Dear Sir,

I have been reading J. D. Clare’s History articles with interest; wondering whether he, as a former teacher, would keep to the facts and refrain from political rhetoric during his ‘lesson’.

He failed.

He indulged himself in cheap jibes at the Conservatives and, in a sin of omission, did not mention our involvement in National and International events.

This town’s constituency elected Tony Blair as its MP. Blair went on to lead ‘New Labour’ into government and the country into an ILLEGAL war! Blair handed over to Gordon Brown who wrecked the economy with the help of the (anti-Brexit) bankers. However, our greatest achievement as a town/constituency was to vote overwhelmingly for Brexit and to then elect Phil Wilson as our MP on a manifesto to, “respect your Brexit”. Unfortunately, we have been as badly served by Phil Wilson as we were by both Blair and Brown. He can no longer, properly, be described as “The Honourable MP for Sedgefield”. He has no respect for the views of his electorate and, increasingly, they are losing their respect for him.

Old Labour, New Labour and Labour/Momentum only differ in the extent to which they have increasingly failed to represent the views of the majority of the workers in this town and region.

Phil Wilson has reached a new low of representing a maximum of only 40% before he even opens his mouth after his election!

J.D. Clare attended a protest to defend Democracy. He attended the wrong one! The prorogation of Parliament is perfectly legal and democratic as demonstrated in Clive Taylor Scholl’s argument, and, “Just words in the Dictionary?” both published in last week’s Newton News.

However, Parliamentarians attempting to delay and thwart Brexit via. MPs taking control of the Order Paper from the elected Government, illegally, is an affront to democracy and an outrage. As the Leader of the House pointed out, the correct constitutional procedure is to gain the agreement of the Constitutional Committee, and the support of the Speaker, who is required by the Constitution to act IMPARTIALLY. John Bercow cannot be said to have acted ‘impartially’, therefore, the seizing of the Order Paper was unconstitutional, illegal and undemocratic. Does J.D. Clare you think that Bercow has ever acted impartially with regards to Brexit? I consider that he is guilty of “selective indignation” both in his History Article and in his choice of protests.

Yours sincerely,

Alastair P.G. Welsh