Lukey Stanger #COYS #COYS #COYS

I met Lindsay Graham several times. He mattered to the Foreign Office and the British Embassy as a wise-cracking, reliable friend, committed to maximising Western power in an hour that has lost its allure for the new generation in Congress. Both in opposition and in government, I had a chance to encounter some two dozen odd Senators and Congressmen, interested in foreign affairs. But really, regardless of Left or Right, I was meeting two generational cohorts: that of the Lindsay Graham the Boomer and that of the Millennial JD Vance. The foreign policy Boomers, that older, fading, generation, relished being the go between for countries like Britain, France, Israel, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia or whoever the ally of special concern was in their district, when it came to the White House or unlocking the Senate floor. Graham was a true majordomo of that role. He found personal excitement, real influence and a sense of moral grandeur in his campaigns to mould the world with America power. Allies mattered to him because he saw them as tools, not drains, enhancing American strength. In this he was quite unlike the Millennial generation, who like J.D. Vance, see allies as mostly freeloaders and the quest for primacy on every continent as a fools errand. Its practitioners undermining American security with their campaigns. And many of those allies, such as Israel or Ukraine, as now essentially suspect to a chunk of one side of the aisle or the other. Whilst friendly, the foreign policy Millennials in Congress take none of the relish, that Graham did, in acting like a Roman consul, pitching clients, supplicants and expeditions to the Emperor. What the passing of that generation means I found was a subject of some angst to most allied ambassadors from Europe and the Middle East. In the meetings I joined with Graham, he was focused on pushing sanctions on Russia through MAGA and finding a way forward for Israeli-Saudi normalisation. I was struck by the glint in his eyes of a man who truly lived for this kind of politics. Quite unlike most politicians you meet who, overburdened and overwhelmed — like the dog that caught the car — never give the impression of liking the top that much of that greasy pole. But what most struck me most was when it came to diplomacy, he had the kind of accumulated experience and contact book that only an imperial Senator could have, not a provincial European legislator. Texting Bibi and MBS and half the EU leaders. A reach way surpassing, on this continent, most of our heads of government. The truth is we simply don’t have that many figures like this in Britain anymore — perhaps Tony Blair comes closest — and they are not in Parliament.

Harvey, You pled guilty to paying a 17 year old boy for sex. When you were 39. This is “disgrace”. Given you claim to have “nothing to apologise for” I feel compelled to inform you:  *this conduct is still illegal today*. You went to your party’s client press to condemn Nigel - who was also grieving for Ann - for asking questions that are now totally vindicated.  All to score a cheap party political point. This is “depraved”.

Mr Yusuf, For the avoidance of doubt, I pleaded guilty in 1987 to an offence of gross indecency under laws that discriminated against homosexual men. The age of consent was then 21 for gay men & 16 for heterosexuals. Those discriminatory offences no longer exist. Also, the individual who was 17 was ‘wired for sound’ by Robert Maxwell’s paper. He said on the tape he was over 21. Unfortunately, there was a lacuna in the law in 1987 which provided heterosexuals with a defence. If heterosexuals believed those they had sexual relations with were of consensual age, & the jury believed this, then they could find the accused not guilty. No such defence pertained to homosexuals. If the younger person was under 21, the offence was committed. I did not realise this lacuna in the law existed until my lawyer, Sir David Napley, informed me. I then told him immediately I would plead guilty. Parliament has since recognised that these laws were unjust. Under the so-called “Alan Turing law”, people convicted of consensual homosexual offences under repealed legislation can have those convictions disregarded & pardoned as part of righting historic wrongs. Also, what I did was neither gross nor indecent. It was done in private and between consenting adults. I have never hidden any of this. What you are doing is attempting to weaponise a historic conviction under discriminatory laws to discredit me because you disagree with my views, & blind loyalty. That is your choice. My point remains unchanged: politicians should respect the police’s request not to speculate during a live murder investigation. Personal abuse is no answer to a principled argument. You are free to criticise me, & to answer a principled argument with personal abuse & character assassination - however unbecoming - but personal vilification is no substitute for civil debate. Ann Widdecombe believed in decency, free speech & the rule of law - which is why she stood by me and offered me practical, private & public support throughout my ordeals. I rather think she would have expected better.

Been 2 years of some woeful shouts from the man, but this one is right up there.

Ann widdecombe better go this week not only is she a little fascist beast but also an anti abortionist, what a lovely women