CHARLIE GARD

One can only have sympathy for the parents of Charlie Gard, the terminally ill child who has been at the centre of a prolonged court battle. However, one can also question whether their actions have been in the best interests of their young son, or more about their own wants and desires.

Charlie, who was born in August 2016, has a rare and terminal genetic condition and has been in hospital since October; his muscles have wasted and he has severe brain damage. There is no cure for his condition and no treatment, other than some experimental therapy only available in the USA. Doctors treating Charlie at Great Ormond Street were of the opinion that nothing could help Charlie and continued treatment would simply prolong his suffering, including the experimental therapy which his parents wanted to try.

In March, doctors at Great Ormond Street agreed that Charlie's life support should be turned off and that he should be allowed to die. The parents disagreed and a legal battle ensued, at each stage of which the courts have agreed with the hospital's view that Charlie's best interests would be best served by allowing him to die.

 On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights, the last port of call in the parents' legal battle, declined to overturn previous rulings in British courts and it has now been indicated that the child's life support will be switched off later today. Naturally, the parents are dismayed but have nowhere else to take their case.

Appearing on radio and television today, Charlie's parents have expressed their sadness but have said little about Charlie. What they have stressed is THEIR desire to take him home, to bath him and sit with him; whether such things would be good for their son doesn't seem to have been considered. Once his life support is switched off, Charlie is likely to die very quickly as he has, for some time, only been able to breathe with the aid of a ventilator and has been fed through a tube; his quality of life has been minimal.

Again I say that one has to have sympathy for his parents but one must also consider the life that Charlie has endured. What is most important is to look to his best interests rather than those of his parents, and those best interest are now served by letting him slip away quietly, without fuss and without any further argument or recriminations.

TOWER BLOCK CLADDING : IS TESTING RIGHT ?

The external cladding attached to every single tower block tested so far has been deemed to have failed to meet expected fire safety criteria. Can this really be true ? According to the chairman of the Local Government Association, it actually indicates that there is something wrong with the testing arrangements.

On radio and television this morning, Lord Porter of Spalding has expressed serious reservations about the testing, suggesting that the 'experts' who have been advising the government have got things badly wrong. It seems that, following their advice, the testing has concentrated on testing the flammability of one particular component of the cladding rather than testing whole panels and the material which sits between the cladding and the exterior of the building itself.

Given that the failure rate from testing is 100%, does Lord Porter have a point ? Is it really likely that every local authority in the country has been negligent and penny-pinching in this respect, ignoring safety to safe a few coppers ? Is it likely that every single local authority has employed fire safety, health and safety, builders and building safety experts who have all been equally negligent and incompetent ?

It seems to me that the answer to these questions is most unlikely to be 'Yes'; what seems far more likely is that, in their panic to be seen to be 'doing something' bout the Grenfell Tower disaster, the government has been bamboozled by 'experts' and exploited by those who now expect to make large amounts of money from replacing all of the existing cladding on our tower blocks.

Political decisions made in haste and under pressure are rarely right and it seems that this one has simply proved the point.

DRIVERLESS CARS : A NIGHTMARE SCENARIO.

The prospect of 'driverless cars' populating our roads within a few years fills me with foreboding. To me, this is another example of doing something because we can, and for no better or more worthy reason.

What reason is there for having such vehicles on our roads ? While they may have a purpose in highly organised and controlled spaces - airports, theme parks and the like - to let them loose on our largely disorganised and uncontrolled roads seems folly.

People and computers behave differently, people often in intuitive fashion and computers by programming. A driver may often react to a situation before it arises as a result of years of experience added to a bit of anticipation; can a computer driven car ever behave in such a way ? The likelihood  of accidents arising as a direct result of a driverless vehicle behaving in a programmed but wholly unexpected manner, causing surprise and confusion to human drivers, must be substantial. Computers don't break rules, people do; sometimes, breaking the rules may actually avoid problems but a vehicle acting under strict programming would not be able to do this. The only solution to this conundrum would seem to be to make the relevant programming flexible so as to try to mirror human actions, which strikes me as being impossible.

We do have driverless trains and aeroplanes, although neither type of vehicle travels in the heavily congested spaces in which cars do and, almost invariably, they have a human driver available in case of emergencies. Cars are very different. In a driverless world, humans would hand over total control to their vehicles, no longer learning to drive and surrendering themselves to the vagaries of computer performance. From start to finish, their journeys would be outside of their control, unable to circumvent blockages along the way; people would lose all sense of location as location would no longer matter.

Is this what we want ? I, for one, certainly don't. Put the driverless car back in its box and let people  control their own lives, not be controlled by computers.

GRENFELL TOWER : APPROPRIATE RESPONSE NEEDED

No one can deny that the Grenfell Tower fire was almost certainly exacerbated by a failure to ensure adequate fire safety measures, in particular, that the cladding affixed to the outside of the building was fire proof. However, the subsequent reaction of the media and some politicians has been, to say the least, questionable.

Labour's John McDonnell, a man whose ambition it is to bring down the government and replace it with a communist-style dictatorship, has claimed that the victims of the fire were "murdered" by political decisions. Presumably he would also claim that the victims of other disasters and atrocities were also killed by the state as this is an easy way to blame the whole capitalist system for anything that befalls its people. He is, of course, using this tragedy to further his political ambitions, seeing those who lost their lives at Grenfell Tower as little more than collateral damage and a weapon to use in his on-going war with capitalism. McDonnell is a nasty little man who has spent most of his political life hiding in the shadows and waiting for an opportunity like this to arise; don't be fooled by him. We are all no more than pawns in his attempt to climb the greasy political pole.

While McDonnell tries to make political capital at the national level, many local councils are now running around like headless chickens trying to discover if they might also have a Grenfell Tower disaster in the making. It seems that a very high proportion of similar tower blocks may also have the same cladding as was on the tower in Kensington and councils have been panicking mightily as a result. Tenants have been ordered out of their homes in the middles of the night, special 'fire wardens' have been appointed and fire engines are on emergency standby; all of this even though the buildings in question have stood happily and safely for many years, even decades, without the slightest sign of any problems. While taking additional precautions might be sensible, the over-reaction in some areas has been almost risible.

With all of this going on, the media has been having a field day of its own. Interviews with tenants from here, there and everywhere, coverage of demonstrations, constant badgering of politicians and daily updates on developments, particularly on the number of buildings now thought to be potentially dangerous. Rather than sticking to facts and investigating the veracity of those facts, the media prefers to make the most of every bit of perceived 'bad news', reporting and commenting on such snippets in such a way as to ramp up fear and distrust. Instead of reporting dispassionately, the media loves all that is dramatic and so the truth is all too often overlooked and unreported.

The aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy will be with us for a long time to come, but we really should not get carried away by it. We need a measured and appropriate response, not the wild flailing around that is currently going on, and certainly not political points scoring or finger pointing.

BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS : THE GREAT BORE BEGINS.

At long last discussions about the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union have begun and, inevitably, the media has gone into overdrive, again.

Endless consideration, assessment, analysis and re-analysis of a handful of words from a handful of people seems to be the media's idea of 'news'. Of course, it isn't and the 'news' is very little so far; all of the rest is hot air and pointless rhetoric.

The one clear issue that's emerged seems to be that the EU is of the view that the European Court of Justice should be the final arbiter of the negotiations and should also continue to have oversight of the position of EU nationals living in the UK even after the latter's exit from the union. How this position can be maintained is an interesting question as it would be akin to one team in a football match setting all of the rules of play and having all of the officials on its side as well; not exactly a level playing field.

No doubt Theresa May's initial suggestion regarding the future arrangements for EU nationals living in the UK and vice versa is no more than an opening gambit, as is Angela Merkel's reported response. It's said that there are some 3 million assorted EU nationals living in the UK and a million UK nationals in the EU; clearly these people need to have some certainty about their likely futures but we need to keep in mind that they have voluntarily chosen to live where they do. In particular, the many UK pensioners who have forsaken our shores for the warmer climes of France or Spain did so for their own benefit, not that of their country. Some have lived abroad for many, many years and yet whine about what they might lose if they are not protected from any adverse effects of 'Brexit'. Effectively these people want to have their cake and eat it, something which most of us know isn't realistic and which should not be a stumbling block in negotiations.

On the other hand, those UK industries which rely heavily on EU labour might well need to be protected or supported and I see 2 ways in which this might be achieved. Firstly, our overly generous welfare system needs to ensure that anyone who is fit for work only receives benefits when there is no work available for them; to my mind, there is no reason why, for instance, the harvesting of soft fruit seems to be a preserve of Eastern European nationals when we have 1.5 million unemployed of our own. Get at least some of them working and forget ludicrous notions of what is or isn't 'suitable employment'.

Secondly, where there is no alternative to migrant labour why should there be any problem about allowing appropriate numbers into the country for the period of their employment ? Many of those who undertake this work now do so only on a temporary basis and send most of their income back to their families, wherever they are in Europe, before themselves returning once the employment comes to an end. Perceived issues in this area reported by some seem to be no more than part of the on-going attempt to reverse the result of our referendum.

The nest 18 months or so are set to be full of claims and counterclaims, offers, proposals, rejections, fall-outs, red lines, breaking points, agreements, disagreements, leaks, fake news, innuendo, lies, damned lies and statistics. The media will do its very best to dissect all of this and bore us to tears with every last ounce of coverage that it can manage, much of it utterly meaningless and pointless.

What a miserable time we're all going to have before we get the inevitable agreement in March 2019.

WHO WILL LEAD THE LIB DEMS ?

Following the departure of Tim Farron as leader, the Liberal Democrats find themselves in a sorry state.

With only a dozen Members of Parliament, they have few to choose from and that few are mostly anonymous figures are known to almost no one outside of their constituencies and Parliament. Of the names that have been put forward as contenders, Jo Swinson has already said that she doesn't want the job and it seems that the choice is to be between Ed Davey, Norman Lamb and Vince Cable.

One would have to say that the field is pretty uninspiring, being more akin to that found on a wet Wednesday in Wolverhampton than at Royal Ascot; Lamb was easily beaten by Farron in 2015 and so is a proven loser, while Cable is 74 and surely not a suitable choice for a party that sees itself as radical and forward thinking. That leaves Ed Davey although he is actually the least favoured of the three with the bookies.

Whomever they pick has a pretty thankless task and is unlikely to make much impression. They have my sympathy.

FINSBURY PARK ATTACK WAS RACIST, NOT TERRORIST

Following the Finsbury Park Mosque attack, we're told that it was a 'terrorist incident'; what utter poppycock. While it may suit the authorities to draw no distinction between attacks by those who have been indoctrinated by Al Qaeda or Isil and those who are simply mad racists, there clearly is a distinction.

On the one hand, the attacks are directed as an assault on our nation and culture while on the other they are nothing more than perceived retaliation by idiots, with no controlling influence or indoctrination involved.

Those involved in recent incidents in Westminster, London Bridge and in Manchester were attacking our society as part of a coordinated attempt to destroy it,; they are rightly considered terrorists. Those involved in the attack at Finsbury Park are undoubtedly guilty of a variety of criminal offences, including murder and attempted murder, but terrorists, don't be ridiculous.

We should not let our politically correct minded masters con us into believing otherwise.

GRENFELL TOWER - LEFT WING MAKES HAY.

No one yet knows how the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower in Kensington started nor how it was that it spread so rapidly. No one seems to be clear about the reasons why the fire precautions proved problematic and no one yet knows how many people have died. Shockingly, none if this has stopped the 'hard left' from making all manor of claims, mostly directed as propaganda against the government.

Theresa May has, again, come up short in her response to the tragedy and she has been seriously out done by Jeremy Corbyn in the 'touchy-feely' stakes. Corbyn's political 'bread and butter' is all about being a cuddly, friendly uncle to all and sundry, while May simply finds that approach outwith her abilities. This hasn't helped her image or position as a beleaguered Prime Minister and she and the government have been vilified without cause as a result.

Meanwhile, Corbyn has done nothing to discourage various 'hard left' groups, including the Socialist Workers' Party and not excluding himself, from making as much political capital from this dreadful incident as they can. They have attempted to place the 'blame' on the, effectively evil, Conservative government by saying that it is all about cuts in public spending; they have encouraged public demonstrations which have been ostensibly about the disaster but, in reality, have been nothing more than left wing protest meetings. Some, such as the Corbyn supporter and pop singer Lily Allen have made claims that the government has been managing the flow of information about the tragedy and has, through control of the media, kept details secret, including about the numbers of missing and dead.

In a world dominated by 'social media' such claims are such blatant nonsense as to be bizarre, but there are also far too many utterly naïve fools who are only too ready to believe whatever they read, particularly if it comes from one of their celebrity idols, and Corbyn is only too ready to capitalise. In truth, it defies belief that anyone could attempt to make political capital out of this appalling event but, sadly, Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbot and their hard left supporters see nothing wrong in using every avenue available to them in their pursuit of power.

And 40% of those who voted, voted for them; God help us.

WHO WOULD DEPOSE CORBYN ?

It is quite remarkable how so many senior figures in the Labour Party, who vilified Jeremy Corbyn over the last couple of years, have not only failed to continue their vilification since the general election but have actually made noises of support. Why might this be /

Way back in 1981, Labour won elections for the Greater London Council under a moderate leader, Andrew McIntosh. Within a few hours of the election, McIntosh was ousted by Ken Livingstone and his 'hard left' coterie of supporters who had been working for such a revolution for several years. London became a left wing stronghold.

One now wonders if we might be heading for 1981 in reverse. The possibility of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister is now a real one and yet many of his policies can find little favour with senior party members who have, so far, remained deafeningly silent. A Corbyn premiership would be difficult to maintain given that many of his own backbenchers would be reluctant to support him and an immediate challenge would surely be likely.

Who would be at the forefront ? Some have suggested that Yvette Cooper is favoured by the Blairite wing of the party, but would David Miliband consider returning or, even and horribly, does Tony Blair himself have thoughts of coming back ? Whichever took over, the country would be plunged into months, at least, of turmoil.

Still more reasons why the Conservatives cannot afford to either let Theresa May go or to risk another election anytime soon. They must remain united, whatever they might think.

HONOURS GO TO RICH AND FAMOUS, AS USUAL.

How on earth do they decide to whom to give 'honours' ?

The release of the list of recipients in the latest 'Queen's Birthday Honours' has the usual knighthoods and dame-hoods to an assortment of celebrities and personalities, while those who should really be honoured are lucky if they receive an MBE.

This time around, we have a knighthood for Billy Connolly, an admittedly funny but unavowedly foul-mouthed actor and comedian; what he has done to deserve such an honour escapes me. Then we have a dame-hood for the American actress, Olivia de Havilland, seemingly not for her acting prowess in the distant past but for the fact that she's reached the age of 100. Paul McCartney, J K Rowling, Delia Smith and Terence Conran are to be made members of the Order of Companions of Honour, a highly prestigious order and an honour which surely requires rather more than to have written a few songs or books, cooked some cakes or designed some faddish furniture.

Many civil servants get their virtually automatic entitlements, ignoring the fact of their often well-paid and secure jobs, generous and protected pensions and generally plush working environments, not at all like the working conditions of the school dinner or crossing patrol lady, postman, and many others who provide real services. 

The truly deserving are only found at the bottom of the list. George 'Johnny' Johnson, the last survivor of the perilous 'Dambusters' Raid' of 1944 is given an MBE, having served his country and risked his life flying deep into enemy territory in a rickety aeroplane which would find no favour amongst modern-day health and safety 'experts'. Which is more deserving - Connolly or Johnson ? The senior civil servant or the dinner lady ?

Assorted others who have served their communities for many years, often unpaid, are lucky if they receive anything at all; a 'British Empire Medal', the absolute bottom of the pile, is the best they can hope for.

What a farce.

TIM FARRON : VICTIM OF POLICAL CORRECTNESS

Tim Farron's resignation from the leadership of the Liberal Democrat's brings to the fore the intolerant nature of our overly politically correct society.

As a committed and practising Christian, Farron has certain views, notably regarding homosexuality and so-called 'gay marriage'. In keeping with traditional biblical teaching, he considers homosexual acts to be a sin and believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

These are his personal views and, in a free society, must surely be of no concern to others. He does not shout these views in a rabble rousing manner from the rooftops, nor does he advocate any marches, campaigns or other activity directed against the objects of his views, and yet he is vilified.

Those who support the 'rights' of homosexual men, lesbians and others, regularly do shout their message from the rooftops. Even though they are a tiny minority of the population, indeed small enough to render their proclivities abnormal in any lexicographical meaning of the word, their voices can be heard loud and clear everywhere. They demand equality and assorted rights while aggressively

attempting to deny the same to the bulk of the population.

Homosexuality isn't 'wrong', though it is practised by only a small minority of the population and may even be abhorrent to some who certainly have the right to express a view that it is; 'gay marriage' is nonsensical and to be opposed to it is simply a logical position to adopt. However, in a world drenched in 'political correctness' it has become unacceptable to express such views, almost now to the point at which such expression may be considered a criminal offence. It is certainly an 'offence' which disqualifies candidates from all manor of positions both in the public and private spheres, and Farron is simply the latest victim of this egregious bullying by a vociferous minority.

It is wrong to discriminate against someone because of their colour, religion, sexual orientation or anything else of a purely personal nature. However, it is also wrong to impose views on others and, in effect, to discriminate against them simply because they don't agree with the current 'politically correct' view of the world; worse, it is bordering on evil to disseminate a particular point of view in such a way as to make any other point of view unacceptable.

Saying that 'gay marriage' is wrong or that homosexual acts are a 'sin', are points of view that should be respected, not suppressed. Sadly 'political correctness' does not allow contrary views to be respected, only shouted down.

UKIP IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER.

Those who have been claiming that UKIP has served its purpose and is now a 'dead duck' need to think again.

The result of last week's General Election has brought die hard 'remainers' flooding out of the woodwork in droves. The spurious differences between 'hard Brexit', 'soft Brexit' extreme Brexit' and even 'Mrs May's Brexit' are being trumpeted and an assortment of voices are demanding all manor of supposed softening of the approach to negotiations such that the UK would never actually leave the European Union at all.

John Major and David Cameron have both made their latest contributions, calling for some sort of cross-party consensus on the 'type of Brexit' that is negotiated, really meaning that they don't want us to leave; Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Conservatives in Scotland also seems to favour not really leaving and is making veiled threats about the extent to which Scottish Conservative MPs will support Theresa May's administration. Additionally, some voices from Europe are again threatening our financial market, while French and German politicians are starting to suggest the possibility that the UK may change its mind about leaving.

Most of the British voices now coming to the fore talk of the UK staying in the 'single market' and / or 'customs union. None of these voices let on that such arrangements are impossible for a country outside of the EU unless they :

 (1) pay a membership fee and

 (2) accept unlimited movement of people and

 (3) accept the EU's rules and regulations and

 (4) accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice

Given that these are points which the population voted against in the referendum, it's clear that Cameron, Major and the rest continue to do everything that they can to ignore the democratic vote and thwart the will of the people by effectively keeping us in the EU.

When Theresa May said that 'Brexit means Brexit' she was making a simple statement of fact. Leaving the European Union is a case of leaving the European Union, no more and no less. What access can then be negotiated for subsequent access to whichever of its various organs is a separate issue. Of course it would be beneficial to all if a sensible deal can be struck but we must not be diverted by this bombardment from the political elite who, themselves, have benefited hugely from our membership and who are hell-bent on keeping things as they are.

Sadly, the failure of the Conservatives in the General Election has gifted these vehement 'remainers' the whip hand. It is highly unlikely that Mrs May would be able to get anything through Parliament other than the smallest nod towards 'Brexit' that is, in reality, not 'Brexit' at all. With this in mind, it's clear that UKIP has never been more important and the sooner it sorts itself out, gets a new leader (Nigel Farage, again ?) and sets out to harry the government and combat the 'remainers', the better. If they don't, be in no doubt that we will never leave this interfering, bureaucratic, anti-democratic and orrupt institution.

BBC GOES LEFT, LEFT, LEFT !!

As if to prove its left-wing credentials, the BBC's 'Andrew Marr' show has opted to have a gaggle of guests who are heavily weighted against Theresa May and Brexit.

Toby Young appeared as the right wing representative to review the day's newspapers and spoke positively while recognizing that things were far from ideal. However, we then had George Osborne, the former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer and prospective Prime Minister himself, who was sacked by Mrs May when she became Party Leader, has since become editor of the Evening Standard and carried out a vitriolic campaign against her during the last few weeks. On today's programme, Osborne was given free rein to carry on his campaign on air and made it clear that he continues to be bitter and twisted.

Nothing much needs to be said about Polly Toynbee who seems to be beloved of the BBC and is a 'hard left' journalist and commentator. Then there was Jeremy Corbyn, looking like the cat who swallowed the cream even though he actually lost the election; there are few serious politicians in the country who are more left-wing than him.

The supposed 'political balance' was then achieved by bringing in Michael Fallon and Michael Heseltine. While Fallon is an honourable and loyal member of Mrs May's cabinet and government, Heseltine has rarely been anything other than trouble for the Conservative Party and its various leaders, having failed to become such himself. He is pompous, arrogant and a strong Europhile; he is no lover of Theresa May or of Brexit. His contribution was centred on Brexit being a 'cancer at the heart of the Conservative Party', while completely ignoring the fact that it is actually the will of the people; he still refuses to accept the result of the referendum.

Finally, we had a socialist Member of the European Parliament who was at pains to point out how difficult everything was going to be.

Taken together, this added up to 2 voices speaking for Theresa May, her government and Brexit, and 5 speaking against. Balance ?!!

ELECTION RESULT SERVES NO ONE.

Well, well, well !

In a catastrophic result for the Conservatives, they've lost their majority when they expected to increase it significantly. It seems that the people have done their thinking and decided that they don't much like Theresa May and the Conservatives, while many more than was expected decided that they did rather like Jeremy Corbyn's offering of 'tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend'. The polls were mostly wrong, again.

There is no doubt that Corbyn ran an effective campaign with many frankly populist policies; he also seems to have managed to get a substantial number of younger voters to support him and the final outcome of around 41% of the vote is dramatically higher than the opinion polls were indicating throughout the campaign period. Corbyn's success may also owe something to him being a true socialist rather than a 'middle-of-the-road, politician; he may have galvanised many of the traditional Labour supporters who have drifted away from the Party in recent years as it became more centrist in approach.

On the Conservative side, 44% of the votes would normally have produced a healthy majority in Parliament but, in this extraordinary election, it's only resulted in the Conservatives being the largest party; while they seem likely to be able to remain in office with the support of the Democratic Unionists from Ulster, it will be far from straightforward and policies will have to be watered down, perhaps significantly in some cases.

Theresa May's position has been seriously weakened though the expectation is that she will remain as Prime Minister. However, she has suffered a huge blow and must carry much of the blame for this wholly unexpected result. Six weeks ago, the Conservatives were apparently heading for a landslide victory but a quite appalling campaign all but destroyed them; the furore over the funding of social care, issues over the NHS and a crazy policy to replace free school dinners with free school breakfasts, the policy to meddle with the 'Winter Fuel Allowance' and May's refusal to appear in the televised 'Leaders' Debate', as well as her stuttering performance on the social issues. Indeed, the initial approach of concentrating the campaign on Theresa May, rather than on the Party, and the absence of other major figures such as Boris Johnson and Liam Fox from the frontline seems to have been a huge mistake. It also seems certain that the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London allied to Labour's promise to put more police on the streets caused many to turn to Labour.

The Conservative miscalculation is undoubtedly the worst since February 1974 when Ted Heath called an election expecting the country to support his stand against the miners; on that occasion, the country gave Heath the elbow and Labour actually ended up forming a minority government; they then went to the country again a few months later to give them a majority and 5 years in power which ultimately produced chaos and Margaret Thatcher.

What will happen next is anyone's guess. It is possible that the Conservatives could remain in office for a full 5 years though their position is obviously highly vulnerable; 1 or 2 by-election losses could easily prove fatal, although the '5 Year Parliament Act' could now act in their favour. It will be difficult to put through their manifesto, if not impossible, and 'Brexit' negotiations will certainly be more problematic. Theresa May, herself, seems very unlikely to be able to survive a full 5 years and there must be a possibility of another election within the next 2 years; if that happens, a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn becomes a distinct possibility.

Whatever the eventual outcome, this result serves no one. It is disastrous for the Conservatives and could become catastrophic for the country if Corbyn ever gets into power. Those who voted for Corbyn this time didn't get what they wished for; next time they may well get their wish but, as is often said, 'you should be very careful what you wish for as you may get it'.

SO WHO WILL WIN ?

As election day approaches and the party's campaigns are wound up, only one question remains - who will win ?

6 weeks ago there was no doubt that the Conservatives were heading for a spectacular landslide victory. Labour were in total disarray and the Conservatives seemed to be riding the crest of a wave. However, things are now somewhat different and the opinion polls are giving a very mixed view of the likely outcome. What has happened ?

Firstly, Theresa May and her Conservative colleagues have run a distinctly lacklustre and rather messy campaign. They've put forward one or two policy proposals which seem to have been badly miscalculated and Mrs May no longer looks like the strong and steadfast leader that she was initially portrayed as and on which basis much of the early part of the campaign was fought. In the end, the damage to the Conservatives campaign hasn't been enormous, although their predicted share of the final vote has probably fallen by 4 or 5 percentage points.

On the other hand, Labour's campaign has been one of unashamed bribery. Populist policies and promises to increase spending on the NHS and on education, to abolish university tuition fees and to put more police officers on the streets have met with general approval from many traditional Labour supporters, as well as some others, and Jeremy Corbyn has usually cut a fairly sympathetic figure. All of this has contributed to the predicted share of the vote for Labour rising by 7 or 8 points, reducing the overall deficit to the Conservatives quite dramatically. The lead may now be down to somewhere in the region of 5 - 10 % and some pundits are even talking about a 'hung Parliament'.

While the campaigns started with Mrs May being the adored figure, they seem to be ending with Mr Corbyn having become the more appealing one of the 2; Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats has gone largely unnoticed as have most of the other peripheral leaders. In Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon's SNP seems to have lost a degree of support and may lose several of its seats, though it will still be easily the largest party in that part of the UK.

Will Corbyn's popular cuddliness and promises to throw vast quantities of our money at public services win the day or, when it comes to the crunch, will the electorate go for the less cuddly Mrs May and her distinctly less exciting but financially much more prudent approach ? For what it's worth, I think that sense will prevail and I predict an overall Conservative majority of about 60.

All will be revealed come Friday morning.

CORBYN'S CASH VERSUS MAY'S POLICY.

Now that the general election is only 3 days distant, things are hotting up. Following Saturday's events in London, terrorism has come to the fore as an election issue to be fought over, though the major party leaders seem to have very different approaches.

Theresa May, saying that "enough is enough", has indicated that we must become far less tolerant of extremism and must take serious steps to prevent the radicalization of young Muslims. She has proposed that the major internet companies take much greater responsibility with regard to the prevention of communication between terrorists and has indicated that a future Conservative government would quickly review and tighten terrorist legislation.

In contrast, Jeremy Corbyn has followed his previous path of simply suggesting that vast sums of money should be thrown at the problem; his plan, if 'plan' it can be called, is to recruit an additional 10,000 police officers. How additional police officers would help to combat the issue of terrorist activity hasn't been stated, nor where all these recruits would come from nor how long it would take to get them in place. In other words, Corbyn's 'policy' is no more than a populist, ill-defined and ultimately meaningless piece of political rhetoric.

That said, Theresa May's, proposals, while sounding very strong and Prime Ministerial, also lack any firm detail. However, she has, at least, indicated that, if returned as Prime Minister, she will pursue a much stronger and more active approach than has hitherto been the case. She has indicated a change of direction and that a government led by her would take a much tougher line. "Enough is enough" sounds right.

May has indicated policy direction while Corbyn has spoken of numbers. I know which I'll be voting for.

TIME TO INTERN ALL TERRORISM SUSPECTS - NOW !

Another murderous attack in London last night must surely bring about some serious rethinking of our response to such things. This time, 3 men drove a white van into pedestrians on London Bridge before then getting out, running into various venues and attacking people with knives before they were shot dead by police. It's reported that 6 people died, plus the 3 terrorists, and 48 were injured in these incidents.

It's previously been reported that our security services know of many people whom they think may have terrorist connections and that they are actively 'tracking' several hundred of these. Following the vicious attacks in Manchester and now in London, it must be time to go well beyond 'tracking' such suspects; this is war and war calls for much more active measures.

Those whom the security services are 'tracking' should be rounded up and interned along with all others whose activities have created interest. Immigration of nationals of countries such as Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan should be stopped. Other travel between such countries and the UK should be strictly controlled and the possibility of young people going to them to be 'radicalised' must be ended. Internet sites and services known to be connected with these countries should be blocked. In other words, we should do everything possible to keep terrorists out and to prevent them from communicating with their compatriots.

These fanatics need to be taken off of our streets and it is time to take clear and decisive action. No more shilly-shallying, no more 'multi-culturalism'. Intern them, deport them, shoot them.

CORBYN TRIES TO BRIBE US WITH OUR OWN MONEY.

It is clear that Jeremy Corbyn has only way real policy as the election campaign enters its final week and that is to buy votes.

Promises to abolish student fees and an indication that a Labour government might also cancel existing student debts are policies aimed directly at buying the votes of students, though at a huge cost to the country in general. Other promises to provide extra resources to the NHS and to schools while nationalizing an assortment of services mean billions of pounds would have to be found from higher taxes and / or increased borrowing.

What no one seems to have pointed out is that all this money that a Corbyn-led administration would commit has to come from somewhere. As has been pointed out, there is no magic 'money tree'; governments have no money of their own, all they have is what they can wheedle out of the people. Every penny that governments spend comes from us, one way or another.

Income tax and national insurance, VAT, insurance premium tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, council tax and corporation tax; tobacco duty, alcohol duty, vehicle excise duty, fuel duty, stamp duty, air passenger duty, gambling duties, all manor of environmental taxes and duties, business rates, assorted levies and heaven alone knows how many more.

This vast array of taxes, duties and levies all take money from the people who often seem to forget that taxes paid by business are ultimately passed onto their customers. In the end, all taxes are paid by the people, all of the people and not just those who can easily afford to pay them. Sometimes, we pay tax on top of tax, as with the VAT charged on top of the fuel duty added to the cost of fuel and, of course, the basic price of the fuel includes an element to enable the producer - BP, Shell, ESSO etc. - to pay their employer's national insurance, corporation tax and so on. We all pay more than enough already without allowing a Corbyn government to rob us of still more.

Even when governments hide their financial excesses by borrowing instead of taxing, the people still pay. Borrowing incurs interest charges which the people pay annually through their taxes. It also incurs debt which has to be repaid over a number years, meaning that future generations can end up paying for the services and benefits enjoyed by the current generation, surely the ultimate and most pernicious con-trick perpetrated by governments. In the end, someone has to pay though today's politicians don't worry about that as they won't be around to carry the can.

All Corbyn is attempting to do is to bribe us with our own money. He will happily promise to spend whatever he can get his hands on but it's all smoke and mirrors. Don't be fooled and don't let this conman loose on our economy.

ELECTION DEBATE : WAS IT WORTH THE EFFORT ?

Last night's election debate on the BBC told viewers nothing that they didn't already know, but highlighted the way in which politicians distort facts to their own benefit.

With Theresa May opting to be elsewhere, Amber Rudd represented the Conservatives. She was opposed by a 5 socialists and Paul Nuttall, whose UKIP party policies seem to be designed to appeal mostly to the extremes of both left and right. Unsurprisingly, the socialist mob rounded on Ms Rudd and threw as much mud as they could muster.

In essence, Ms Rudd stuck to the Conservative line of economic competence while the assembled socialists all made wild claims of crippling austerity and vast poverty afflicting our nation. All said that they would throw huge sums of money at these supposed problems. All did no more than continue their principal policy of buying votes with promises of making everyone rich.

No one ever questions what 'austerity' really means nor does anyone question the claimed levels of 'poverty' that the left claims exist. In truth, the current 'austerity' is nothing of the sort and true poverty is virtually non-existent in the UK. While some people may be less well-off than others, very, very few live on the streets as the likes of Caroline Lucas of the Green Party would have us believe.

One of Labour's big promises is to increase the 'living wage' to £10 an hour; they say this would relieve the supposed poverty that exists. What they don't say is how such a move would impact on business, productivity and employment or on inflation; inevitably, all three would suffer negative effects, compounded by the proposed increases to corporation tax. Inevitably, businesses would become less profitable and many would close; both inflation and unemployment would rise. So much for the socialist nirvana.

While Corbyn and his main socialist allies, Caroline Lucas and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru, all spout this same nonsense, Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats adds his party's determination to keep the UK in the European Union to his mishmash of policies; despite the outcome of the referendum, Farron still keeps harping on about how unfair it all is and how the people just don't understand, or didn't know 'what type of Brexit' they were voting for. It's all tripe. The Scottish Nationalists want independence and UKIP wants immigration sorted out.

So there it is. No one learned anything new and what we saw was 7 politicians squabbling amongst themselves, mostly trying to see who could score most points off of the others, while 6 of them took pot-shots at the absent Prime Minister at every opportunity. Truly excruciating television.

In the end, the voters' choice remains the same. A degree of economic stability and a controlled exit from the European Union under the Conservatives, or higher taxes, higher borrowing, rip-roaring inflation and economic catastrophe under Labour and an amalgam of other left wing parties. 7 days to go.