Question Time

Hello and welcome to Gardeners Question Time, this week we are live from Islington Town Hall with a lively audience of plants and we are ready to answer specially selected questions so as to make sure you are provided with all the right answers as we reach a critical time of the gardening year. Your host is me, Bob Flowerdew and with me on the panel please welcome Pippa Greenwood, Bryan Hedges and Miranda Bush. [AUDIENCE APPLAUSE] Can we take our first question from the audience?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello bob, yes, I’ve been having trouble controlling a rather bushy plant which seems to be all over the place. I have brought a cutting; perhaps the panel can identify it?

BOB: Ah yes, the Jeremiah. The Latin name is Jeremimus Corbynistus and it can be a bit of handful, thriving in many positions even contradictory ones, but it does best when placed hard to the left. In fact you can’t place it too far left. Have you tried talking to it?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, I tried that, but it really made no sense. I have it planted next to my sturdy thickius two-plankus abutting the shed and the two seem to get on well together, but it’s not a good look, I have to say. The thickius casts such a dark shadow and the contrast with the Jeremiah’s grey hairs ought to work, but it just looks dull and depressing.

BOB: Well, we hope you can learn to live with it because, from your expression, it seems you are resigned to it for a long time to come. Let’s hope, next season you can see an alternative but I think we are stuck with it for now. Let’s now take a question from correspondence. Pippa?

PIPPA: Yes, I have a letter here from a Mr Livingstone who seems to have a problem cultivating a prickly pear of the variety sadiqium. He says he has it on an east wall but it just looks, in his words, angry and annoying. Well, Mr L, you may have misread the planting instructions because this particular thorny exotic needs to be on an east facing wall, where it will ‘mecca’ great impression. Although it can be difficult to control or predict, it will provide regular explosions of colour, all year round, as part and parcel of living in a multi-horticultural landscape. [APPLAUSE]

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello, I have a question about my Johnny-come-Lately plant. It doesn’t really seem to want to do what I want. I’ve tried to train it but it always ends up taking over unless I keep it cut firmly back. It gets out of control very quickly and I’m wondering, would I be better off getting rid of it altogether?

BRYAN: Ah yes, Johhny-come-lately, often referred to as McDonnell’s Glory. It can be quite colourful but it is a very aggressive strain and quickly attacks all around it. It is best planted deep in a bed of its own – six feet being the ideal - because it doesn’t really play well with others. Try that and if it doesn’t behave as you want you might indeed want to get rid of it. You can try at least, but be careful, it bears some rather nasty thorns and has a habit of biting back.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Bryan, I’ll try that. And should I treat my Thornberry the same? It seems to be quite a vicious thing and apt to shade out the others.

BRYAN: Oh, I wouldn’t give the Thornberry houseroom I’m afraid. I find it is nothing but trouble. I’d get rid of it altogether. [APPLAUSE]

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello Panel. [PANEL HELLOES] I have a photograph here, I hope you can all see it. A few years ago this gay little thing self-seeded in my herbaceous border and since then it has proliferated so, as you can see, it now crops up everywhere. At first I thought it was quite sweet but if I’m honest I’m getting a bit fed up of it. It’s just the same thing repeated over and over. What can I do?

MIRANDA: Can I take this one? Yes, this is narcissus fortitudinous and it does, as you say, keep popping up all over the place. At first it seems quite fresh and jolly, but you’re right, it is a sickly little weed and best ignored. The common name – and it really is quite common - is Owenia, which is almost onomatopoeic, sounding like the noise you make when you see it, yet again. But there really is no getting rid of it; it is almost as if the others invite it in. As I say I should just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Jeremiah, Johnny and their little weed...

BOB: Well, some interesting little problems there, but our time is almost up. I’d like to just pick up this story that is in the news right now. We are getting regular emails and letters from listeners who are asking about the Mayflower epidemic. This is being seen in garden centres, allotments, village greens, all over the place right now. It’s an insistent little thing, but with no variety; wherever it blooms it is exactly the same, repeating the same old sequence. It comes with an entourage of useless and not very decorative foliage and offers so much promise, but with so little delivery. My advice? I’d suggest you compost the lot.

The End is Nigh!

There are people who believe in unicorns, ghosts, the afterlife, palm reading, graphology, various gods, faerie folk, genies, Jeremy Corbyn, hobgoblins and accurate economic forecasting. While there has been no proof over millennia that any on this list exists there is plenty of recent evidence that the last is but a figment of fantasy. If we knew what tomorrow would bring the world as we know it would become even more predictably unpredictable. It is a classic paradox: if you knew ‘for certain’ that the shares you buy today would double in value next month, so would everybody else. The ensuing rush would create a bubble and most would lose their shirts on the deal.

Predictions do not forecast the future, they shape it; at least they do if you believe them. The converse is illustrated by those who, having been told by their doctor that if they carry on as they are they will grow fat, become diabetic, go blind and die, ignore that advice and then go on to prove the prognosis. Why do we listen to some forecasts but not others? How do we react to forecasts we know are designed to alter our behaviour in a way we are reluctant to adopt? Do we ever believe the prognostications of those for whom we have little respect? And what do we make of predictions based on the unknowable, complex and entirely speculative machinations of financial and political institutions?

Let me see if I’ve got this right: According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England, if we leave the EU without a deal the economy will still grow and we will all be richer, but not as rich as we might have been if we went with May’s deal, which is a tiny bit less more-rich than Chequers, which is not as more-richer-still as staying in the EU, assuming we could do so retaining all rebates and vetoes, which is not an option and so can be excluded from the analysis, even though it wasn’t. The statements are riddled with ifs, coulds and maybes and hedged all around with disclaimers: Warning, the value of your country may go up as well as down...

It is clear to all (who voted to leave, at least) that these words have nothing to do with actual forecasting and all to do with scaring cabinet colleagues into capitulation. Whether the country at large believes any of it is irrelevant as the decision has been taken from their hands and their instruction ignored in favour of a politically motivated and manipulated future. If Hammond fully understands this and is signed up to it (and all indications suggest he is) then he is committing sophistry, if he doesn’t he is a fool.

Tory MPs stand by their principles

Fool me once, goes the saying, but if you keep on predicting Armageddon and it doesn’t happen, ‘Peter’, who will be there when the wolves finally come for you? The push to scare Tory MPs into caving in has begun in earnest and as Andrea Leadsom has surrendered, so will others. The future of Britain as a sovereign nation will be decided by the superstitious acceptance of an unproven philosophy. If you want to prove me wrong, Phil, Mark... just give me Saturday’s Lotto numbers.

Rise up!

Was it just a matter of timing? Had the establishment judged that after a few years of Major, thirteen years of New Labour and ‘heir to Blair’, David Cameron and his tea boy Clegg, that the British spirit had been sucked dry? Had sufficient beatings been administered to the frothing, rabid, Nazi hordes among the UK population that their heads were bowed and their resolution diminished to the point of acquiescence? Would they finally do as they were told? Were they sufficiently stupid yet?

The softening up of the population has been going on for decades and has accelerated during the last twenty. Examples abound: The championing of rights above responsibilities. Soft justice meted out to hard criminals while new confected ‘hate crimes’ criminalise a substantial proportion of the population merely for having an opinion. Being old-fashioned is now a sanctionable offence (whatever happened to our cultural sensitivities?).

Then there is control of the message, popularised by Goebbels and again by Blair and by now endemic. Certain views may not be aired; certain speakers must not be heard. Universities crumble before their Marxist student unions and allow the cancellation of events and the no-platforming of individuals who have committed no crime. Ears are clamped shut against views that are not approved. Social media platforms close the accounts of those with whom they disagree and the mainstream news media fail to report faithfully on events that don’t meet with their approval. (Even the Daily Mail, a formerly Brexit-supporting organ – has succumbed to the groupthink and today published an outright lie as its headline.)

And now, in the middle of the ungainly propaganda campaign to push through Theresa May’s capitulation to the European Union, failed former MP, now Baroness Warsi (how the establishment loves to reward unpopularity) is pushing a move to make ‘islamophobia’ a specific hate crime. As Douglas Murray points out in the Spectator, this entire enterprise is a crock. Far from being a crime, islamophobia ought to be the nation’s rallying cry against our annihilation as a culture.

Did they all misjudge the time, though? The referendum would never have been granted had David Cameron and his advisors imagined, for one second, that we would disobey. Has the regressive and oppressive instinct of the left to silence all dissent backfired? Maybe the reason they thought they had won was because we all knew that to murmur opposition was to invite opprobrium. Maybe the silent majority, so named because in earlier years they had no means to be heard, had chosen to be silent, but still remained the majority. The pollsters’ excuse for failure, the ‘shy Leavers’, held a dignified answer to the shriek of the empty vessels and the answer was ‘no more’.

This is why Brexit is about so much more than being a part of an unaccountable political power bloc, it is about the ability of the British to govern themselves and there is still much work to do. On the 9^th of December a pro-Brexit march is planned to advocate for a clean break from the EU. This is neither motivated by hatred nor some blind following of demagogues, it is the clear will of millions of ordinary, non-politically motivated human beings.

But look who's coming to the party. The activists of the organised left are being urged to counter-demonstrate. David Lammy, Owen Jones, Antifa, Tell Mama, UaF, the muslim council. Can anybody doubt that the intention is to foment violence and then allow the media to represent the peaceful hopes and aspirations of the actual majority as the work of far-right forces? Can anybody doubt that the establishment will quietly chuckle as their drones do as they are programmed?

Go ahead... make our day.

Is there still fight left? Have they miscalculated and is there still true British blood running through veins, pumped by hearts beating in time to Rule Britannia?. Please say that the effect of all the vicious invective has not been to win hearts and minds but to set hearts and minds against the ruinous policies of those who think themselves progressive. Our powder is still dry and now the adrenalin is flowing. It is time to get out on the streets and be silent no more.

Treachery on Tour

I once tried to make a living as a salesman. Sharp suit, company car and all the spiel... it was disastrous and cost me a great deal of dignity and self-esteem. I hated it so intensely that my weekends were spent dreading Monday. My problem? I just didn’t believe in what I was selling and knew that a large part of the price was because of the advertising and the fleet of gab-gifted salesmen needed to try and part businesses from hard-earned profits in return for products which, in all honesty, they could get much cheaper elsewhere.

So I really feel for the embarrassing parade of Maybots appearing in the media, backing the atrocious sell-out of a deal. Theresa’s Travesty as it may become known, or The Dog’s Brexit. Now, by all accounts the Prime Minister is to travel the country to try to get the electorate on board with her 'deal'. I can’t think of anything more likely to turn hearts and minds against Theresa May than Theresa May herself. If only she could channel Margaret Thatcher and embark on a tub-thumping, peasant-rousing, anti-EU tour to stir up as much antipathy to the whole project as she can.

But that’s not the plan, is it? It seems clear now that the direction of travel is to preach against no-deal (the actual leaving of the EU, which was voted for) and to frame the choice as her deal or another option. That other option either being remain, which could result in riots, or a second referendum which, whatever the outcome, could result in riots. It could have all been so much simpler had successive governments heeded the concerns of those who voted them into power. When Parliament no longer represents the people, what is the point of representative democracy?

The political classes are of one voice when it comes to their calling out of ‘the rise of the far right’, or when they are being slightly more generous, decrying the spectre of populism. But what is populism if not a cry for help? Voting to leave the EU was intended to remove an excuse, to deny our treacherous ‘leaders’ the option of blaming it on a supranational power. The next step must be to remove from office all those who appear to be unwilling to take responsibility. If you are voted in to represent your constituents concerns but you then hide behind party unity, then we must attack the party system.

Next election what say we refuse to vote for all sitting MPs and vote on a non-party basis for new candidates, based entirely on what they, not their party are selling. It will make little difference that we will end up with a ramshackle coalition of some kind because the Uncivil Service will maintain continuity anyway; Belgium managed without a government for the best part of two years recently and Italy spent decades with revolving door administrations and both are still here. But it might be a start. I say ‘might’...

For the last twenty years at least I've felt as if I were watching a dystopian post-apocalyptic movie about a society whose rulers genuinely lived on another planet, out of touch, out of reach, but with all the power. The extra-terrestrial, May, has brokered a deal which is even worse than many of her critics think because although no-deal means we start with a clean slate we begin from a position of total regulatory alignment for trade; accepting this deal binds our hands forever and makes all future trade dependent on politics, first and foremost.

If you can't define it, can't explain it and 

need to sell it, it's not worth saving.

Where is our Churchill? And don’t say Boris – his rebuttal of May’s deal was self-congratulatory, waffly and full of piffle – even Churchill would say it was overwrought. Right now, whatever you think of him, Tommy Robinson probably has more credibility than most MPs. We need to elect not just the ballot stuffers for discredited parties but genuine, patriotic, energetic agents for change. Let’s look beyond the sales pitch see what a whole new Parliament can achieve – it can hardly be worse than what we have now.

Bordering on Insanity

It must be hell, migrating. Crossing deserts, swimming channels, being exploited by people traffickers, being abused by locals, threatened by ad-hoc vigilante groups and then, finally, being subjected to internment while credentials are checked and stories investigated. Perhaps this is why the masses flooding through the EU’s porous borders are predominantly composed of fit young men; obviously, they are the vanguard with women and children bringing up the rear.... ‘obviously’.

Of course, those who have the drive and the wherewithal to undertake such arduous journeys are arguably better placed to make the most of opportunities in their new world than those who hesitate to face the ordeal. And yes, it is undeniable that many immigrants bring fresh ideas, energy and a zeal often unmatched by their host nations’ indigenous people. There is a long history, especially in the USA, of incomers embracing the native culture and becoming more American than Americans, more British than the British.

But that was then, when the voracious demands of labour-intensive industry needed a virtually unlimited supply of workers to expand their businesses and build new towns, new roads and railways and man the services, the factories and the fields. It was a time when new arrivals did not harbour among their number people who actively wished us harm. It was a time when those who did not fit in and become part of the solution quickly found themselves unwelcome and part of the problem.

And this is now, when every day we see footage of swarms of migrants, every one of them alien and unwelcome, overpowering border forces and thrusting ever onwards to their Holy Grail. Do they seek freedom from persecution? Are they looking forward to industrious toil to better their futures? No. They are seeking the pot of welfare gold at the end of their promised rainbows and failing that, there is a thriving criminal underground organised by their fellows who are already here.

With the exception of a minority of deluded one-world, happy-clappy, diversity worshippers – oh and our entire political class – nobody experiencing this deluge, this flood, this plague of wealth-devouring locusts can foresee anything but harm. Far from enriching our island experience they are dragging us into the ditch. Far from bringing enterprise and energy they are sapping our strength and weakening our will. And all the time the establishment is complicit, crying racist whenever voices are raised in question or opposition.

It is entirely consistent with the aims of the globalists, yet totally at odds with the welfare of civilised populations that the UK government proposes to sign up the UN Global Migration Compact. When, among others, the USA, Austria, Poland, Israel, Estonia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and Australia are rejecting it why is the UK, of all beleaguered places backing it? We have seen how NGO rescue ships in the Mediterranean have actively encouraged reckless crossings, why would we somehow believe that the open invitation offered by the useless UN would do anything to help?

Think of the children? Here come your replacements.

Promising to facilitate safe and orderly migration to the mutual benefit of all involved – host and migrants alike – this compact will achieve anything but. Successful, desirable societies have borders to maintain their safety and desirability. This misguided flower-power aspiration will ride roughshod over all that makes our world safe. Pretending otherwise is as wise as pretending Mrs May’s deal has delivered on Brexit. Reject globalism, reject mass migrations, reject the multicultural bullshit agenda and shore up those borders.