Lee Anderson: Defection or Defective?
British politics: Lee Anderson defects from the Conservative party to Reform UK after having the whip removed for 'wrongspeak.'
Lee Anderson’s defection from the Conservative party to Reform UK has been received with much excitement and interest. Reform has now bagged an MP’s scalp in its quest to threaten Conservative chances at the forthcoming General Election.
Lee Anderson makes much of his working-class Labour roots, frequently reminiscing about the unholy trinity of ‘Skinner, Scargill and Benn’ as figures of deep respect in his youth. Anderson’s story is a political ‘rags to riches’ tale, the working-class son of a miner whose latter-day Damascene moments of clarity led to him eventually ‘seeing the light’ of conservatism.
Lee Anderson spoke at last year’s National Conservatism conference. For his trouble, he was assigned the graveyard of graveyard slots. His fifteen-minute segment was in the final plenary session right before the conference’s final closing remarks. He did not seem to mind this and spoke with the zeal of the convert about the wonders of conservatism. He emphasised how untypical he was and how he hoped that as a result of his speech others would sign up to the Conservative party. How quickly things change.
His talk was entitled Restoring the Realignment which reflected upon the Red Wall shift to the Conservatives in 2019. Much was made of Anderson’s incongruous journey from that of a heavily unionised Ashfield mining town to the houses of parliament where he sat not only as member of parliament for his hometown but as deputy chairman of the Conservative party itself.
The United Kingdom was a ‘gift to the world’ he said, before listing such gifts as the railways, technology, culture, literature, language and most importantly, democracy, the mention of which saw him pointing in the direction of Westminster. “The mother of democracy is over there, whatever you think about the current state of affairs,” he declared.
Mr Anderson's recent press conference speech was very similar to the one he made at NatCon, 2023. It is likely that he has made many speeches of this kind in his career since 2019. However, there was a significant addition to the speech which has aroused some concern.
After beginning with the statement “I want my country back,” Mr Anderson made a point about one of the 'gifts' that Britain has purportedly given the world: 'medicine' which was then extended into a light eulogising about vaccines. As part of this, he made a claim (that cannot in reality be substantiated) that they had “saved millions of lives.”
Under normal circumstances, a comment such as this might be just one thing in the milieu of political grandstanding that one might, if one disagreed, set aside. However, given the events of the last four years (the anniversary of which is next week) the remarks carry a whole new set of connotations. Furthermore, Reform UK might have had its first sitting MP a full year ago yet chose to turn down that opportunity. I refer to Andrew Bridgen MP who was rejected by Richard Tice on the grounds that (and I quote) "...I think Andrew has frankly got it wrong in his approach to vaccines." This was an extraordinary state of affairs.
If Lee Anderson is accepted, in part, because of his pro stance on vaccines (to the extent that he mentions them in his defection speech) and Bridgen rejected due to his scientific and evidence-based approach to vaccines, what are we to assume about the Reform party's approach to health, human sovereignty and right to informed choice and consent to medical procedures? Moreover, this is especially poignant given the impending threat posed to democracy from the Gates funded WHO attempt to impose a one-world authoritarian approach to so-called pandemic preparedness. (The denials of which as presented by the WHO have been roundly rebutted by former WHO medical officer and scientist David Bell). Does Reform receive any funding from pharmaceutical companies? It is a question worth asking in this context.
The point is, Lee Anderson did not need to include any comment about vaccines in his speech. That speech would have worked perfectly well without those remarks. So why did he choose to make them?
There is now a growing unease about Reform’s approach. Will they see fit at some future point to impose unwanted medical procedures onto the public? Might their endorsement of vaccines mean a return to the political tactic of public vilification and humiliation of those that choose a different path? We need some clarity on this.
Lee Anderson extols the virtues of democracy and stresses Britain’s part in defeating fascism in two world wars. He spoke about “giving away our country” to a minority of people who “literally hate our way of life.” There are those that might stress the need to prevent our country becoming dissolved into a one world, authoritarian entity where democracy no longer counts, where we are ruled over by another set of people, the ‘Davos set’ who also “hate our way of life.”
Thank you for reading! Feel free to comment and share.
I do not charge for subscriptions, however if you find my writing interesting and worthwhile, I would be glad to receive one-off donations through the Buy me a Coffee scheme. Do subscribe if you haven’t already, subscribing alone supports my work.
Although Mr Tice may want us to, we should also never forget the stance he and his deputy (a doctor no less) took on the catastrophic decision to sack care home staff who stood against mandatory vaccination in their industry.
Richard Tice seems to me to be a mealy mouthed placeman. Watch Katie Hopkins on YouTube for an interesting insight into the Reform Party.