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

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496