An open letter to Grant Shapps: will you suspend Traditional Britain from the Conservative Party?

Just as Iain Duncan Smith suspended links with the Monday Club in 2001, so David Cameron must now take action against the far-right group.

Dear Grant,
It is with some alarm that those of us in the centre ground of British politics learnt this week of the existence of the Tory fringe group Traditional Britain. Today's Independent reports that the group’s vice chairman, Mr Gregory Lauder-Frost, campaigns for "traditional" values in the Conservative Party. You might be aware that he has caused deep offence with his recent comments about Doreen Lawrence: "we do not feel there is any merit in raising such a person to the peerage. She’s a complete nobody. She has been raised there for politically correct purposes. She’s just a campaigner about her son’s murder."
It is also reported that Mr Lauder-Frost believes that anyone living in Britain not of "European stock" should be offered "assisted voluntary repatriation" to their "natural homeland." I know you will find these views as offensive as I do. I am, however, shocked that such views are still alive in what I hoped was a modernised Conservative Party.
Secondly, I am sure you will agree that Traditional Britain, as a group, holds deeply offensive views. Its Facebook page calls for minorities to return to their "natural homeland" and refers to respected ethnic minority British MPs from the Labour Party and the Conservative Party as "Nigerian" and "foreign".
You will recall that the Monday Club held similarly offensive views and that in October 2001, Iain Duncan Smith was forced to finally suspend it from the Conservative Party. Do you agree that now is the time for David Cameron to show some leadership and suspend any links between the Conservative Party and Traditional Britain? Will you go further and make it absolutely clear that membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party is incompatible with membership of Traditional Britain? I know this will be difficult for you. Under your leadership of Conservative Campaign Headquarters, alarms bell apparently failed to ring when one of your backbenchers made enquiries about this group. As you know, that backbench MP subsequently spoke at a Traditional Britain dinner.
All of us are also aware of the plummeting Tory membership and I appreciate that you won’t want to lose yet more members on your watch.
However, I genuinely hope you will agree with me that these outdated and offensive views should have no place in a modern, mainstream British political party.
I look forward to your response.
Best wishes,
Jon Ashworth
Conservative chairman Grant Shapps speaks at last year's Conservative conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jon Ashworth is Labour MP for Leicester South. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.