A dramatic warning we can’t ignore

THE most crucial part of any Election campaign takes place long before the starting gun is fired, when the government proves its worth in action.

But the actual battle can and does have a significant effect, even so. A gain or loss of a few percentage points can make a great difference, especially in a system such as ours. As the contest accelerates into its final, frantic week, there is still much to play for.

That is why Theresa May is justified in raising the question of the Scottish National Party in such stark terms. There is a genuine problem of legitimacy here.

How can a party that openly seeks to break up the country be given the power to direct the government of that country? Our constitution is flexible, but it is not a suicide pact.

Yet the arithmetic of the polls points clearly towards this danger. Patriotic Unionist voters disenchanted with the Tories and toying with Ukip really are risking a Labour-SNP collaboration, which would allow Leftist separatists who want no part of the UK to decide what happens in England and Wales.

Permanent damage to Parliament and to our democracy might well result from a government so completely divided against itself. It is still not – quite – too late to avoid this danger. But it very nearly is. All those concerned for the integrity of our Kingdom should consider very carefully what the effect of their individual vote might be.

Let’s hear Janner facts

NOW that the Crown Prosecution Service has admitted that Lord Janner could have been charged with serious sexual offences when he was fit to plead, calls for him to face a special hearing of the case against him in open court are, rightly, increasing.

Peter Wanless, the head of the NSPCC, has added his powerful voice to the clamour for the allegations to be considered at a ‘trial of facts’ in which his accusers would be heard, though he would not need to take part, or face the risk of conviction.

As Mr Wanless argues, such a hearing (designed for such awkward cases) would have given the alleged victims of the Labour peer the chance to give evidence and to have that evidence considered by an impartial jury. He believes that failure to hold such a tribunal will discourage other alleged victims from coming forward in future.

It is a powerful argument. It may or may not be too late for the Director of Public Prosecutions to take this route in the Janner case. But it must certainly do so in any future controversies of this kind.

A victory to celebrate

GUESTS at the bicentenary commemoration of the Battle of Waterloo have been advised they must avoid ‘triumphalism’. What is wrong with us that we behave in this apologetic way about our illustrious past?

Waterloo was without doubt a triumph. It saved our continent – France included – from an aggressive militarist despotism. It began the longest period of peace in prosperity in the history of modern Europe.

Our French neighbours unblushingly celebrate their 1789 revolution each July – an event many still regard as controversial, to put it mildly. We are surely entitled to a certain amount of triumph over an indisputably benevolent victory, once every hundred years or so.