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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.