HEAVY HANDED TRUMP HAS THE RIGHT IDEA.

During his election campaign, Donald Trump promised to take steps to protect his country from terrorists. Now, as President Trump, he is trying to fulfil that promise by introducing measures to control immigration; specifically, he is targeting migrants from countries which have a history of producing terrorists.

Inevitably, there has been a huge backlash from the liberal left as well as the liberal right, those who see themselves as occupying the entirely mythical 'centre ground'. President Trump is being vilified from all directions and by most of the media. In the UK, the BBC has found it almost impossible to avoid being negative about Trump, almost every comment by every newsreader being couched in a way as to indicate disapproval; ITN has similarly failed in its duty of impartiality.

President Trump's actions may have been a little heavy handed but can anyone deny that there is a serious need for much stricter border controls, not only in the US but in most other countries too ? For far too long western nations have accepted vast hordes of immigrants whose economic and cultural backgrounds are alien. These immigrants have been allowed to establish separate 'communities' in which extremists have been able to flourish and in which terrorism has been encouraged.

The vast majority of terrorism around the world now is from Islamic extremists, people who apparently want to see a world-wide Muslim Caliphate established; these people believe in abduction, rape, torture, murder and more. There are many instances of acts of terrorism being carried out by people who had previously shown no obvious signs of having been radicalised and yet we have done nothing to stem the flow of migrants, indeed, under pressure from the 'liberal elite', we have accepted more and more.

At long last, a major political figure has cried "Enough !", but has been met with almost universal condemnation. President Trump is no politician and has acted more out of a gut reaction than would other leaders, but is he really wrong ?

ESTABLISHMENT LINES UP AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

Today, the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the Government cannot initiate the UK's exit from the European Union without obtaining the consent of Parliament; in fact, it's said that there has to be an Act of Parliament which means full debate in both Houses and an opportunity for the large number of Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords to create mischief. Thankfully, the Court's ruling also said that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do not have to be consulted.

Where this will lead is anyone's guess. There are many in Parliament, and also many other loud voices, who simply want to prevent the Will of the people, as expressed in the referendum last June, from being actioned. These people continually throw up spurious arguments and some, the likes of Nick Clegg and Tim Farron prominent amongst them, are making no secret of their determination to keep the UK so closely tied to the EU as to make any exit meaningless. The Welsh Labour party has made some sort of alliance with Plaid Cymru aimed at achieving something similar and Nicola Sturgeon seizes on every opportunity to try to stir up enthusiasm for another vote on Scottish independence. None of these people and parties are prepared to accept the result of the referendum and are simply set on imposing their own views on the people they are supposed to represent.

If anyone ever needed proof of the duplicitous and disingenuous nature of politicians, surely this is it. Those who suggested that UKIP no longer had any reason to exist have also been proven to be very wide of the mark; indeed, the forthcoming by-election in Stoke-on-Trent may well provide a huge boost both to UKIP and the Brexit campaign.

BREXIT & TRUMP : OPPORTUNITY ABOUNDS !

Another of the world's 'economics experts' has had a go at talking down the UK's prospects following the decision to leave the European Union.

This one Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund, has at least a couple of reasons for adopting this posture. Firstly, she used to be the French Finance Minister and is a committed Europhile; secondly, wearing her hat as 'head of the IMF', she was one of those 'experts' who predicted instant catastrophe for the UK if it dared to vote to leave the EU.

Now, having seen her predictions washed down the plughole, she's still at it. There is "still likely to be pain ahead"; the Brexit process "would be complicated"; uncertainty over the terms of the deal "is always a risk". It is noticeable that Lagarde's latest reading of the tea leaves is rather less specific than her predictions of 7 or 8 months ago, though she's still pretty negative.

Why is it that people like her refuse to see anything positive in the situation ? Whatever happens, they seem to be interested only in looking for the downside, much as the anti-Trump faction is currently doing. The more I see this, the more I want to rub their noses in it. Their cosy little world, in which they're the 'top dogs' and enjoy vast power, wealth and celebrity, is under threat from the rest of us who've had enough of being patronised and ignored.

Instead of being negative, these people should be looking for the opportunities that might flow both from Brexit and a Trump Presidency. One phrase has it 'There are no problems, only opportunities'; someone should tell Lagarde, Carney and the rest of the self-serving doom-mongers.

BREXIT MEANS LEAVING THE EU, PERIOD !

In her speech today, Theresa May set out exactly what the UK's decision to leave the European Union means. She said, clearly, that it means leaving the European Union, not a little bit but completely. Why anyone should ever have thought otherwise is something of a mystery known only to those who have sought to try to reverse the result of June's referendum.

Inevitably, those who never wanted us to leave and are looking for every possible excuse for preventing it from happening, have been making their usual noises in the media. Leader of the Scottish Nationalists, Nicola Sturgeon, has whined on, again, about calling another independence referendum and has claimed that Mrs May doesn't have a mandate to take the 'whole of the UK' out of the EU; this is, of course, nonsense. Ms Sturgeon keeps trying to perpetuate the myth that Scotland is separate from the United Kingdom, which it isn't; no doubt other parts of the UK which voted to remain within the EU could make similar baseless claims. It was the UK as a whole which joined the EEC in 1973 and it is the UK, as a whole, which has voted to leave now; individual parts simply have to accept the majority decision as is the case with any democratic decision.

Sturgeon is also on slightly dodgy ground with her threats of holding another independence referendum. Current opinion polls (if they can be believed) show that there is little enthusiasm for independence amongst Scots and, in any case, no referendum would be binding unless it had the blessing of the UK's government. Whatever she may think or say, Ms Sturgeon is not the final arbiter in such matters.

Another of those who want to reverse the referendum result is Tim Farron; in case anyone has forgotten, he's leader of what remains of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons. Along with his Liberal Democrat colleagues and in denial of his party's name, Mr Farron is determined to do whatever he can to frustrate the democratic will of the British people as expressed in the referendum. Today, his response to Mrs May's speech was to say that while she had a mandate for initiating discussions with the European Union, there was no mandate for what he continues to refer to as a 'hard Brexit'. He says that 'hard Brexit' was not an option at the referendum and, therefore, people did not vote for it. He completely ignores the simple fact that the option was 'In' or 'Out', and the people voted 'Out', following a highly detailed campaign in which the full consequences of such a decision were made very, very clear. At the time, no one suggested there were shades or colours of 'Brexit' and it is only since the result went the 'wrong way' for some that this idea has been invented.

Obviously, Mrs May will trigger Article 50 fairly soon and the process of negotiating the UK's exit will commence. In around 18 to 24 months time, an exit agreement will emerge and Mrs May has said that she will put this to both Houses of Parliament for ratification. This is when things may well become messy. While it is probable that the House of Commons will vote for ratification of any realistic deal, the House of Lords, with a hugely disproportionate representation of Liberal Democrats may well reject any agreement that does not effectively keep the UK tied very closely to the EU and pays mere lip service to the referendum result. Mr Farron has indicated as much today.

If Mrs May sticks to her guns, and there's currently no reason to think that she won't, we could well be heading for something of a constitutional crisis around this time in 2019. Will the House of Lords really vote to overrule the Will of the People ? If it does, God Help Them.

TRUMP UPSETS EUROPE.

Isn't it amazing how politicians pick and choose ?

A few short months ago, assorted political figures welcomed the contributions of American President Barack Obama when he encouraged the British electorate to vote to stay in the European Union, saying that leaving would bring nothing but disaster. Now, those every same political figures, Merckel, Hollande and others, have utterly rejected comments made by President-elect Donald Trump, telling him that Europe is perfectly able to manage its own affairs without any assistance or comment from him, thank you very much.

Trump, of course, has been saying things which run counter to the views and policies followed by the EU, consequently his remarks are unwelcome and receive short shrift. Obama's comments were fully supportive of the views and policies followed by the EU and were, therefore, seen as being wholly supportive of the status quo.

Politicians hate change unless it's initiated by themselves. They also hate non-politicians getting involved in what they see as their own fiefdom; most of all, they hate not being in control. Obama was in favour of the EU remaining unchanged and in the stifling stranglehold of Merckel et al; Trump

threatens to shake things up. Inevitably, established, powerful political leaders dislike and distrust him; what a shame for them that he'll be the real King Pin after Friday and will be the one pulling the strings.

TIME TO BURY THE NHS.

I am fed up to the back teeth with people whingeing and whining about supposed problems with the National Health Service and social care arrangements in this country. There is one problem and one problem only - people want the best and most comprehensive services in the world but don't want to pay for them.

When the NHS was founded, there were crazy notions that, over time, the general health of the nation would improve and the demand for healthcare would decline; how could anyone have been so naïve ? The truth, of course and as anyone with half an eye to the future would have realised, was that it would lead to an ageing population with different health needs, while scientific advances would lead to more treatments of every sort becoming available. An increasing and ageing population plus the identification of 'new' conditions, developments in treatment and new and evermore expensive drugs equals financial demands racing out of control.

As regards social care, in the past the elderly were most often cared for by their families but not so today. Granny and granddad are packed off to some care home as soon as they become a burden meaning that the demand for care home places has skyrocketed. The younger generations, anxious to preserve their anticipated inheritance, don't at all like the idea of anyone but 'the state' paying for this, not actually realising that they are 'the state'. Should the government dare to suggest that taxes might have to rise to pay for the extra demand, all hell will break lose.

The solutions to this apparent conundrum are simple. Firstly, the people have to come to understand that the notion of 'something for nothing' doesn't work; one way or another, additional resources have to be made available. In respect of the NHS people have to stop running to see their GP every time they have a runny nose and have to realize that hospital services, Accident & Emergency in particular, must not be abused. We have to recognize that we can't go on expecting everything to be free; GP services and A & E are essential and should be free, as long as they're not abused, but there is no reason why some other elements should continue to be free. Abortions, vasectomies, fertility treatments and family planning prescriptions are usually lifestyle choices and should be chargeable; it is highly questionable whether cosmetic surgery, except when reconstructive following other surgery or injuries, should be a free service and it is highly debatable whether treatments required as a consequence of an individual's abuse of alcohol, tobacco or drugs, or for other largely self-inflicted injuries, should be free. Other treatments for conditions which are neither life-threatening nor debilitating should all be assessed as to whether it is reasonable for the state to pay out of general taxation. In the end, the NHS should become a service to provide for genuine medical need, while the vast array of peripheral services which have grown up since its inception should be covered by insurance schemes. Such schemes could easily be designed to ensure that those who are unable to pay are not disadvantaged while those with the resources pay their fair share. People would then be free to decide what services they wanted to use and what they were prepared to pay for rather than be taxed to pay for services on which they never make any demand and, sometimes, have never even heard of.

Turning to social care, there is a very simple solution. There is no reason at all why those with property and savings should not be expected to pay for their own care. The idea that 'the family home' is, in some way, sacrosanct is an utter nonsense; younger generations have no right whatever to expect to benefit from their parents' estates and, if a house has to be sold to pay for care home services, so be it. The mechanics of a system would have to be worked out but this is the obvious and simplest answer to an issue which successive governments have so far failed to address; clearly, they've been frightened of the likely political fall out but, sooner or later, the nettle will have to be grasped.

What we need today is a Prime Minister with guts and a Government with vision; we need to stop looking back and start looking forward. We need a genuine restructuring of our state-run services, starting with health and social care. The NHS is dead and it's time to bury it.

MARK CARNEY : EX-EXPERT.

A few short months ago, a variety of important people made great play of the horrors that would follow if we, the people, dared to vote to leave the European Union. David Cameron, George Osborne, Barack Obama, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, assorted senior European political figures, the head of the International Monetary Fund, loads of others AND the single most important financial 'expert' in this country, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, all told us that all hell would break lose if we were stupid enough to ignore their advice that we should stay in the egregious and stifling clutches of the EU.

Of course, all of these self-proclaimed 'experts' have now been proved to have been utterly wrong. One actually has to wonder if they weren't simply wrong but actively tried to distort the facts and lied to the people, but we'll let that pass. Cameron and Osborne tried to sell us down the river with a meaningless agreement, Obama threatened our trading status with the USA and others just said that we would suffer financial meltdown. It's all proved to be nonsense.

Yesterday, Mark Carney did an almost total 'volte face'. He said that Brexit was 'no longer' the biggest domestic risk to the UK's economy, though he did claim that credit for this is due to him and the actions of the Bank of England in the aftermath of the referendum vote; ha-ha.. He also indicated that the Bank is 'very likely' to revise its previous economic forecasts very soon, predicting a much better outlook for the UK than previously suggested. Carney said that he was 'surprised' that his earlier forecasts had not come true, and now sees Brexit as being much more of a threat to the EU than to the UK.

Let us be clear. This gargantuan figure of the financial world, this superman and unchallengeable expert was completely wrong in forecasts that he made less than 9 months ago; not only that, but the failure of his forecasts caused him surprise. He now proposes to issue a new raft of forecasts, though why anyone should believe them escapes me, and has also taken it on himself to predict that the EU's financial stability is now much more in question than the UK's.

God save us from experts ! The one thing that is most clear is that we should ignore them all, especially those who are so certain of their rectitude that they threaten us with Armageddon if we don't do as we're told.

BBC SAYS 'BYE-BYE' TO HIPPOS, 'HELLO' TO ZUMBA !

The BBC is forever whining about a lack of resources and yet it still manages to waste licence payers' money on trivia and rubbish.

For years now, viewers been treated to a miscellany of 'fillers' between programmes; in my youth, we even had the quite famous 'Potter's Wheel' which was, at least, interesting and educational. In recent times, such items have been replaced by an assortment of quite pointless interludes including hot ait balloons and hippos. Yesterday, apparently, marked the introduction of the latest set of meaningless and pointless 'idents', as the BBC appears to call them.

Out go the circling hippos and in come a series of images designed to "capture an evolving portrait of modern Britain in all its diversity", whatever that might mean. True to its own modern style of profligacy, the BBC has actually paid someone, no doubt a handsome sum, to invent a daft new set of silly images; these include a group of swimmers, a 'zumba' class and wheelchair rugby players in action. The commissioned artist, a photographer named Martin Parr, must surely be laughing all the way to the bank.

The BBC, its presenters, reporters and guests have been at the forefront of those bemoaning the imposition of supposed austerity by the evil Tory led governments of recent years and yet they can still find the cash to pay for this nonsensical and utterly unnecessary trivia. It seems that image is all and the BBC feels it essential to broadcast its socialist ideals above all else and whatever the cost.

If these pointless 'fillers' are needed, the BBC must have vast stores of material from which it could draw at no cost; why, then, does it need to arrange special commissions for such things ? If ever there was a case for doing away with the licence fee, and the BBC, it is proven by such nonsense as this.