Thursday 29 December 2016

VOTER FRAUD : TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

We seem to be beset by lawlessness of a type which did not exist in the past, and the government's response is to invent evermore laws that restrict the freedoms of us all rather than to address the problems head on.

A few days ago, we were told that the supposed problem of 'voter fraud' is to be dealt with by requiring all voters to provide identification at their polling stations; it's suggested that we may be required to show passports, driving licences or utility bills before being permitted to cast our votes. All of this is because a handful of voters, predominantly, if not wholly, from non-British cultural backgrounds, have been found to have engaged in some dubious ballot box dealings. Rather than deal with the overtly cultural issues involved, our government plans to use the 'problem' as a way to increase its control over all of us. This is wrong.

I always take along the polling card which is hand delivered to my house; if this is no longer sufficient evidence of my identity I, for one, won't bother voting as I have no intention of being railroaded by a succession of inept governments which refuse to address the real problems in our society.

Shockingly, this matter is but another in a series of such cultural clashes which we face. We have forced marriage among some immigrant populations and slavery amongst others; we have abduction, imprisonment and gang rape carried out by still others. Parts of some of our once-great cities are now unrecognizable and are virtual 'no-go' areas for their former indigenous populations. In some places we have 'community leaders' who act almost independently of the official forces of law and order, imposing their own codes on the people.

Our governments have done nothing about any of this, all in the name of 'multiculturalism', equality, diversity and other such nebulous terms. Having allowed millions of immigrants to come to our country, they have done nothing to encourage, even demand, integration into our culture but have, instead, allowed the growth of what amount to separate communities with their own ways, customs and laws. This is madness.

There can be no doubt that the lack of leadership from our government, the lack of enforcing a true national identity and national laws, and the growth of separate sub-cultures within our society is destructive. It will lead to terrible times ahead.

Monday 26 December 2016

GEORGE MICHAEL : WHO ?

Once again the BBC shows itself to be obsessed with its own industry. Today's news broadcasts have been utterly dominated by stories about the newly deceased pop singer, George Michael, to an extent which would suggest that he was, at the very least, some middling member of the Royal Family. How ridiculous.

Michael was, in actuality, a rather pathetic figure who enjoyed a brief period of fame in the 1980s and lived on the memory ever after. The paucity of song clips played on the radio today demonstrates rather well that his output after the breakup of the duo 'Wham !' was of little note. His fans will obviously not agree but the fact is that he was a very minor figure in the world of real music.

He was a covert frequenter of dubious places in the same 1980s but was later caught "engaging in a lewd act" in a public lavatory in Beverley Hills; a few years later he was accused of engaging in public sexual acts on Hampstead Heath in London, something which he apparently thought was perfectly reasonable to do. Michael was a drug user and addict who had various encounters with the law; he was arrested at least twice for "driving while unfit through drink or drugs", and also received cautions for possession of both Class C and Class A drugs.

His lifestyle clearly led to health problems. In 2011 he suffered what was labelled as a viral infection which caused pneumonia and nearly killed him; given that Michael was homosexual and that one of his earlier partners had died of AIDS, the nature of the 'viral infection' could be questioned. In 2013, Michael somehow managed to fall out of a moving car of which he was, apparently, the only occupant; he suffered head injuries and was airlifted to hospital.

How on earth does the death of such a person add up to being the single most important news item of the day on our national broadcaster ? Worse still, the 1 o'clock news gave over most of the first 20 minutes or more of its broadcast to this item. On a day when severe storms struck parts of Scotland and the Northern Isles, 92 people died when a Russian aircraft crashed into the Black Sea, the row over Israel's disputed 'West Bank settlements' continued and a massive hemi-centennial storm struck central Australia, was the death of a pop singer really the most important news ?

There can be no better demonstration of the way in which news priorities have become skewed in recent years. The media and its inhabitants, regardless of how unsavoury they may be, is all; all else is nothing.

Sunday 25 December 2016

ISRAEL : A LAW UNTO ITSELF.

The reaction of the Israeli government to being censured by a vote at the United Nations demonstrates just how toothless and useless that organisation is.

For many years, the Israelis have been encroaching further and further into the so-called 'occupied territories' by building increasing numbers of settlements on what is, historically and legally, Palestinian land. Numerous attempts have been made to point out the error of their ways to the Israelis but the United States has always vetoed any such actions. Suddenly, the US decided to change its stance and, hence, a vote of censure at the UN was not blocked. The Israelis are not exactly happy about being told that they should desist from their blatantly illegal actions; it would be more accurate to say that they are apoplectic with rage.

Fanatical Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel will 're-assess its ties with the United Nations', a clear indication that he has no intention of taking the slightest notice of the vote. In fact, the Israeli government never has taken the slightest notice of world opinion on any of its actions and is a de-facto 'law unto itself'. Of course, this leniency, or fear, on the part of the rest of the world goes back to the Second World War and the atrocities committed then by Germany; no one is allowed to forget this or be overtly critical of Israel for fear of being anti-Semitic and stirring up old memories and thoughts. What balderdash.

What the Israeli government does has no connection whatsoever with the Jewish religion and criticising them is not anything to do with anti-Semitism. In truth, the Israeli government is one of the most unpleasant in the world. They operate a policy of apartheid, treating their Palestinian citizens with disdain, disrespect and hatred; this has nothing to do with Judaism but is a straightforward political choice, justified by claims of self-protection which simply don't bear scrutiny.

To me, the whole notion of a state founded on a religious basis is ludicrous but the modern day actions of the Israeli government have nothing to do with any true religion, any more than is the case with the governments of numerous Muslim countries. Israel, as well as various Muslim countries and even a few Christian ones, behaves as if it has a, literally, God-given right to do whatever it likes. These countries are backward, primitive and inward-looking in their approach to the world, though access to modern technology can make them extremely dangerous. We all know about the terrorism being perpetrated by so-called Muslim extremists, but they don't have the atomic bomb. Israel does and their extremists are, therefore, every bit as dangerous, in fact, much more so. Netanyahu, as one of the more fanatical and extremist rulers of that country in recent times, terrifies me at least as much as the terrorists on our streets.

Now that the United nations has finally passed a vote critical of Israel it needs to follow it up. If they don't it could be catastrophic for the whole world.

Saturday 24 December 2016

AUSTERITY IS A MYTH ; REALITY IS DIFFERENT.

I read an article recently which poured scorn on the notion that people in the UK today are having a hard time. After giving the matter a few moments thought, I can only agree that the so-called 'austerity' which we have endured is a myth and that, in reality, the vast majority of people are much better off than they have ever been.

Having said that, many will not agree. They will point to tiny, or non-existent, wage rises in recent years, ridiculous house prices, student fees and many other things to demonstrate how they're being hard done by. They will say that their future prospects are miserable, with the likelihood of lower pensions than their parents while also having to work to a greater age. To some extent, they have a point.

However, what they don't consider is the overall standard of living which they enjoy when compared with earlier generations. They seem to be oblivious to the need to make mature choices about their futures, in particular, with regard to the ways in which they manage their money. While previous generations had a tendency to prioritise spending on housing followed by essentials, today's generation seems to prioritise spending on leisure, pleasure and egotism. For many, possession of the latest technological gadgets, the latest 'designer' clothes, assorted body decoration and holidays in exotic places have taken precedence over buying a home paying everyday bills and saving for the future. They whinge about having to pay fees to go to university while doing nothing to help themselves and not even understanding the rules around the loan system.

They have money for smoking, drinking and all sorts of personal enjoyment, yet can't pay their everyday bills. Having spent their money on frippery, they then complain that they are poor and can't afford the deposit for a house or to save for the future. Basically, they seem to think that the world owes them a living while they appear to accept little or no responsibility for themselves. They are horribly decadent and their overall approach to life is not that far removed from earlier societies which had reached a peak and then suffered catastrophic collapse. They expect something for nothing, a return with no effort and that the state must support them in whatever they choose to do. They believe themselves to be 'deserving' and invulnerable.

Well, life ain't like that. The modern generation are infinitely better off than any generation that went before. They have access to things and riches that were unimaginable 100 years ago, even 50 years ago; if they choose to squander those riches that's their funeral. In this world, it's effort and forward planning that are rewarded and if they can't understand that, tough. Rather than whining about the injustice of their situation they need to 'wake up and smell the coffee'; they need to pull their collective fingers out, get up off their bone-idle arses and start seeing the world as it really is.

What price anything like that will happen, at least in the near future ? In the longer term, it's inevitable because, otherwise, they'll all be in cardboard boxes under bridges all over the country.

Tuesday 20 December 2016

CHRISTINE LAGARDE : POLITICAL CRIMINAL.


Yesterday, a French court found that the former Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, had been negligent with regard to a small matter of €404m (£340m) paid to a French businessman, Bernard Tapie, in 2008. Despite the decision, the court also decided that this negligence warranted no penalty and Ms Lagarde will have no criminal record.

Today, the Board of the International Monetary Fund, of which Ms Lagarde is now Managing Director, considered the outcome of the case but also decided that it had no bearing on her position with them and expressed its continuing confidence in her.

How on earth can it be that someone can be so negligent and yet escape both punishment and censure ? How can it be that someone who has been found guilty of such gross financial negligence can retain the confidence of an organisation which manages not millions but many hundreds of billions of pounds, dollars, euros and the rest ?

This is a classic case of the political world being very different from that inhabited by the rest of us. A cashier negligent over £400 would probably lose their job; a financial accountant negligent over £4,000 could well be suspended from their Institute; a finance director negligent over £40,000 might well go to prison. However, a Finance Minister and international financier, negligent over €400m receives no punishment and retains her position as head of one of the world's most important financial institutions.

How is this right ?

LIONEL BLUE : R.I.P.

Only a few days ago I wondered if we'd ever hear Lionel Blue on the radio again. Yesterday, I was saddened to hear of his death, aged 86.

Rabbi Lionel Blue was a regular contributor to Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' for many years and it was always worth listening to his brief broadcasts. His homespun philosophy, frequent references to his childhood and grandmother, and blatant lack of religiosity meant that his message was always delivered with humour rather than with the unctuous earnestness of too many of his fellow broadcasters.

I do not share Rabbi Blue's beliefs, indeed, I hold with no religion, but he was, without doubt, someone worth listening to. Very often, his thoughts struck chords that resonated with the everyday lives of many people and his absence from the airwaves in recent years has left a void.

Lionel Blue will be missed.






Thursday 15 December 2016

POST-BREXIT DEAL TO TAKE 10 YEARS ! ?

Anti-Brexit forces continue to try to spread stories of alarm and despondency in their efforts to thwart the result of last June's referendum.

Today's news carries a story to the effect that the UK ambassador to the European Union, Sir Ivan Rogers, has 'warned' the government that it may take many years for a 'post-Brexit' trade agreement to be finalised; he's even suggested that a deal may never be reached. Here we go again.

Rogers is understood to be a fairly strong Europhile and supporter of the Union, and his words should obviously be heard in that light. He is reportedly expressing a view garnered from meetings with various EU officials which is also highly dubious; these very same EU officials have a vested interest in setting down a strong negotiating position in advance of the talks which will begin once Article 50 has been triggered, so they are hardly likely to be saying that everything will be simple.

The truth is straightforward. No more than 2 years after the triggering of Article 50, the UK will leave the European Union. If, at that time, no trade agreement has been reached World Trade Organisation rules and tariffs will apply; the prices of German, French, Italian and Swedish cars offered for sale in the UK will go up by 10%, as will the prices of wines, cheeses, clothes and much more that the UK imports from members of the Union. At the same time, the prices of UK goods and services sold in the EU will rise in similar fashion.

As the UK buys much more from the EU than it sells to it, the EU will bear an additional net cost of billions of Euros. EU manufacturers will see their sales and profits fall as UK citizens buy their cars from the US, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and elsewhere. European wine growers and others will see mountains of unsold goods piling up while UK consumers switch their allegiance to tariff-free imports from the US, Australia, New Zealand, China, India and so on.

What nonsense. Failing to reach a sensible agreement is in no one's interests and the ambassador's reported remarks are nothing other than scaremongering. Of course, the negotiations may be complex and may have their difficult moments but, in the end, a deal will be done and in a reasonable time, because it must be done. The EU also has far too many other problems to allow Brexit to become an everlasting issue.

Quite simply, there is no choice.

Tuesday 6 December 2016

BREXIT TIME LIMIT SET ?

As the opponents of 'Brexit' line up, one Michel Barnier has put in his pennyworth today.

Barnier has been appointed to lead the UK's exit negotiations for the EU. Various reports have suggested that he's a bit of a 'tough nut' and will not make things easy for the UK. Today, he's had a go at putting some flesh on the bones of his strategy and, on the face of things, it doesn't make happy reading. The time available for negotiation will be short, a mere 18 months, he says, and 'cherry picking' won't be allowed. It's also been said that there will be no discussions about arrangements AFTER the UK leaves until after the end of the 'leave' negotiations.

Barnier reckons that the 2 year timeframe set out in Article 50 of the EU's constitution includes the time needed for any agreement to be ratified by the various organs of the Union as well as by the government of the UK; hence, he says, the UK will only have 18 months to agree a deal. What he seems to be forgetting is that there will be 2 parties to the negotiations and it won't only be the UK which has a limited time to reach agreement, it will be the EU too. Barnier's remarks seem to suggest that he sees the process as coming down to the EU making an offer which the UK will be obliged to accept due to lack of time - more fool him. The truth has to be that, if his timescale is to be met, both sides may have to compromise, but neither more so than the other.

The comments about 'cherry picking' are just window dressing. Thus far, the only people who have actually suggested that this is a real issue are representatives of the EU and some of those who continue to fight against 'Brexit', using this red herring as a frightener.

The final matter, that of what will happen after the UK leaves the Union, will only be an issue if intransigence triumphs. If EU leaders decide to be particularly difficult, this could become an issue, with nasty barriers suddenly erected in the way of trade and economic co-operation, migration, security, research and development and so on. While this could happen, only a bunch of idiots would actually let it, and the likelihood has to be that there will be agreements in place covering most areas at the time of the final divorce. The alternative would be for a catastrophic mess affecting major European industries producing cars, wine, cheese, clothes, shoes, companies involved in tourism and finance, institutions carrying out research and development and much, mush more. Quite simply, the consequences of being stupid are far too serious for anyone to be stupid, whatever bombastic rhetoric they may spout for public consumption..

Barnier has made a point that the EU is fully prepared for the forthcoming negotiations, implying that the UK is not. In truth, neither side is really ready as neither side expected the situation to arise. It is new ground and both sides are equally at sea. They have no choice but to be sensible and reasonable and making noises about rigid time limits does not help.

POPULISM : THE NEW DIRTY WORD.

These days, when the voters of several countries appear to have turned their backs on the 'liberal elites' who have run things for many years, we are told that this is 'Populism'. This seems to be a highly condescending way of acknowledging that the people have spoken, while also making it clear that their view is wrong.

The members of the 'liberal elite' hate the very notion of the common people being listened to at all, other than in largely meaningless elections; elections of themselves are fine, but when the only serious candidates are all from the same basic stock, they become pointless, simply a means to continue in the same old, time-worn fashion.

In the UK, the people voted to leave the European Union but there are those who really don't want to listen; they are doing whatever they can to prevent the 'will of the people' from being enacted. The political party most responsible for the vote to leave, UKIP, is branded 'populist'.

In the USA, Donald Trump, a supposed right wing 'populist', defeated the establishment's choice, Hilary Clinton, and will be his country's next President. The establishment is united in its condemnation of almost everything which President-elect Trump says or does.

Now, in Italy, Prime Minister Renzi has lost a referendum vote on changes to his nation's constitution; the outcome has been branded as a victory for 'populist' ideas. In Austria, the defeat of a right wing candidate in that country's Presidential election has been deemed a vote against 'populism'.

The establishment, composed mostly of like-minded people of a mildly socialist inclination, brands anything vaguely right wing as being 'populist' in an attempt to make it seem uninformed, uneducated and wrong. Thankfully, it seems that at least some of the people have finally decided that enough is enough. Let's hope that a few more follow suit.

Sunday 4 December 2016

BREXIT : WILL IT EVER HAPPEN ?

Despite the result of the referendum last June, I begin to think that the UK will never actually leave the European Union. In traditional anti-democratic style, there will eventually be a second referendum aimed at achieving the 'right result'.

Those who are hell-bent against the UK leaving are using every possible tactic in order to try to prevent it. In the first place, they have invented the terms 'Hard Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit', neither of which has any greater meaning than the straightforward 'Brexit', in order to give them a basis for their arguments. They are revisiting the arguments put forward before the referendum, specifically those which continually tried to scare voters by stories of the horrors to come; before the referendum, it was the horrors to come if people dared to vote to leave, now it is the horrors to come if we dare to leave the single market.

We are told, repeatedly, that those who voted to leave didn't understand the full effect as the 'Brexit' campaign never set out a true manifesto. Indeed, on this morning's 'Sunday Politics' programme, Nick Clegg attempted to make this point even though there was ample evidence presented to show that both campaigns had set out, very clearly, the implications of a 'Leave' vote. Clegg even tried to play down his own vehement and absolute comments about the referendum being a once in a generation opportunity and that a vote to leave would be absolute. Now, of course, he's actively campaigning for 'Remain' again, with demands that the UK must stay in the 'single market', accept free migration, remain subject to the European Court and so on; he's even saying that he may well vote against the triggering of the infamous 'Article 50', and that a referendum on the terms of leaving would not be a second referendum, but the first on that basis. His logic is so twisted, his language so disingenuous and his general attitude so undemocratic that the very sight of him makes me want to throw bricks at my television. This is a man who is so determined to maintain all of his 'gravy train' options that he will do anything at all in their pursuit; he was, of course, a member of the European Parliament for a few years and is now most reluctant to bite the hand that previously fed him.

Clegg aside, those who want our country's independence back face a massive task. Our own parliament has a majority against 'Brexit', the House of Lords in particular. The courts are involved and may well throw a spanner in the works; they could even refer the final decision on the triggering of 'Article 50' to the European Court, which really would be a smack in the eye for those who voted to leave. A General Election may be the only way for Theresa May to proceed and, even then, she could still be stymied.

Whoever thought that democracy had anything to do with the will of the people better think again.

Sunday 27 November 2016

THERESA MAY : A SOCIALIST FRAUD ?

Successive governments have made much of the need to encourage business development as an aid to greater economic prosperity. They have then set about making the business environment increasingly restrictive.

Corporate business is enmeshed in rules and regulations. Of course some of this may be necessary to prevent the development of cartels, dangerous practices and exploitation, but much of it is pure social engineering. Sadly, it seems that Mrs May's theoretically Conservative government is no different to those which have preceded it and is hell-bent on continuing down the same socialist pathway.

There is recurrent talk of requiring companies to have worker representation on their Boards and they are being threatened with having to publicise details of the so-called 'pay gap' between their chief officers and the average pay of their workers. All of this comes on top of the volumes of regulations already in place and which place a huge and restrictive burden on the very 'engines of progress' on which the government is so reliant.

Companies are owned by their shareholders and there is no place for governments to interfere in their management other than in general ways and for the public good at a high-level. Rules and regulations covering supposed equality, pay, working hours, and management style and approach really are no business of government; any government which does introduce excessive regulations in these areas is inherently socialist in nature and to pretend that they are anything else is to perpetrate a fraud on the electorate.

Our public services, the part of our economy most beset by this government control, is crumbling under the weight of regulation and the need to report on every aspect of their activities. Our corporate business sector is already far less efficient and productive that many of its principal competitors; continuing along this road of ever-increasing regulation will see it continue to decline. Socialism does not work; it never has and never will. Why can't a 'Conservative' government understand this ?

Wednesday 23 November 2016

AUTUMN STATEMENT : MORE OF THE SAME.

Today's 'Autumn Statement' and its accompaniments is a prime example of everything that's wrong in the governmental arrangements of our nation.

New Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, made a reasonable job of delivering a difficult statement though it will no doubt eventually be divined that his announcements on spending were mostly, if not entirely, repeats of earlier announcements. Small increases in minimum wages, a slight amendment to benefit withdrawal rates and the freezing of petrol duty will probably be more than cancelled out by the increase in insurance premium tax and the rental increases that will inevitably result from his proposal to ban letting agents from charging fees to tenants. All-in-all, it was the same old mix of playing with numbers and tinkering at the edges.

What followed was almost farcical. Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell made a rambling and largely incoherent political statement that had little to do with the Chancellor's original. On television, this was followed by interviews with an assortment of figures who expressed varying degrees of satisfaction, understanding, dissatisfaction or outright condemnation. The one thing that was clear was that most of those interviewed were only interested in their own parochial views of the world, the politicians involved being the worst offenders by far.

Our elected representatives do nothing other than promote their own pet projects and political preferences; they do nothing to try to do the best for our country, only the best for themselves. They trot out the same tired old platitudes, make the same protestations and put on the same appearances of outrage and consternation. MPs of all parties do it and none ever shows the slightest sign of living in the same world as the rest of us.

The one thing that's certain after today is that the vast majority of us will be poorer in the years ahead. It's 'deja vu' all over again.

Wednesday 9 November 2016

TRUMP - MAY : A PARALLEL FOR REAGAN - THATCHER ?


With the election of Donald trump as the next President of the United States, we have a most timely and unexpected parallel.

Back in 1979, Conservative Margaret Thatcher became the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and, a few months later, the voters of the United States elected the former film star, Republican Ronald Reagan, to be its next President. The following years saw the forging of a stronger-than-ever relationship between both the countries and their leaders, as well as huge changes in both economies.

Roll forward 37 years. A few months ago, Conservative Theresa May most unexpectedly became the second female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and, today, Republican Donald Trump, a businessman but also a television star and personality, has been elected as the next President of the United States. Can we now look forward to the type of UK-USA relationship that existed in the Thatcher-Reagan era ?

We already know that Trump is not as keen on the European Union as his predecessor or opponent, but has made encouraging noises about a future trading relationship with the UK, in stark contrast to others. Several European politicians have chosen to greet Trump's election with highly guarded and even hostile remarks, while Theresa May has been much more circumspect and done nothing other than congratulate him and say that she looks forward to meeting him. Good for her,

The London stock market has been mildly positive so far and this must be a good sign. What price a new and extra-special relationship between the UK and USA, coupled with the breakup of the European Union ? Add in the prospect of elections in France and Germany next year and  could we actually be in for a period of dramatic political and economic change ?

TRUMP - AMERICA'S FARAGE !

Well Done America !

Following the unexpected result of the United Kingdom's referendum on European Union membership, the people of the United States of America have delivered another resounding kick to the backside of the smug, self-satisfied, liberal political elite. Few really expected Donald Trump to win the presidential election and certainly not the pollsters who had Hillary Clinton a few percentage points ahead; once again, the pollsters got it wrong.

The Presidential campaigns have been pretty nasty, sometimes vicious. Neither of the principal candidates has demonstrated the qualities that might be expected of great political figures and neither has endeared themselves to the electorate; many people undoubtedly voted while holding their noses. Nonetheless, Trump it is and Trump it will be until at least January 2021. The reign of the Clintons is over.

Asian stock markets have reacted badly and the Mexican currency has plummeted. Some political leaders, notably Labour's leader in Scotland Kezia Dugdale, have already made damning statements which will do nothing to help relationships. At the same time, Theresa May, who has most definitely kept her mouth shut and her powder dry, may well find herself in a stronger position than others; while President Obama had followed his unwelcome remarks about 'Brexit' with even more unwelcome comments about Britain being at the back of the queue for trade negotiations, President-elect Trump has made it clear that he sees an independent United Kingdom as being a major partner and at the front of any such queue.

The UK's stock market has fallen slightly but nothing like as much as many others, reflecting the improved prospects for the UK with Donald Trump in the White House. While established political figures and economists used to the increasing stagnation of the western world have been horrified, the people have made their choice and made it abundantly clear that they no longer have any faith in these liberal establishment figures. In both the US and UK, the ordinary people have delivered the clear message that it's time for a change and Donald Trump has proved to be the Nigel Farage of the United States.

The remaining question is whether this new order will, or can, be sustained.

Friday 4 November 2016

ARTICLE 50 : WHAT NEXT ?

On 23rd June the British electorate voted to leave the European Union. This vote was despite the avalanche of frightening stories that came from politicians, bankers, businessmen and others, all telling us that a vote to leave would result in immediate and catastrophic economic collapse.

Admittedly there were claims from some of those who wanted to leave that were also rather dubious, but they, at least, had tales of hope and forecasts of a brighter future. They were positive about the prospects for the United Kingdom freed from the stifling bureaucracy of the European Union, while those who wanted us to stay in could only try to frighten us with claims of the horrors that would be unleashed should we dare to leave.

Leaving the European Union begins with the 'triggering' of Article 50, part of the Union's constitution which sets out how a member country can leave. Following the triggering, the Article allows for 2 years of detailed negotiation before final separation can be achieved and this period can even be extended if all parties agree. To my mind, the vote of the British people on 23rd June was a clear statement to Government that Article 50 should be triggered; after all, Government and Parliament are there to do the Will of the People, are they not ?

Not, it now seems. The likes of Ken Clarke see themselves as somehow better than the rest of us and much prefer to dictate rather than represent.

Yesterday's High Court ruling has given fresh wind to the sails of those who want us to remain in the Union, giving MPs and Peers the chance to refuse to allow the triggering of Article 50. Some such as Ken Clarke and Owen Smith, have said that they will vote against triggering the Article, come what may. Others, such as Nick Clegg, have said that they will only agree to its triggering if there are certain highly restrictive provisos written into the Government's negotiating stance, in effect, making any meaningful negotiation impossible. Quite simply, these MPs, supposedly representatives of the people, propose to reject the clear view of the people as expressed on 23rd June, in favour of their own. It appears that many in the unelected House of Lords are of a similar mind.

Amid all of this, Theresa May has apparently told the EU's leaders that her timetable for triggering Article 50 remains unchanged, something which both France and Germany are rather keen on. Both have elections next year and neither wants the water to be muddied by continuing uncertainty over 'Brexit'. Nonetheless, the reality has to be that, unless the Supreme Court overrules the High Court when it considers the matter in December, the likelihood is that we are going to have to endure weeks, and even months or years, of renewed campaigning over this issue.

The Government may be able to push a brief measure through Parliament fairly quickly, though that is far from certain; something more comprehensive is unlikely to be viewed favourably unless it has all manner of provisos included, such as a guarantee that we will remain within the Free Market and that freedom of movement will be largely unchanged. If they have to consider resorting to primary legislation, that could take years and effectively stop us from ever leaving.

Given this mess, Theresa May could well find herself having to attempt to call a General Election, though even this could be a messy affair. Because of the 'Fixed Term Parliament' Act, she would need to gain a large majority of the House of Commons or lose a vote of confidence in order to be able to ask for a dissolution. Many 'Remainers' may baulk at either possibility and many Labour Members may be terrified of what an early election might do to their representation in the House. In other words, Mrs May may be unable to get either a sufficient majority or to lose a confidence vote due to the simple cussedness of some MPs. What would happen then is anyone's guess.

We are undoubtedly in for a turbulent time in the next few months. Had the vote been in favour of 'Remain' we would have had none of this, but the 'Remoaners' have far too many vested interests of their own to ever give up and listen to the 'little people'. They are the establishment which has done so much to destroy our society and economy over decades and, as the 'establishment' they control much of the power in the land. It's time for the little people to rise up and give them a bloody nose.

Thursday 3 November 2016

BREXIT : WILL IT EVER HAPPEN ?

The decision of the High Court that Parliament must have a vote before the Government can invoke Article 50 of the European Union constitution has shown only too clearly that those who want the UK to stay in this egregious organisation will not go away.

The people of this country voted to leave the Union and yet the Court has now determined that this vote is not binding. It has, instead, effectively said that the Government will have to seek Parliamentary approval, possibly by a new Act of Parliament, in order to fulfil the expressed Will of the people.

The Government intends appealing the decision though it seems that success is unlikely. Clearly, any Parliamentary vote will be highly problematic with numerous MPs, such as Ken Clarke, being only too keen to prevent any realistic 'Brexit' from ever occurring.

Whatever the interested parties have said and are saying, it is abundantly clear that the 'Remoaners' will use any means at their disposal in order to keep us in the EU, while ignoring the result of the referendum. To this extent, this is no more than a re-run of what has happened in other EU member countries when referendums have produced the 'wrong' result; things are delayed and replayed until the 'right' result was achieved, and the same is the case now.

If ever there was a need for UKIP, it is now. Please God, they get their act together and mobilise the people to achieve what they voted for in June.

Saturday 29 October 2016

HOPE FOR PUB LANDLORDS ?

Yesterday's employment tribunal ruling regarding the employment of 'Uber' cab drivers must surely impact upon those who have been working for Marston's, and others, in the pub trade.

Among other comments, the tribunal said that 'Uber' was guilty of "resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology" and went on to say that "The notion that 'Uber' in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common platform is to our mind faintly ridiculous".

While the situations may not be fully comparable, are not Marston's and other pub owning companies also using fictions and twisted language in order to justify the ridiculous notion that many pub landlords are self-employed when, in reality, they are employees ? 'Uber' drivers rely on the infrastructure of the company for their supply of customers and are bound by company rules and regulations. Many pub landlords are bound just as tightly, working in a building owned by a 'pubco', required to buy their supplies from the same 'pubco' and to sell everything at prices determined by them, and also required to use the 'pubco's' financial systems.

For me, this is a 'slam, dunk'.

Saturday 22 October 2016

WALLONIA RULES THE EUROPEAN UNION !

The inherent weakness of the European Union and its utter inability to achieve anything of real value has been clearly demonstrated by the problems it's now facing over a proposed trade agreement with Canada.

After 7 years of negotiation, agreement has been halted by the demands of a small part of Belgium, Wallonia. The Belgian constitution requires that its constituent provinces agree to such international deals before the national government can actually sign up to them. Unfortunately for the EU, the provincial government of Wallonia, a region of 3.6 million people, does not like the deal which has been negotiated with Canada and has withheld its approval. Consequently, 7 years of talks, negotiation, nit-picking and compromise may now be consigned to the dustbin of history as a total waste.

In a 'last ditch' attempt to save the deal, EU representatives are holding emergency talks involving the Canadian trade minister and the head of the Walloon government, though this unholy mess has already cast a huge shadow over the EU's ability to forge major international deals. If ever anyone needed proof of the bureaucratic nightmare which is the EU, this is it.

Clearly, there are implications for any future deals with the UK after it leaves the Union, however, there are also implications for the future of the EU itself. While its leaders seek 'More Europe', it is obvious that local priorities have ultimate precedence and the Union is ultimately ungovernable. Not only that, but the much vaunted notion of a united Europe as a major trading block, forging momentous deals around the world, is shown to be pure fantasy. With the proposed transatlantic 'TTIP' deal already looking dead in the water, the EU is looking less like an aid to trade and far more like an obstruction.

If the Walloons can halt a major deal like this, what price a successful negotiation over Brexit within the 2 year time frame set down in 'Article 50' ?

Friday 21 October 2016

ABERFAN REMEMBERED

I was just 13 years old in October 1966, but I clearly remember the shock and horror that I felt when news of the tragedy which struck the Welsh village of Aberfan came over the airwaves.

It's almost impossible to imagine how terrifying this event was, how frightened the children must have been and the desperation of their parents. One hundred and sixteen children died in the village primary school that day, 21st October 1966, and the thought brings tears to my eyes even now. Twenty eight others died too, in what remains one of the worst disasters ever to affect this country.

That this tragedy was wholly avoidable makes it even more poignant. It must not be forgotten.


Thursday 20 October 2016

DEMOCRACY OR DICTATORSHIP ?

In the Western World, we have what we like to term 'Democracy' and some countries have moved to what can almost be called 'ultimate democracy', with a variety of proportional representation voting systems. We deride all other forms of Government.



At least in the UK we have yet to accept proportional representation for our principal parliament and still have a 'first past the post' system which allows for the election of a relatively strong government most of the time. Nonetheless, many major issues still take months and even years to decide. The recent never-ending debates about the expansion of airport capacity in the South East of the country, the construction of the HS2 rail link, the construction of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley point and so on, all demonstrate the difficulty which democratic governments have when it comes to making major decisions. The problem is that they have far too many interests to satisfy - their party members, their MPs, their voters, big business, foreign investors, special interest groups and, above all, their own desire to perpetuate their position at the top of the 'power tree'.

In countries which have embraced proportional representation, these problems are magnified. Administrations have to be constructed from several different political groups and the resulting governments are compelled to accept the 'lowest common denominator' when it comes to their policy making, as nothing else can be agreed by the range of interests which share power. Consequently, the western nations are rapidly losing the ability to make quick and strong decisions on matters which are considered 'sensitive'. Possibly the ultimate exhibition of this failure is in the European Union and its utter inability to deal with the consequences of the vast influx of migrants in recent years

In contrast to democracies, dictatorships have no such problems. The Dictator simply needs to satisfy his principal supporters, often the country's military forces, and he or she can then do pretty much whatever they like. If the people don't like it, tough; they don't have a vote so what does it matter ? Some countries which do have voting, such as Russia or Zimbabwe, have systems effectively rigged in such a way as to ensure the desired outcome and that power remains vested in the hands of one leader who is, to all intents and purposes, a dictator. Regardless of the shortcomings of their political systems, such countries are able to make the rapid and forceful decisions denied to democracies.

It has been suggested that the British system is, in effect, an 'elective dictatorship' with power vested in a small number of individuals. While there may be some truth in this, at times when the government has only a small parliamentary majority, it certainly is not; such governments are even more 'in hock' to their coterie of backers than usual. Government is prevented from doing anything to which a sufficient number of its adherents object and this is the problem faced today by Theresa May's administration.

With a majority of only around dozen or so, dissident voices on her own back benches can effectively scupper any measures which they don't like. The re-introduction of grammar schools is one case in point and the issues surrounding the UK's separation from the European Union is another. It is quite clear that the likes of Ken Clarke have every intention of making life extremely difficult for the new Prime Minister, particularly when it comes to the matter of 'Brexit'. They will do everything in their power to prevent the UK from ever really leaving the EU by using every delaying tactic available and voting down anything but the most innocuous of measures.

Mrs May does have one card to play, that of calling a general election, though she could even have difficulty in doing this. She could try to amend the '5 Year Parliament Act' but might find herself defeated by a coalition of opposition parties and her own dissident MPs who would fear that a larger majority would make it easier for her to push forward with what they call a 'hard Brexit'. Such a defeat could be followed by a 'confidence' vote in the government but, this time, opposition and dissidents could ally themselves to keep the government in power, albeit by its slender and vulnerable majority. Conservative MPs would hardly vote against their own party and Labour Members are only too well aware of the danger of going to the polls at this time; it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Mrs May is, therefore, between the proverbial 'rock and hard place'. She can be prevented from doing what the people want purely because of the system of democracy, parties, patronage and vested interests. Now, if we had a dictatorship .......................................................... .












Sunday 16 October 2016

SO WHAT DOES 'BREXIT' MEAN ?

Those moaning minnies who really don't want to accept the result of last June's referendum keep looking for anything that might put a spoke in the wheel of 'Brexit'. Anything and everything is being used including Nicola Sturgeon's barely veiled threats about a second independence referendum for Scotland, challenges in the courts and daily nit-picking in Parliament. One of the 'big questions' beloved of these 'Remoaners' relates to the precise nature of what 'Brexit' means, as if it can mean different things.

Frankly, this is straightforward bollocks. 'Brexit' can only mean one thing and that is that the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union; the obvious implication of this is that the UK's position vis-a-vis the EU should be restored to what it was prior to its accession in 1973, amended only by any effective international agreements in the interim period which relate to the UK and other current EU countries as individual and independent countries, and not as members of the EU.

The issues being raised daily by the 'Remoaners' are not relevant to 'Brexit' at all. Questions such as potential limits on migration between the UK and EU, the status of EU citizens currently resident in the UK and of UK citizens currently resident in the EU, access to the 'Single Market' and many others all relate to the nature of the relationship which will exist between the UK and EU after the UK has left the Union. None of these are matters which affect the fact of 'Brexit' itself, although the unreconstructed 'Remainers' are only too happy to muddy the waters by constantly referring to them as if they are actually key to whether or not 'Brexit' can even happen. Their barely hidden agenda, whatever they may say, is that unless the UK Government can leave the EU while effectively staying in, they will do everything in their power to stymie the 'Will of the People'.

Of course the Government will negotiate for the best possible relationship between an independent UK and the EU, but negotiation is a 2-way process and relies on goodwill and common sense from both parties. It also relies on keeping one's cards close to one's chest and not publicising one's negotiating position in advance, as the 'Remoaners' would love to see happen. The likes of Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband (remember them ?), Ken Clarke and others should shut up and let the Government get on with things. There'll be plenty of opportunity for debate later.

Thursday 13 October 2016

BOB DYLAN - NOBEL LAUREATE !!?

Although the various Nobel committees usually make sensible decision about the main awards for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, the prizes for Literature, Peace and Economics often defy logic. Whereas the first 3 areas tend to be properly measurable in terms of their achievements, the final 3 rely almost entirely on the subjective views of the committee members. Consequently, these awards have given rise to some serious eyebrow raising over the years.

In 2012, the Peace prize went to the European Union, surely one of the most undemocratic and divisive organisations in the world, despite the overt antagonism it had engendered in millions of its citizens. In 2009, when he'd only been in office for a few months and done absolutely nothing of note, Barack Obama was awarded the Peace prize, presumably in anticipation of what he 'might' do. Many previous awards were made to people who had done nothing to advance the cause of peace but had been involved in various social enterprises, approved of by the 'soft left'. Much worse have been the awards to largely ineffective 'peace campaigners' and those that included Yasser Arafat in 1994 and Menachem Begin in 1978, both men of terror and violence much more than of peace. Overall, the Peace prize has been a joke for many years.

The prize for Economics is a fairly recent invention, having been first awarded in 1969. Most intelligent people are well aware that, given any debatable question in economics, there'll be as many  'expert' opinions as there are available economists; more often than not, these expert opinions all turn out to be wrong anyway. How on earth anyone, Nobel Committee included, can possibly award a prize worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to any economist escapes me.

When it comes to Literature, the prize has often gone, particularly in more recent years, to writers from third world nations of whom almost no one in the west has ever heard; indeed, one might say that most recipients are pretty well unknown to any but the elite of world society. However, this year's award is different. Astonishingly, the 2016 Nobel prize for Literature has been awarded to Bob Dylan.

When I first heard this I assumed that there must be a writer of whom I had no knowledge who happened to share the name of an American singer, but no. The award has, indeed, gone to Bob Dylan the singer - songwriter. Really. Dylan is placed alongside the likes of Ernest Hemingway, Rudyard Kipling, Anatole France, George Bernard Shaw, J B Yeats, John Galsworthy, Eugene O'Neill and many other great writers.

Has the world, or at least the Nobel Committee, truly gone mad ?

Monday 10 October 2016

WE STILL NEED UKIP.

The forces of fear and protectionism are gathering again.

Those same individuals, organisations, businesses and 'think tanks' that told us all that voting to leave the European Union would result in immediate and uncontrollable catastrophe are regrouping. Faced with the unthinkable, that is, a UK withdrawal from the EU, the Europhiles are beginning to mount a new campaign of terror designed to encourage voters to 'think again'; we're being told that prices will rise, industries will collapse, millions will lose their jobs, the NHS will crumble and so on.

Old fashioned Europhiles like the Liberal democrats (remember them ?) and Kenneth Clarke simply insist that they were right and the rest of us have got it wrong; they want various opportunities to be created for them to be able to vote down whatever the Government tries to implement in pursuit of the 'Will of the People'. They're calling for assorted votes in Parliament before, during and after the exit negotiations in order, so they say, to hold the Government to account or to ensure that the terms are right, or whatever else occurs to them as a slogan to use.

In truth, this is nothing other than the political and business elites trying to reverse the result of June's referendum. Anyone who thought that those who are wedded to the EU would give up the fight never was likely to be proven correct; the big guns will continue to fire their salvos of frightening scenarios and stories until the UK has actually left the Union and, even then, some will start arguing for us to re-join.

Theresa May and her Government, despite its obvious internal divisions, must hold its line and steer us out of the EU as rapidly as possible. They must ignore all the scaremongering and get on with it. Things will never be anything like as bad as the doom-mongers want us to fear, in fact, they'll probably end up far better than even the most optimistic of optimists can conceive. 

What we really need is for Ukip to pull itself together and finish the job it's started.

TRUMP, CLINTON OR 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' ?

The Presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton have been torrid affairs. Each has slung mud, great dollops of it, at the other and neither has really emerged with any credit. In fact, American voters still seem to be faced with voting for either an egotistical, misogynistic old man or an egotistical, lying old woman. Personally, I find both of them pretty revolting and I'd be looking for someone else, anyone else actually.

Sadly, however, this is not the first time that Presidential candidates and Presidents have been found to have feet of clay. Richard 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon was forced to resign due to the Watergate scandal; Bill Clinton, husband of the egregious Hilary, was a philanderer who lied and twisted the truth about his affairs and was almost impeached; the 'sainted' John F Kennedy was a serial womaniser and adulterer, as were his brothers who both sought the highest office. Indeed, brother Edward was implicated in the tragic death of Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969, an event which effectively ended his Presidential aspirations. Even the 'great' Franklin D Roosevelt was a serial adulterer. Warren Harding's Presidency after the First World War has been marred by the subsequent  revelations of various scandals and adulterous affairs.  

Way back in 1804, a protracted and highly distasteful antagonism between Vice President Aaron Burr and his political opponent Alexander Hamilton ended in a duel in which Hamilton was mortally wounded; Burr fled to South Carolina in order to avoid charges, including murder, though these were later dropped. He subsequently found himself indicted for treason though again he escaped punishment; nonetheless, his political career had come to an ignominious end.

Trump and Clinton are no more and no less than 2 more seedy characters who have bought their way to prominence in the time-honoured American way. The shocking thing is that they have already been voted for by many thousands of people who seem to believe that they are fit candidates for the highest office. Whichever wins the election on November 8th, January will, in fact, see the inauguration of one of the least fit Presidents in American history, which really is saying something given the 'quality' of some of their predecessors.

Wednesday 5 October 2016

IS 'UKIP' FINISHED ?

Sadly, the resignation of Nigel Farage from the leadership of UKIP seems to have been the precursor to the collapse of the party. Just 18 days after her election as Farage's replacement, Diane James has announced that she will not be taking over after all as she doesn't have 'enough authority in the party'.

It seems that Ms James may have wanted to make changes to the party's organisation or focus, but that she did not receive the support of other leading party figures. Consequently, UKIP is now in utter turmoil as Ms James had not yet appointed a deputy, meaning that there is now a void at the top, although apparently Nigel Farage is still technically the leader.

The real problem is that Nigel Farage and UKIP have been virtually synonymous ever since the creation of the party, and there are no other leading members who have anything like Farage's standing or public profile. Indeed, Farage seems to have failed completely in taking steps to develop a structure within the party that would ensure that future leaders would emerge naturally and with full support. Instead, the party appears to have degenerated rapidly into a squabbling mass, with no one of Farage's authority to bring members together..

Conspiracy theorists will undoubtedly say that this was all just a ploy by Farage to hang on to the leadership but I suspect it's nothing other than a total balls-up. Unless someone with real leadership qualities emerges very quickly, UKIP may well now disappear altogether within a few months, to the detriment  of us all..

Saturday 1 October 2016

BREXIT MUST MEAN BREXIT.

Back in June the British people voted to leave the European Union; this was not conditional, it was unequivocal. Ever since then, those establishment figures who don't like the idea of leaving, indeed, see the Union as a safe haven and even a future meal ticket for themselves, have sought to derail 'Brexit' in every possible way.

Despite economic indicators and trends which continue to defy their dire predictions, 'Remainers' still try to convince the rest of us that leaving the Union will, eventually, lead to catastrophe. If they were wrong in their original predictions it was only because they misjudged the timescale; calamity will still befall us, it is just a little delayed. Why we should believe them now, when they were so wrong before isn't revealed.

Various political figures from what is basically the 'Remain' camp keep popping up with more news, stories, threats and so on designed to scare us into 'thinking again'.. Some, led by the Liberal Democrats, want a second referendum, ostensibly on the "terms of Brexit" but, in reality it's just an attempt to have another go at getting the 'right result. This is a time honoured tradition amongst EU nations and has been used in several countries in order to over-ride the initially stated 'Will of the People' in favour of the will of the establishment.

More insidious is the attempt to draw a semi-mystical distinction between "Hard Brexit" and "Soft Brexit". These essentially meaningless terms have been invented in order to bring as much chaos and confusion to the situation as can be managed, in order to bamboozle the public into believing that "Brexit" can mean different things; the now famous phrase "Brexit means Brexit" is thereby rendered highly malleable.

In truth, leaving the European Union is a straightforward matter of invoking 'Article 50' and then getting on with it. There is no need to complicate matters by talking of convoluted and long-winded negotiations - if the remaining nations of the Union want to make life awkward, fine. Let them do their worst as it's they who will suffer most in the long run. The United Kingdom can walk away and enter freely into deals with any nation in the world, unencumbered by the stifling bureaucracy of the EU; the member nations of the EU will soon come calling when they find our doors closed to them and their products.

The United Kingdom has, alone, one of the 5 or 6 largest economies in the world; ours is not Norway or Switzerland, it is on a par with Germany and bigger than France. There is no 'hard' or 'soft' to "Brexit" it is just " Brexit" Those who talk of 'soft' "Brexit" simply don't want us to leave the European Union at all; they are frightened little people who don't want to risk setting off into the outside world, but prefer the perceived safety and security of mummy's embrace. They need to realise that now is the time to 'fly the nest'.

Wednesday 21 September 2016

ANTIBIOTICS ARE DEAD IN THE WATER.

Many years ago, antibiotics were hailed as a new wonder drug that would banish many diseases for ever. The discovery of penicillin followed by the development of many other drugs with similar bactericidal properties seemed like a gift from heaven. No more.

Decades of overprescribing and wrong prescribing, and the wholesale use of antibiotics in animal husbandry has led to the appearance of multitudes of 'superbugs' which are immune to even the most powerful modern antibiotics. Once again, people find themselves at  the mercy of potentially lethal bacterial infections and today's news carries a story that members of the United Nations are to sign a 'landmark declaration' to rid the world of drug-resistant infections. What poppycock.

There is a long history of scientific 'experts' making serious errors when it comes to the use of drugs, antibiotics being but one example. A lack of adequate research and trialling prior to the release and use of expensively developed medications has previously seen many people suffering debilitating and even fatal consequences from the effects of prescribed steroids, another 'wonder drug', and many victims of thalidomide are still around today. Valium, otherwise known as Diazepam, and Librium were considered 'wonder drugs' for treating depression until their side effects were discovered and now their use is greatly reduced; at one time, cigarette smoking was promoted as being beneficial to health. Scientists and doctors are not infallible, they only think they are and they are too often 'in hock' to vast commercial enterprises which are interested in little more than 'turning a quick buck'.

Now, the very same people who have been responsible for shocking negligence over the use of antibiotics are to be tasked with saving us. Some hope. The damage is already done and unless an entirely new class of drugs , or some other course of action, can be developed, we are likely to see increasing numbers of people dying from infections which have been largely inconsequential in recent years. Indeed, we already have potential new disasters waiting in the wings, with 'statins' being promoted for general use, a plethora of additives in our food and a vast array of 'health supplements' being sold over the counter everywhere. What the long term effects of these might be, no one really knows or, if they do, they're keeping very quiet about it.

The real problems arise from the arrogance of some scientists and the over-riding interests of large pharmaceutical companies and governments. Frankly, the United Nations can make whatever declarations it likes but nothing of substance will happen until there is some genuine oversight of, and research into, the long term effects of the many drugs and other preparations with which we are confronted on an almost daily basis.

Wednesday 14 September 2016

DAVID CAMERON - R.I.P.

Not very long ago, David Cameron was busy telling anyone who'd listen that the UK should vote to stay in the European Union as leaving that organisation would lead to substantial difficulties for us. Nonetheless, he also stated loud and clear that, should the people vote to leave the Union, he would continue in office as Prime Minister to oversee the process of extrication and to ensure that the UK achieved the best possible deal.

How long is 3 months, let alone a week, in politics !?

Within hours of the vote, Cameron had reneged on his first promise and resigned as Prime Minister, causing serious disruption at a time when what was needed was stability and at a time when any truly democratic and responsive leader would have accepted the will of his people and buckled down to putting it into action.

Now, having initially indicated that he loved being a Member of Parliament and would remain as the representative for his constituency until at least 2020, he has reneged on this promise by resigning his seat. Talk about going off in a huff !

Cameron never was anything but a self-serving rich-kid from the privileged elite of our society; as soon as he didn't get his own way, he's flounced off. No doubt he will now find himself further lucrative employment as a Tony Blair clone, touring the world to give others the benefit of his self-proclaimed vast knowledge and intellect while charging ludicrous fees for his services and ignoring his blatant failure as the UK's Prime Minister.

Why is it that we let people like this get away with it ?

Tuesday 13 September 2016

TRUMP v CLINTON : FRANKENSTEIN OR THE MONSTER ?

What a horrific choice faces the American electorate in November's Presidential election. It really is a no-win situation.

To start with, both candidates are far too old - Trump is 70 and Clinton 68. No one actually knows what Trump's health situation is but everyone now knows that Clinton has shown significant frailty. Trump has no political experience and is like a manic version of Nigel Farage, while Clinton has more political experience than can be believed but is considered to be a typically dishonest member of the political elite.

It seems that few people actually like either of them and the final vote may well depend on which one is least disliked. That either should end up as 'Leader of the Free World' is a frightening prospect, though one undoubtedly will.

God help us !

Friday 9 September 2016

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS : TIME TO RE-BOOT THE SYSTEM.

At long last, it seems that Grammar schools are set to make a return. Hurrah, I say, but 'Over my dead body' is the cry from the those on the left who hate the whole idea of ever acknowledging that some children are simply smarter than others.

Actually 'smarter' is not the right word. The truth is that different children have different abilities and aptitudes and they need different environments in which to flourish. It's also true that children from different backgrounds have different upbringings and expectations and this can undoubtedly affect their academic progress.

Little can be done to change the second of these issues in the short term. While children from forward looking and involved family environments are likely to prosper, those whose parents were poorly educated are likely to be poorly educated themselves. They are likely to see little benefit in schooling, will gain little from it, have little ambition and will, more than likely, follow their parents into the same dead-end lives. While you can take the children out of the environment, you can't easily take the environment out of the children.

On the first point above, something can, however, be done. Our education system needs to stop treating all children as if they're the same and treat them as individuals instead. What is needed is a system which identifies children's specific aptitudes and abilities and helps them to develop these to their ultimate. Whether a child is good at sciences, languages, or other academic  'Grammar school' subjects, is brilliant with their hands, has a wonderful ability in music, or has no great ability but loves to be outdoors, the system should find ways of developing them to the utmost.

To decry Grammar schools as 'elitist', as those on the left of politics habitually do, is to accept that the offering to children who are not academically inclined is pathetically inadequate and the only people to blame for this are the very same self-proclaimed 'educationalists' of the Left. For decades now, our children have suffered the horrors of 'Comprehensive education' and all we have to show for it is millions of poorly educated people and a desire amongst many to bring back Grammar schools. The system has failed and needs to be re-booted.

Sadly, it will take time to turn things around but, if we start today, the children of today's 5 year olds may actually look forward to a far better education than most have received over the last 40 or 50 years.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO "THE DAILY POLITICS" ?

There was a time when 'The Daily Politics' was really worth watching. No longer, it seems.

Yesterday, under the stewardship of Jo Coburn, it was used as a platform for Ed Balls to publicise his memoires, not to mention his toe-curling appearance on 'Strictly Come Dancing', and also an opportunity to have Balls, another lefty 'blast from the past', Vince Cable, and Coburn try a bit of dancing in the studio. Added to this, there was an appearance by former BBC correspondent Paul Mason, who was given pretty much carte blanche to spout his lefty views about the UK's exit from the European Union. The programme ended with an item about MP's dogs, the relevance of which to anything escaped me.

Admittedly I didn't see the whole programme but what I did see was a total load of dumbed-down balls, with little in the way of political balance. In days gone by, Andrew Neil led this programme impartially and with aplomb, appearing most days and supported by a succession of excellent co-presenters - Daisy Sampson, Jenny Scott, Anita Anand and, on occasion, Laura Kuenssberg; Coburn initially seemed to follow in the same style but, in more recent times, Neil has increasingly failed to appear and Coburn has gone her own way.

I now rarely watch the programme except on the days when Andrew Neil is presenting. After yesterday's drivelly, left-wing effort, I shall watch it even less.

Wednesday 17 August 2016

TAX AVOIDANCE PROPOSALS ARE THIN END OF WEDGE.

A long-standing principle of British law has been that there is a clear difference between 'tax evasion' and 'tax avoidance'. It has also been an accepted principal of the same law that 'the law is the law', in other words, the law is interpreted as it is written.

Now, all that is set to change. The Government is proposing to introduced sever penalties for anyone who advises people how to avoid tax; note, that this is about the wholly legal 'avoidance' rather than the clearly illegal 'evasion'. As the responsible department, the Treasury plans to introduce new rules designed to stop people using loopholes which were 'never intended' in the original legislation, in order to "root out" tax avoidance at source.

No one seems to be very bothered about this and yet it is an astonishing advance in the powers of the state. No longer will legislation have to be properly written, it will be sufficient for it to have an 'intention'. Separately, something which is absolutely legal in itself, tax avoidance, will be fully criminalised, even though successive Governments have actually introduced measures that specifically promote avoidance in schemes such as ISAs and SIPPs. Effectively, tax avoidance will no longer exist outside of approved Government schemes; all other avoidance will be treated as evasion, whatever the law actually says..

If the proposed measures do come into effect, it will be the beginning of the end for democracy and law in this country. Subsequently, any Government will be able to claim that anyone is in breach of any law because whatever they've done was 'intended'  to be outlawed, even if the relevant statute doesn't actually say so. Those who frame our legislation will become increasingly sloppy in its formation, relying on this principal to cover up their incompetence.

I find this shocking, appalling and terrifying. Why is there so little fuss about it ?

Monday 1 August 2016

CAMERON'S HONOURS : "YOU SHOOK MY HAND ? HAVE A GONG !"

Stories about David Cameron's 'Resignation Honours list' have hit the news and, if true, show just how corrupt the UK honours' system is.

Cameron has reportedly proposed honours for an assortment of lackeys, a large number of whom seem to have been his personal supporters. Again, if true, this shows just what type of man Cameron is, one who will eschew genuine service for the country and, instead, reward those who were simply
'on his side'.

Everyone knows that the honours' system is a farce. Although those who control it will point to the thousands of 'ordinary people' who receive gongs, they don't mention that these almost all receive the lowest awards. The higher honours are reserved for time-serving civil servants, politicians past and present, and sport and media 'stars'. Many of these people have accrued considerable wealth from their careers and have done no more than do their job. Many of the political figures seem to almost expect to become 'Sir' or 'Lady' after a few years of parliamentary membership, while elevation to the peerage comes as a reward for being a good party member.

When pop singers, television personalities, sports' personalities and an assortment of others who have done little other than to enrich themselves while also doing what they love doing, are rewarded with medals and titles, it is obvious that the system is broken. Cameron's proposals, if as reported, just reinforce the case for wholesale reform of what has become nothing other than a mechanism for showering one's mates and various populist figures with ill-deserved favours.

It is time to do away with this antiquated system, along with the concept of an appointed 'Upper House' in parliament. These things belong to a bygone era and have no place in the modern world.

Thursday 14 July 2016

THERESA MAY'S NEW CABINET : WHERE WILL IT TAKE US ?

With Theresa May's new Cabinet now in place, it has to be said that it's been a pretty brutal 'reshuffle' as well as being a bit of a 'curate's egg'.

The new Prime Minister has made huge changes, with 9 previous senior ministers leaving the cabinet and making this one of the most wholesale reshuffles of modern times. George Osborne, Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, John Whittingdale, Theresa Villiers, Oliver Letwin, Mark Harper and Baroness Tina Stowell have all been sacked while Stephen Crabb has resigned. Rarely has there been such a clear out.

The new appointments have not necessarily been without interest. The appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary took the early news, being something of a surprise to almost everyone, though Philip Hammond's move to the Treasury had been much anticipated. Few have kept their old jobs, Jeremy Hunt at Health and Michael Fallon at Defence being the only 2 major figures so to do, while the Scottish and Welsh Secretaries also hung on, at least partly due to their positions as the only acceptable candidates.

However, some other posts may be more contentious. Andrea Leadsom, who made such a horlicks of her leadership bid, has unaccountably been rewarded with the job of Environment Secretary, God knows why. Liz Truss, who strikes me as being pretty useless and certainly has presentational issues, has been promoted to become Justice Secretary and the first Lord Chancellor in British history; again, I find the appointment baffling. Similarly, the reasons for the appointments of Amber Rudd to the Home Office and Karen Bradley to Culture, Media and Sport, plus the move of Justine Greening from International Development to Education, seem to owe more to their gender than any real track record of political achievement, none of them having been MPs for very long. Priti Patel is another woman who has been promoted to Cabinet level after not many years of parliamentary experience, while Natalie Evans, who becomes Leader of the House of Lords, only joined that illustrious house 2 years ago.

Many of the rest have, at least, years of experience behind them. David Davis who will oversee the country's exit from the European Union, Liam Fox who has been given responsibility for international trade, Damian Green, Chris Grayling, David Liddington and Patrick McLoughlin have all been MPs for periods approaching 20 years or more. Others who have less experience include Gavin Williamson as Chief Whip and Sajid Javed as Communities Secretary, the latter seemingly being demoted after having had rapid promotions previously, and James Brokenshire, all being MPs only since 2010. Greg Clark has been an MP since 2005 and is the new Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

One wonders if this mixture of experience and inexperience, novelty and femininity will produce the desired results, or will there be another reshuffle before very long ?

BORIS JOHNSON : FOREIGN SECRETARY !

Fortunately for the UK, Andrea Leadsom finally saw sense a few days ago and Theresa May has inherited the post of Prime Minister unopposed. While some have complained that she has not been elected to the office, the quick resolution of vacancy created by David Cameron's childish and destabilising resignation can only be good news, added to the fact that the post of Prime Minister is not an elected one anyway.

Whether Mrs May will prove to be the right choice as PM is something that we will have to wait to discover, however, her initial decisions seem promising. Having campaigned, albeit quietly, for the UK to remain in the European Union, she had made it clear that 'Brexit means Brexit', and her first senior cabinet appointments certainly back this up. Chancellor George Osborne, previously seen as Prime Minister in waiting and David Cameron's 'right hand man', has been kicked out altogether. Osborne was an ardent 'Remainer' and issued numerous dire warnings about the probable economic effects of Brexit, as well as having made something of a Horlicks of his Budgets over the last 3 or 4 years. Osborne's replacement is former Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, a 'Remainer' apparently seen as a safe pair of hands.

To replace Hammond at the Foreign Office, Prime Minister May has made a real statement of intent by appointing Boris Johnson who led the Brexit campaign, while her choice for the new post of 'Brexit Secretary' is David Davis, another ardent Brexiteer. While the appointment of Davis had been suggested as a possibility, no one could have imagined seeing Boris at the Foreign Office; his bumbling, slightly dishevelled style surely does not fit with that department's imagne of itself, nonetheless, there he is. What these appointments suggest to me is that Mrs May really does mean to move pretty rapidly to get the negotiations for the UK's exit from the EU, and negotiations to sort out our independent relationship with the rest of the world, under way.

The quick confirmation of David Cameron's replacement at Number 10, has also helped to calm financial markets with the stock exchange showing some improvement from recent low levels and the pound rising somewhat against both the dollar and the Euro. While there may still be some volatility in the months and years ahead, the initial signs are that the horrors predicted by the Remain campaign were largely over-hyped.

Mrs May will reveal more of her ministerial appointments over the coming hours and we will discover more about her likely style and intentions in Government. No doubt there will be a few surprises along the way.

Thursday 7 July 2016

IT'S THERESA MAY FOR ME.


And so the Conservative Party has decided that our next Prime Minister will be either Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom, the final choice to be announced on September 9th.
 
Theresa May has many years of Parliamentary and government experience and seems to be the preferred candidate of Conservative Members of Parliament; she campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU, though was not exactly at the forefront of the campaigning. In truth, she was probably a rather reluctant 'remainer' who rather hedged her bets when it came to choosing sides and has already suggested that her negotiating stance with the EU will be quite tough.

Andrea Leadsom only entered Parliament in 2010 after a career in financial services. She has progressed fairly quickly to junior minister level but has no experience at cabinet level. It has been suggested that she may be a bit of a closet 'remainer' even though she was a leading light in the 'Brexit' campaign, and some of her comments suggest that her negotiating stance may actually be more liberal than that of Mrs May.

Some of Leadsom's supporters have said that her lack of senior government experience is no concern as she has plenty of experience at a senior level in her previous career. They also cite David Cameron's lack of government experience when he became Prime Minister in 2010 which, to me, is no recommendation at all; Cameron has hardly been a Prime Minister who has covered himself in glory and history will largely ignore him except for the glaring issue of the EU referendum.

Theresa May entered Parliament in 1997 and has been at a senior level in the Party since 1999. Appointed as Home Secretary in 2010, she has now been the longest serving in that post for over 60 years, surviving remarkably well in a job which has traditionally been a graveyard for politicians. Indeed, Mrs May seems to be something of a survivor, having come unscathed through the various turmoils of her Party over the last 20 years. Kenneth Clark has been heard saying that she's good but also that she's a 'bloody difficult woman', something which could easily be seen as a recommendation.

I don't have a vote in this contest and, as a committed 'Brexiteer', if I did I ought to be a supporter of Mrs Leadsom. However, I really think that her lack of political and diplomatic experience is a massive stumbling block. Mrs May, on the other hand, does have a track record at the highest level, has the confidence of an overwhelming majority of her Parliamentary colleagues and seems to know her own mind. Consequently, I find myself firmly in the corner of a 'bloody difficult woman'; let's just hope that, as our second woman Prime Minister, she proves to be as tough as our first.

CHILCOT : BLAIR REMAINS DEFIANT

After years and years of procrastination, the Chilcot Report has finally been published. Rather surprisingly, the report has pointed fingers, very particularly at former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Way back in the mists of time, Blair involved the UK in a costly and pointless war in Iraq. He claimed that the Iraqi government was a major threat to peace and had 'weapons of mass destruction' galore; he backed up his claims with an assortment of information from the security services and others. Now, it seems, that much of what was claimed was spurious or even downright lies.

Chilcot has concluded that Blair made a secret arrangement with the US President, George W Bush, that the UK would take part in a war against Iraq, pretty well 'come what may'. He didn't communicate effectively with his cabinet colleagues or Parliament, and didn't initiate any post invasion planning. The security information was largely flawed, misrepresented, or entirely bogus and there were no 'weapons of mass destruction'. Effectively, the invasion was unjustified and even illegal.

Blair's response has been to say that he has no regrets about his decision to take the country to war and says that his actions were justified by the need to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He seems to believe that the Iraq of today is a better place than the Iraq of yesteryear, even though it is now a country in terminal meltdown. Previously it had a powerful dictator who kept the country under control, albeit brutally at times; now it is supposedly democratic but is in a constant state of civil war, with no one in effective control. How is one condition better than the other ?

More than 200 British citizens died during our involvement in the conflict and many thousands of Iraqis, most of them civilians, also perished. The country is certainly no better off than it was previously and may well be worse off; some of its people have been reported as saying that they regret the demise of Hussein as, at least, under him there was order.

In my eyes, Tony Blair was, and is, an egomaniac, driven by a desire to be seen as a great statesman, bestriding the world and upholding his notions of decency and morality. He saw himself standing alongside the US President as being a clear indication of his own importance and was more than happy to ignore truth, accept dubious security services reports without question and send thousands of British troops to war for his own personal ends. The British people were, at least, misled, at worst lied to, all in the pursuit of one man's goals. 

Blair is an utter disgrace and yet, as a by-product of his activities, he's amassed a fortune in the upper tens of millions of pounds. While soldiers died, he made money; while the middle east, and beyond, is a disaster zone, he makes money as a supposed mediator. How on earth does he get away with it ?