Councillor who called for disabled children to be "put down" is re-elected

Voters of Cornwall: why?

Colin Brewer, Independent councillor for Cornwall, hit the headlines earlier this year when he suggested disabled children were costing too much and should be “put down.”

Last week, he was re-elected.

That’s right. There’s a politician in this country who thinks the answer to cash-strapped local authorities is murdering the community’s weakest children and there are voters who heard this and thought “you know what, I’m going to re-elect that guy.”

Back when his remarks first went public, I could see the appeal of Brewer; a sort of inept faux Nazi who had the air of a man who didn’t know where he was. It took him a year and half after making the original claim to admit he’d done anything wrong. Even then, he couldn’t decide on the reason for his pro-child murder policy, putting it simultaneously down to having a bad day, being “hot under the collar” after a budget cuts meeting, and wanting to start a debate.

Perhaps the people of Wadebridge East, Cornwall decided they wanted to hear that debate. Something along the lines of lowering council tax versus killing some of their children. (Or perhaps that’s it. Brewer, I’m guessing, didn’t talk about killing their children. Their children are normal and considerably cheaper.)

Meanwhile, voters in Chichester decided not to re-elect John Cherry. The now ex-Conservative councillor had come under fire for responding to plans for a new academy in the area by warning that the pupils would be “97% black or Asian” and as such would want to “escape into the forest” in “a sexual volcano.” He was promptly kicked out by his Party and then by the people.

The voters of Cornwall might want to take notice. Democracy is great. It means anyone, no matter how vile, can become a candidate for election. It also means that when that candidate talks about killing disabled children as if they’re less than a stray dog on a slab, voters can use the ballot box to tell him to fuck off. Perhaps next time eh, Cornwall?

Ballot papers are counted. Photograph: Getty Images

Frances Ryan is a journalist and political researcher. She writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman, and others on disability, feminism, and most areas of equality you throw at her. She has a doctorate in inequality in education. Her website is here.

Getty
Show Hide image

The Brexit select committee walkout is an ominous sign of things to come

Leavers walked out of a meeting of Hilary Benn's "gloomy" committee yesterday. Their inability to accept criticism could have disastrous consequences

“Hilary Benn isn’t managing a select committee. He’s managing an ecosystem.” That was the stark verdict of one member of the Commons' Brexit committee on its fitness for purpose yesterday. If its meeting on the eve of Article 50 is anything to go by, then Benn’s fragile biome might already be damaged beyond repair.

Unhappy with the content of its “gloomy” provisional 155-page report into the government’s Brexit white paper, leavers on the committee walked out of its meeting yesterday. The committee is a necessarily unwieldy creation and it would probably be unreasonable to expect it to agree unanimously on anything: it has 21 members where others have 11, so as to adequately represent Leavers, Remainers and the nations.

Disagreements are one thing. Debate and scrutiny, after all, are why select committees exist. But the Brexiteers’ ceremonial exodus augurs terribly for the already grim-looking trajectory of the negotiations to come. “As I understand it, they don’t like analysing the evidence that they have,” another pro-Remain member of the committee told me.

Therein lies the fundamental weakness of the Brexiteers’ position: they cannot change the evidence. As was the case with the 70 MPs who wrote to Lord Hall last week to accuse the BBC of anti-Brexit bias, they assume a pernicious selectivity on the part of Remainers and their approach to the inconvenient facts at hand. None exists.

On the contrary, there is a sense of resignation among some Remainers on the Brexit committee that their reports will turn out to be pretty weak beer as a consequence of the accommodations made by Benn to their Eurosceptic colleagues. Some grumble that high-profile Brexiteers lack detailed understanding of the grittier issues at play – such as the Good Friday Agreement – and only value the committee insofar as it gives them the opportunity to grandstand to big audiences.

The Tory awkward squad’s inability to accept anything less than the studied neutrality that plagued the Brexit discourse in the run-up to the referendum – or, indeed, any critical analysis whatsoever – could yet make an already inauspicious scenario unsalvageable. If they cannot accept even a watered-down assessment of the risks ahead, then what happens when those risks are made real? Will they ever accept the possibility that it could be reality, and not the Remain heretics, doing Britain down? How bad will things have to get before saving face isn’t their primary imperative?

Yesterday's pantomime exit might have been, as one committee member told me, “hysterically funny”. What’s less amusing is that these are the only people the prime minister deigns to listen to.

Patrick Maguire writes about politics and is the 2016 winner of the Anthony Howard Award.