenment was a period when the consent of the people was utterly abused by the ruling classes.

    You attribute the development of modern democracy from the 19th Century onwards to an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that was nothing other than elitist, iconoclastic, totalitarian, and dictatorial.

    • And who labelled the ‘enlightenment’ with that name? The liberal left, of course. Britain had government by consent long before the leftist historical narrative would have us believe. Brexit has to be seen in that context – the left hate the conservative plebs outside their privileged, statist bubble. Robert Tombs’ book The English and their History explains all….

  6. Not that any of this matters though Laura.

    First, many of these people do indeed understand why Trump and Brexit happened (at least now they do) but it makes no difference because they know they’re ‘right’.

    Second, the left tend to have more deep-set ideological beliefs than us live-and-let-live righties and ideology is blind to any other point of view anyway.

    In any case, I am continually amazed at how, with the left, it’s the impeccability of your attitude which matters more than anything else – to paraphrase Roger Scruton. It matters more than facts, reality or rational argument.

    So rail and rant away Laura, it makes no difference. After all, have you ever had anyone from the left say “you know what? You may have a point there.!”?

    I’d lay money you haven’t.

    Oh well, I enjoy reading what you say anyway. It’s kind of comforting, even if it is futile.

    • New Left is always righteous because it is a form of religious belief. Those people are literally religious zealots that worked themselves into the system in spite of secularisation principle by dropping the figure of transcendent god.

  7. Ms Perrins

    How, exactly, does boasting about grabbing women “by the p*ssy” fit in with conservative or Christian values?

    • It simply means that Christians are flawed, abject
      sinners, like everyone else (except for “Saint” Hillary and her followers).

    • *** PHHHWWWWOOOOAAARRRR !!!! **** and wouldn’t you just love to be grabbed by the p. ussy, sweety dearest plum sugar darling !!!

      • If he had one.
        He/she/?/it is something inbetween whatever passes for normality wherever the safe space is.

      • Daphne, she is background noise like you get near a motorway. Or the static you get on a mis-tuned radio. Would it be better for TCW readers to let that static burble into the ether by avoiding replies?

    • It doesn’t!

      It fits just right into liberal and non-Christian values though: Weinstein, Clinton, Franken, Conyers, etc.

      And Trump? Trump is an old NY liberal who played the Republican machine for fun and profit.

  8. Did anyone hear Tony Blair on Radio 4 the other morning, saying in his clipped, educated voice that he was working to overthrow the Brexit vote? He didn’t exactly use the phrase “false consciousness” of all those uneducated types who voted for Brexit, but he certainly implied it. You cannot argue his sort out of their settled position – but you still, as Laura does (despite her simplifications of history as Jabba Papa points out) have to articulate the hopes and fears of the ordinary people, the Gillian Duffys of the world, who are brushed aside by the global, Blairist elites.

  9. Laura, please can you desist from quoting the deeply dishonest “Net migration” figures? It is a Blairite scam, that netts off the 300,000 highly educated, top-rate-taxpayers who are taking top jobs in other countries and wealthy pensioners who are investing their nest-eggs in Southern Europe – against the 600,000 poorest people in Europe, many unskilled, illiterate and a fair proportion unemployable – as if they are equals in financial terms to the UK.

  10. Those on the British right who support Trump are going to have egg on their faces once the true scale of the Russia scandal is revealed.

    • grrrrrrlllpowah !!! meanwhile walks about town thinking that the greasy tortilla de patatas plastered all over her head is just her “choice” of hat

    • Do tell. Because after almost a year Mueller is struggling to. Hillary on the other hand; her links were and are clear.

    • McCarthy was right! Russians are everywhere! In fact, Russians rule the USA for half a century now. Did you know what R in FDR really stands for?

        • Vladimir Putin is a grey ex-KGB bio-robot. We should’ve reopened Gulag to treat those guys back in 1991.

          My heart is with Imperial Russia of pre-1917.

          • The Tsar was a despot who oppressed his people and opposed women’s and LGBT rights.

            Have you forgotten the facts of history?

          • There were no women pre-1917, so LGBT (or just G&T) were obviously not repressed. Learn some history, for Christ’s sake!

          • In 1917, British and American women were about to win the vote for which we had fought valiantly for many decades.

          • Darling, you mixed it with a Great War in your pretty little head. No, they are not the same. WW1 was not waged by brave suffragettes against Nazî sexist pigs.

            Women mostly fought their cause by doing crochet and making scented candles until men were finally forced to give them right to vote (otherwise they’d have to get a bigger country to host all this stuff, and it’s not easy or cheap, woman!).

            The massive amount of embroidered sofa pillows and candles in every department store is a daily reminder of their final and unquestionable victory over Western men.

          • Don’t patronise me, you sad little man. I have two degrees.

            “their final and unquestionable victory over Western men.”

            So you admit that, in Hillary’s words, “the future is female”?

          • Hilary’s future is definitely female. They still separate prisons by sex in the US (I know, I know, those sexist bastards; but we’ll get there after we re-elect Obama).

            And sis – drop that “two degrees” thing. Seriously. It looks silly. It made sense thirty years ago, when degrees still counted for anything but time and money wasted. These days? Our cleaning lady have four.

  11. Well there have indeed been some clear signs of unrest. It is indeed well to remember that the Donald is both an exemplar of the US constitution in that he was not a career politician, a member of a political “dynasty” nor even much liked by the party that endorsed him, and a revolutionary in his use of social media to continue to campaign on issues when in office. He was I recall a no hope joke when he announced his running.
    However in the UK our democracy has little room for this. Referenda are rare (and I expect after “call me Dave’s” miscalculation that will remain the case) and the electoral system is sewn up by the Parties. Just at the moment Corbyn probably looks the hope for change too, as the Conservative Gov. continues the general “heir of Blair” approach we’ve been used to for well over a decade. Corbyn’s Labour makes all the right noises about the issues that affect people, even skilfully sidestepping immigration (oops sorry its migration these days) and concentrating on housing, bills, trains etc. But from the Conservatives we get no serious challenge to the status quo, and a parade of own goals to boot!

    • “Corbyn’s Labour makes all the right noises about the issues that affect people …”

      Except for the issues affecting the people who do not count. They include victims of terrorism or of the rapes that were covered up for reasons of political correctness.

  12. Quite a well worn path here. Trump won, just about everyone gets that, and also understands why he won. Trump is not a normal boy though, and that worries a lot of people. She actually knows this, and acknowledges it in her article.

    • Sean

      Do you have a ‘Patronising’ font on your keyboard? I’ve noticed that all your comments are the same: the supercilious master putting down the struggling student.

      The trouble is, it doesn’t work in the way you would like it to. The sneer drowns out everything else.

      I think we all know that Trump is not normal. People who get to be President tend not to be; most people aren’t normally President. And that may worry a lot of people, but it also cheers a lot of other people.

    • I thought ST was writing as Bobworth today?
      Its difficult keeping up with trolls, but then it can’t be easy for them keeping track of last minute instruction changes from Berlin/Brussels..

    • > Trump is not a normal boy though, and that worries a lot of people.

      Were the boys that get us all the way to Trump’s election – normal? If they were not, then Trump fits the pattern just fine. If they were, – well, maybe normality is overrated then?

    • One is put in mind of Billy Joel, another New Yorker of roughly the same age as Mr. Trump: “You may be right/I may be crazy/But it just might be a lunatic you’re looking for…”

    • Be sure the US, like the UK, has long since got rid of its manufacturing capacity. Which is now mostly in China. All the trade deals and tariffs in the world aren’t going to turn that round anytime soon.

  13. “Let’s not forget that well-known hater Gillian Duffy who after raising her concerns to Gordon Brown was dismissed as just another ‘bigoted woman’.”

    And she then went on in the subsequent election to vote Labour. “Red rosette on a donkey” syndrome all over again.

  14. The midterms in America next year will signal whether support for Trump firms up and holds or has begun to decline. The problem with both Trump’s win and Brexit’s success is that both were close calls, which divided nations down the middle, based on campaigns riddled with inaccurate information, lies and deceit. Both Trump and Brexit may well bequesth legacies of generations pain and misery for future generations despite enthusiastic support and adulation from faithful supporters now.

    Both are dangerous and risky gambles.

    (Which the house usually, more time than not, wins.)

    • > Both are dangerous and risky gambles.

      But open borders and outsourcing industry to China are all good and caused no amount of misery to anyone whatsoever. There were also never divisive – all the nation supported it whole heartedly.

      And Trump? Well, Trump just happened, completely out of the blue, when the country was in a top-notch shape, moving rapidly from “good” to “even better”.

      • Business being business guarantees that China will still be the workshop of the world for the foreseeable future. Americans can’t have it both ways, i.e., jobs and cheap goods, and my bet would be that people in the USA would not be willing to pay more for the things currently produced and assembled in China to help ensure employment for their fellow citizens. Why? Because it has happened umpteen times historically with car production and electronics.

        Without Trump’s spend on infrastructure, which this country should have undertake funded from revenue accruing from North Sea oil rather than giving it away as tax cuts to try to keep voters onside, his tax cuts will probably inflate the American economy a bit, because of consumer spending, followed by a contraction leading to a zero-sum gain.

        I am looking forward to see how Trump extricates himself from his pledge to build the Great Wall of America along the Mexican border. My bet would be that when he fail to persuade Republican colleagues to earmark sufficient monies for the project Trump will simply shirk all blame onto the shoulders of the men and women who have obstructed him.

        Mexico will most definitely not be paying a peso towards it – ever.

    • Trump’s win a close call? Not by the electoral college. Have you seen an electoral map of the US post-election? It’s red, with a few blue hold outs on the coasts.

      • Electoral colleges are problematic as far as I am concerned. Trump called them “undemocratic” before being elected president, at which point he changed his mind. I do remember the Conservatives attacking the Labour party based on its electoral college, in which the unions enjoyed block votes, until Labour moved to a fairer on-man-one-vote system. Vote-wise more of those who voted cast their ballot in favour of Hillary Clinton, who actually won the popular vote rather than Trump.

        You shouldn’t be deceived by America’s quirky electoral college and how many red states there are compared to blue states: it is the populations of the states that determine their influence in the electoral college. Some states are huge with small populations and vice versa with more significant smaller states.

        As I say we will all know better next year when Americans go to the polls in that country’s mid terms. This will be a fairer test of Trump’s success of failure since it will be more based on his performance as president for a couple of years rather than the bluff and bluster that went on during his campaign.

        • If every State allocated its grand electors according to how many electoral districts each candidate won, the Republican Party would likely win by landslide every time.

          About half of the delegates from California would be Republicans, just for starters …

          • Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the number of members of Congress from that state — two Senators for each state, plus however many Representatives the state has. Since the number of Representatives is based on the population of the state, the state with the largest population has the most Representatives and therefore has the most electoral votes in the electoral college.

            (Which is why California, the most populous state, has 55 votes and Alaska, much less populous although bigger, only has 3.

  15. > The monarchs didn’t have to ask for permission to go to war, or levy a tax – they just did it, obviously, as they were chosen by God and therefore better than the lower orders.

    Well, praise Heavens that Nazî Germany, Soviet Union, Revolutionary France, the USA and the rest were/are not monarchies, and only waged righteous wars under the full consent of their citizens.

    The world definitely became safer after the 1789.

    • Most of the time they did as they needed to ask parliament to raise the taxes to support it, even the autocratic Henry VIII needed the backing of parliament first.

  16. #MeToo has been named as TIME magazine’s Person of the Year.

    This is a great victory for women everywhere!

  17. I agree with what you’ve written Laura.

    But also I think a large part of Trump’s appeal is that he refuses to apologise to the mob for whatever it deems to be his latest “offence”. We simply can’t have public figures routinely grovelling every time someone chooses to express outrage.

    And who are these people anyway? Who gets to decide that a critical mass of “offence” has been accumulated and needs to be appeased?

Comments are closed.