By Niall McCrae:
What do our parliamentary representatives really think about climate change, Covid-19, illegal migrant crossings from France and transgenderism? In March 2023 I presented ten questions for readers of Unity News Network, Conservative Woman and The Light to send to their MP. Eighteen MPs responded, including the prime minister, Rishi Sunak.
Three respondents failed to answer the questions. The secretary for David Evennett (Conservative, Bexleyheath & Crayford) wrote: ‘Sir David does not complete surveys’. Natalie Elphicke (Conservative, Dover & Deal) directed her constituent to her website for her views. Danny Kruger (Conservative, Devizes) wrote cryptically: I think I score 7/9 in agreement with you (if I understand your implied views)’. Therefore, fifteen sets of answers were used in this report.
This was not a scientific survey: I don’t know how many MPs were sent the list of questions, but the sample is interesting on three counts. First, the respondents were not proportionate to party share in Westminster: most were of the governing Conservative Party, with four Labour MPs and one from the SNP (who the constituent chose to anonymise). There was a good geographical spread, but none from London or Northern Ireland. Significantly, only one woman (Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for York Central) answered the questions.
The MPs’ responses are a revealing guide to the state we are in. The similarity was astounding. While it was reasonable for both George Haworth (Labour, Knowsley) and Mark Eastwood (Conservative, Dewsbury) to give exactly the same answers to two of their constituents, the frequent use of facsimile text by Tory MPs showed that they were not giving their own opinion as a local parliamentary representative but party policy. As the responses were forwarded to me, cut-and-paste work was readily apparent.
Here is a summary of the MPs’ answers to each question.
- Do you believe that there is a climate crisis?
MPs were unequivocal on anthropogenic climate change. Rishi Sunak explained: –
‘It is important that we recognise the importance and urgency of action needed on climate change. The UN’s International Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the world is warming faster than anticipated, the effects of which are being seen in every single region of our planet. Immediate global action is needed to limit global warming, heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and loss of Arctic Sea ice, snow cover and permafrost.’
From his North Yorkshire manor, Sunak sees a land of green opportunities, believing that the UK can rapidly decarbonise ‘while creating new jobs, technologies and future-proof industries that will generate economic growth for decades to come.’ Junior transport minister Huw Merriman (Bexhill & Battle) and colleagues Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) and Mark Pawsey (Rugby) all used this paragraph: –
‘The overwhelming consensus of international climate change scientists is that climate change is happening and that it is exacerbated by human activity. Uncertainty does exist in climate science, as it does in other fields, but this does not negate the value of current evidence, and the strong correlation between global warming and rising greenhouse gas concentrations from human activity since 1900.’
According to Merriman, the IPCC report shows that ‘immediate action is required to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050 to give a good chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C in the long-term and help to avoid the worst effects of climate change’. Conservative MPs boasted that the UK was at the vanguard of climate action. Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) was ‘pleased that the UK was the first major economy to legislate to achieve net zero and work is already underway to ensure the UK achieves this by 2050 and thereby eliminate our country’s contribution to climate change.’ Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) remarked: ‘if we continue to allow counties like the USA and China to ignore the changes in weather then it will get worse’. Notably, only one MP (Pawsey) mentioned the contentious ‘Net Zero’.
A future Labour government would certainly not ease the foot off the pedal. Maskell, while concerned about higher energy costs to her constituents, wants further action: –
‘We know that the cost of not addressing the changes in our climate are very expensive, and therefore it is really important to provide for early mitigation. Across the planet the failed crops due to the changes in the climate is resulting in parts of our globe becoming uninhabitable, whereas many countries are now in danger of from floods and rising sea levels which is causing coastal erosion and river flooding.’
What they said: climate change is indisputable, and carbon is a contaminant that we must abandon at all cost
What they didn’t say: evidence for a climate crisis is underwhelming, and the oft-cited IPCC is notorious for hyperbolic scare tactics; arguably, the real motive is a global technocracy with total control of resources
- Do you believe that Covid-19 was a deadly pandemic?
The Covid-19 narrative was as uncritically parroted as the climate crisis. Merriman used seven million deaths as evidence, while the SNP respondent wrote ‘having lost friends to this deadly disease, my answer is an unequivocal yes’. According to Sunak, ‘it was one of the greatest challenges this country faced since the Second World War’. Whoa! – doesn’t comparing Covid-19 to the fight against fascism get you suspended from the House of Commons and expelled from the Conservative Party, as happened to Andrew Bridgen on raising concern about the Covid-19 regime?
Among the carbon copy answers was the personal experience of Wiggin: ‘I caught Covid and was very seriously ill, Boris nearly died, many others were not so lucky’.
What they said: an unprecedented contagion that threatened the lives of everyone.
What they didn’t say: symptoms, vulnerability of the frail elderly and infection mortality rate were similar to that of influenza, which magically disappeared for three years
- Do you believe that lockdown was necessary?
Two years after schools, churches, football grounds, pubs and other businesses were forced to close, there is little remorse from MPs who passed the draconian legislation. The only contrary response was by John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham), who had voted against such restrictions. On the necessity of lockdown, Damian Collins (Conservative, Folkestone & Hythe) ‘believed it was at the time but agree with the government that this is not a response that should be repeated.’ Sunak claimed to have mitigated its economic impact when he was chancellor of the exchequer.
The MPs believe that lockdown saved lives, although no evidence was given. Mark Eastwood (Conservative, Dewsbury) referred to the modelling prediction of Neil Ferguson at Imperial College that unless the UK followed China’s approach, hundreds of millions would die. He also reminded his constituent that without drastic action the NHS would have been ‘overwhelmed many times over’. Timpson, Pawsey and the SNP respondent suggested that lessons would be learned from the national Covid-19 inquiry (a likely whitewash). According to Merriman, ‘until an effective vaccine was developed and rolled out, unprecedented public health measures were required’.
Maskell, whose party had accused Boris Johnson of causing unnecessary deaths by tardy action, claimed that the Conservative government had failed to prepare for a pandemic by not storing enough protective masks.
What they said: lockdown was a drastic necessity
What they didn’t say: no MP mentioned the surrender of sovereignty to the World Health Organisation, whose bolstered International Health Regulations could impose global lockdown
- Do you believe that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and effective?
According to George Haworth (Labour, Knowsley), ‘given the urgency of the situation, the vaccines were as safe and effective as could reasonably be expected’. His colleague Maskell claimed to have scrutinised the evidence and found it favourable: –
‘I have undertaken significant research into the impact of the vaccine. It is clear that immunity has been provided by the vaccine, the methodology used is not uncommon to other vaccines, the challenge has been the longevity of its impact and therefore how long it holds immunity for.’
Merriman was satisfied that the authorities know what’s good for us: –
‘I can assure you that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has followed rigorous procedures to ensure the vaccines meet the high standards needed to be considered both safe and effective. The MHRA is one of the most respected regulators in the world and I welcome that the World Health Organisation has commended the work of the MHRA and backed their approach. Any coronavirus vaccine that is approved must go through rigorous clinical trials and safety checks. I am proud that the UK has some of the highest safety standards in the world. So far, millions of people have been given a Covid-19 vaccine and reports of serious side effects, such as allergic reactions, have been very rare.’
Sunak dispelled concerns using much the same text as Merriman, Eastwood and other Tory MPs. Espousing individual autonomy, Redwood had ‘argued against vaccine passports and mandatory vaccinations for care home and healthcare workers’, but he regarded the vaccine as generally safe.
What they said: the vaccines are wonderful
What they didn’t say: the trumpeted ‘miracle of science’ was an illogical feat as the trials could not compress time: safety and efficacy in the medium and long term cannot be known from short-term testing; no MP mentioned the troubling surge in mortality since the rollout
- Do you support billions of pounds of military supplies and indirect or direct involvement of our armed forces in the war in Ukraine?
No respondent doubted the cause in Ukraine. Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberavon) said: ‘I am supportive of the actions we have taken thus far to help Ukraine in its fight against Putin’s illegal and barbaric invasion’. Irked by the implication of the question, Merriman used much the same text as Sunak, Pawsey and Eastwood: –
‘Vladimir Putin, enabled by Belarus, has unleashed a full-scale invasion of Ukraine by land, sea and air. This is a premeditated and wholly unprovoked attack, barbaric in execution, on a sovereign democratic state, and I strongly object to your view that it need not concern the UK. The UK – indeed, the world – cannot stand idly by whilst Russian troops lay siege to once peaceful European cities, whilst tanks tear through towns and villages and ordnance rains down indiscriminately on homes and hospitals. We have the moral duty to respond to these horrific acts, which are not only an attack on the principles of the UN Charter but also amount to war crimes.’
Sunak concluded that ‘Putin must fail – and we must work to ensure he does’. Maskell suggested that unless Putin is stopped he will rampage over Europe. However, several MPs assured that there is no prospect of British or NATO forces fighting in Ukraine.
What they said: Britain will stand by Ukraine for whatever it takes, with Putin’s invasion portrayed as a reprise of 1930s fascism
What they didn’t say: the UK is a prominent actor in the West’s proxy war with Russia, spending billions of taxpayers’ money on weapons, including depleted uranium shells (which went up in radioactive smoke when the Russians hit an ammunition store in western Ukraine)
- Do you regard the tens of thousands of people crossing the English Channel and entering the country illegally as refugees?
MPs are of course aware of the public unease about mass immigration, and particularly the illegal entry by young men crossing the English Channel. On whether these are genuine refugees, Andrew Stephenson (Conservative, Pendle) remarked: –
‘No, and by legal definition they are not refugees until any claim they make for asylum has been accepted. It should be noted slightly less than half do apply successfully. I support the Rwanda plan and the Illegal Migration Bill, and welcome the Prime Minister’s plan to stop the boats.’
Whittingdale and Wiggin averred that most of the marine gatecrashers are ‘economic migrants’ who should be sent back. Redwood stated that he has consistently voted for laws to stop illegal immigration. Merriman and Timpson promoted government policy on removing failed asylum-seekers to the safety of Rwanda. Sunak emphasised his policy to stop the influx: ‘the volume of small boat arrivals is overwhelming our asylum system, putting communities under unsustainable pressure through the unfair use of hotels and diverting resources from those in genuine need’.
The Labour MPs were concerned about slow processing of asylum claims, Haworth claiming that ‘over 90% of those who seek asylum in the UK are deemed to have satisfied the criteria for refugee status, either on the basis of their initial application or on appeal, while Kinnock replied: –
‘It is only possible to ascertain whether or not someone is a refugee by processing their application for asylum. Some are legitimate and some are not, but due to the utter incompetence of the UK Government, processing has all but stopped and we currently have a backlog of 166,000 (when Labour left office in 2010 the backlog stood at fewer than 10,000).’
According to Maskell, ‘the globally unstable world, crop failure and the abuse of human rights, through to modern day slavery and torture is causing some to migrate’. The SNP respondent wrote:-
‘I oppose the current UK Government closing safe and legal routes to enter the UK. I note the current bill going through Parliament does nothing to address the criminal gangs involved in such crossings but seeks to punish those most vulnerable and often victims of trafficking.
What they said: we want to stop the illegal influx
What they didn’t say: not only has the Conservative government achieved nothing after 13 years in power, but the number arriving (whether by small boats or by air, ferry or rail routes) is sure to increase due to United Nations policy of mass resettlement from poor to rich countries
- Do you believe that it is safe for dozens of undocumented male migrants to be housed in our towns?
Sunak acknowledged that ‘it is unfair on the British taxpayer or local communities to keep asylum-seekers in hotels….there are currently over 45000 asylum-seekers living in hotels around the country, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £6 million a day’. To accommodate ten thousand of the illegal incomers, disused holiday parks, former student halls and surplus military sites are under acquisition, Sunak remarking: ‘this accommodation should be rudimentary and will be designed to protect the local community’. Wiggin stated his opposition to a Hereford hotel being used, exclaiming: ‘people are not at risk in France!’
According to Eastwood, ‘there will be no undocumented migrants – any that arrive legally or illegally must have their claims processed at a processing centre before they can be housed elsewhere’. The SNP respondent commented that ‘those with criminal records should be detained’. Merriman, facing uproar over a huge migrant camp opening on a derelict prison site in his constituency, tried to allay fears, stating: –
‘The Home Office confirmed that all asylum seekers arriving at Northeye will be screened. This will include checking criminal convictions to ensure that only those deemed suitable are accommodated there…. Claims for asylum will be viewed negatively should any law-breaking or trouble occur during the applications stage.
What they said: illegal immigrants should be housed in camps rather than hotels
What they didn’t say: the first priority of government is the safety of its own citizens, but large numbers of undocumented young males are being placed in residential areas (some may be fleeing justice or have been jailed for serious crimes in their own countries).
- Do you support teaching of transgender ideology to our schoolchildren?
Collins gave a simple ‘no’ to this, while Kinnock denied it is happening, opining that ‘there is no place for ideology in our schools, full stop’. Similarly, the SNP respondent replied: –
‘I am unaware of what you describe as a transgender ideology being taught to schoolchildren. Should children be taught that trans people exist, yes.’
Mick Whitley (Labour, Birkenhead) took the typical politician’s approach of reframing the question to his liking:-
‘Do I believe age appropriate sex education is provided for school students on all matters of gender and sexuality? Yes.’
Timpson, in a lengthy text also used in whole or part by other Tory respondents, explained: –
‘It is up to schools, with the support of teachers and parents, to decide the most appropriate and necessary policies to put in place for their pupils. This may include whether they provide unisex or gender neutral toilets, and their approach to school uniform. The Department for Education is clear, however, that schools must tackle all forms of discrimination and this includes discrimination because of gender reassignment or sexual orientation.’
Redwood, by contrast, opined that ‘many young women and girls feel extremely vulnerable in same sex changing rooms and bathrooms and it is important that they feel protected’, and that ‘separate unisex (or universal) toilets should be provided if there is space but should not come at the expense of female toilets’. Redwood conceded that respect should be afforded to trans people, but ‘biological fact cannot be ignored’.
According to Sunak, ‘this is a complex and sensitive subject for schools to navigate’. Government guidance is being developed ‘to support schools both in relation to transgender pupils and those who are questioning their gender’. He assured parents that they would be involved in any decision about their child.
What they said: this is a sensitive topic and parents should be consulted
What they didn’t say: the state is the arbiter on child’s gender identity, and its teaching material (guided by transgender campaigners) will encourage more turmoil; parents’ views will be overridden if not criminalised.
- If you do not agree with any of the above, what are you doing to oppose such a policy?
This was a dud question, as the MPs were mostly following the narrative. Any opposition is mild and ineffectual.
- Finally, what is a woman?
Sunak, Collins, Timpson, Redwood, Stephenson and the SNP respondent clearly defined a woman as an adult human female, as did Whittingdale: –
‘The Gender Recognition Act provides a way for people to change their gender, but biological sex allows us to determine the difference between a man and a woman and this is set at birth with a woman having two X chromosomes, and a man an X and a Y’.
The Labour MPs were less certain, Kinnock writing from personal experience: –
‘99% of the time a woman is a person who is biologically female, but let’s not disparage or fail to support those who are non-binary in terms of their gender identity. For example one of my two children was born female as Camilla but is now called Milo, and uses the pronouns he / him. Milo is a truly wonderful person, and I love him and am incredibly proud of him.’
Whitley took a moralising stance: –
‘An over simplistic question deliberately designed to muddy the waters with regards to the debate on how best to defend and extend of Trans Rights. I resolutely support Trans people in their campaign for equality and dignity.’
However, Maskell, as the only female respondent, was sceptical of transgenderism: –
‘I believe that the stereotyping of gender has led to some people feeling that they do not fit in with the gender assigned to them at birth, and are therefore seeking identity which more closely aligns to who they believe they are. However, I think that we must enable people to be able to express themselves within their gender, rather than to have a narrow form of identity, which is shaped by media. I therefore believe that school children should be taught to be safe in their identity as a boy or girl. Young people have a lot of things to worry about and I do not think that children should also have to worry about whether they really are the gender they have been assigned.
Wiggin, remarking on the male rapist sent to a women’s prison in Scotland (a controversy followed by first minister Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation), remarked that ‘we have a long way to go before common sense protects women properly’.
What they said: MPs are wary of upsetting the majority of female voters (although the lack of female respondents was significant here)
What they didn’t say: the clarity of definition of an ‘adult female’ may be misleading – would a trans woman (biologically male) fulfil this criterion?
To conclude, despite their efforts to justify the prevailing narrative and policies of the political establishment, the MPs showed themselves at odds with many if not most of their constituents. Although not directly mentioned, parliamentarians are pursuing Agenda 21, a programme managed by a uniparty behind a façade of democracy. As Michael Jackson sang ‘they don’t care about us’.
