YOBS TARNISH RYDER CUP.

Watching coverage of the Ryder Cup has been a mixture of thrills and disgust. Thrills at the great competition but disgust at the way in which some of the spectators, supposedly golf fans, have behaved.

Golf is a sport in which sportsmanship is a cornerstone and good behaviour is taken for granted. However, during this competition, the highly partisan European crowd were often heard booing the American opposition and cheering when things didn't go their way. Of course, the home crowd wanted to support their team and wanted to make their support known but, to me, their behaviour was out of order. Additionally, the manner in which some reacted at the end appalled me; it was as if a coach load of drunken yobs, or football supporters, had descended on the course. Morons throwing themselves at the camera, sticking their own cameras in the faces of the Europe captain, Thomas Bjorn, while he was being interviewed, and generally behaving like a bunch of puerile louts.

No doubt many would disagree with me and say that the behaviour of the 'fans' added to the excitement of the occasion and showed how much they'd enjoyed the event. To me it showed only how sick our society has become, how devoid of decency and respect it now is; everything has been infected with the loutish attitudes of football.

A great competition has been sadly tarnished.

CORBYN'S VISION IS TERRIFYING.

Now we know.

Announcements from assorted senior representatives of the labour Party over the last couple of days have confirmed that, if elected to government, Labour would take our country back to the dark days of the 19660s and 1970s. In addition, they also seem to be joining in with the demand for a second referendum on the subject of Brexit, presumably with the expectation that it would reverse the original democratically obtained view of the electorate.

It appears that Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, more properly now seen as a Marxist-Leninist cabal, would set out to destroy our economy with attacks on business and anyone deemed to be 'wealthy'.  Handing out shares to company employees may be a laudable move, but requiring all companies to have a third of its Board members drawn from the workforce is not; neither is stealing 10% of larger company's share capital in order to expropriate vast sums in dividend payments. In truth, it wouldn't really be members of the workforce who were so elevated, it would be trades union representatives whose interests would be unlikely to coincide with those of either investors or the companies concerned. Their demands would be for higher wages, shorter working weeks, longer holidays and more time off for a variety of social reasons - maternity, paternity, bereavement, moving home and heaven alone knows what else. All of this while also opposing mechanisation, automation and job losses. The result would be lower productivity, declining profits and poorer companies, leading to less investment, falling share prices and, ultimately, poorer returns for pension funds and poorer pensioners. Companies would flee from the UK in droves and it wouldn't be long before the pound sank to levels never previously seen, tax revenues would decline dramatically, state borrowing would rise in equal measure, and Britain would be bankrupt. Anyone who doesn't believe this scenario need only look at the unholy mess created by the Labour governments of the 60s and 70s which ended with Denis Healey taking a begging bowl to the IMF while refuse piled up on our streets and bodies remained unburied.

In addition, Labour is promising to nationalize anything that moves, from railways to water; helpfully, this will, apparently, be possible without incurring any costs, meaning that the current owners may well be left somewhat out of pocket. They will also take back central control of our schools system, presumably in order to assist their pursuit of equality by further 'dumbing down' of the syllabus and exams; no child will be allowed to leave school without a mandatory 9 A* grades.

Labour will make sure that all of the trains run on time, probably by employing hordes of workers to adjust station clocks as necessary. Everyone will be absolutely equal whether male, female or intersex, homo-, hetero-, bi- or any other sexual, black, white, yellow, green, ginger, abled or disabled, always remembering that such equality will not apply to conservatives, liberals, the wealthy, tax dodgers, the academically bright, anyone who went to grammar school or is heard to criticize the government. We will all be free to do whatever we like as long as we have a permit for it.

This will be a Socialist Utopia in which some are more equal than others. and anything that the government says will mean whatever the government says it means. Whoopee !!

CORBYN PLAYS POLITICS WITH BREXIT.

It's reported that members of the Labour Party are heavily in favour of holding a second referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union; apparently, a newspaper poll (carried out at the behest of the People's Vote campaign although this is not stated by the BBC) suggests that 86% of the members are in favour of both a second referendum and remaining in the EU, and the leadership of the party has said that it would be ready to back the membership if a relevant decision is made at this week's Party conference.

To me, this is classic misleading reporting and political skulduggery. Firstly, those who vote Labour and those who are members of the party are very different groups; the Party membership is now very skewed to the extreme left and is hardly representative of anyone but themselves. That the reported poll has been conducted for an organisation that is hell bent on keeping the UK inside the EU, also raises questions about its reliability.

Secondly, the words of the leadership, specifically of Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson, need to be taken with a pinch of salt. 

Watson has been quoted as saying that the view of Party members must be respected - exactly what does that mean ? Respecting someone's view doesn't mean acting upon it, it simply means listening to it, understanding it and considering it, so actually it means very little. Many of those on whom Labour relies for support are not members but are strongly opposed to the EU - would he be happy to alienate these supporters ?

Corbyn's quoted comments are even more open to question. He has apparently said that he is not calling for a new vote but that he would "adhere to" any decision made at this week's Party conference. What does "adhere to" mean ? What does he mean by his reference to "any decision" made at the conference ? In the past, contentious issues have been either kept away from the main conference floor or debated but not voted upon. If there is no vote, there is no decision and, with Corbyn in charge of arrangements, he won't be likely to allow a vote which binds him to do anything which he's not happy doing.

Given that the Labour Party previously backed leaving the EU and voted in favour of Article 50 when it came before Parliament, for it to now change tack at the behest of the extreme left wing would be a severe blow to our democracy. It would demonstrate total lack of respect for the millions of people who voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum in favour of supposedly showing respect for a few thousand unhappy extremists. Would that be democratic ?

Where will it all end ?

EU BEGINS TO RUN SCARED !

The latest developments seem to suggest that European leaders have been shocked into activity by Theresa May's combative statement of yesterday.

Suddenly, they are making noises which suggest that comments may have been misunderstood and that a deal is still possible. Even the Irish Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, has indicated that something may be possible, having been a major opponent of all proposals regarding the Irish border, for his own nationalist reasons, so far.

I'm no politician and I may be reading this all wrong. Certainly, those more seasoned in such matters seem to see far less to be enthusiastic about in these developments. Nonetheless, from where I stand, it looks as though the European Union representatives are starting to see "No Deal" as a genuine possibility, even a probability, if they don't change tack, and this has scared the pants off of them.

There will be a deal and' following Theresa May's statement, it is more likely to favour the UK than not. Whether whatever is agreed by will be approved by the UK parliament, or by the many organs and parliaments of the EU and its nations, is another matter entirely.

LABOUR'S ANSWER : NATIONALIZE EVERYTHING !

I have never trusted a politician since I was a lad in short pants, but the proposals of John McDonnell, Labour's 'Chancellor in Waiting' really do take the biscuit.

In fine Marxist tradition, he has promised that all manner of largesse will be showered on those stupid enough to vote Labour in the next General Election, whenever that is. His latest wheeze is to promise to re-nationalize the railways, apparently at no cost; at least, he says that it will require no government borrowing.

Now, in my book, buying things costs money and nationalizing industries is, actually, buying things. Of course, in Marxist dictatorships, companies are simply stolen from their previous owners without any compensation being paid, but the UK is not yet a Marxist dictatorship, unless things have changed while I was having a kip. Currently, the rail infrastructure is owned by the state owned Network Rail, but the rolling stock and services are provided by an assortment of other organisations; some of these are private companies and some are controlled by state owned monopolies - not owned by the British government but by German, French, Dutch and others. For instance, the ubiquitous 'Arriva' is owned by the German state-backed company Deutsche Bahn, while a range of services are operated by Dutch state-controlled Abellio, Govia is backed by both French and Canadian public funds, and there is also involvement from Italian and Japanese state-owned companies as well as others. In other words, if McDonnell wants to privatize the railways, he'll have to pay off various foreign governments to do it. That will cost money.

If he's serious about doing this without incurring any additional borrowing, how's he going to do it ? The various companies have contracts and have invested large sums of money in rolling stock. Yes, the tracks and stations are already state owned, but the trains themselves aren't; is McDonnell planning to steal these from the current operators, including Governments, or buy new stock ? What about the anticipated returns which the current operators expect to make over the coming decades ? Whatever his plans, McDonnell will have problems and it will cost him, actually us, a fortune. 

There is, of course, one way in which all this nationalization could be managed without borrowing any money. How silly of me not to realize - he could increase taxes ! He could go back to the dark days of the 1960s when tax rates peaked at 98%. The rich would happily cough up and all would be well, or not. Sadly, the likes of McDonnell live in the days of the "workers' struggle', when 'soak the rich' was the watch word of the socialist elite. In the modern world, such an approach is impossible although this doesn't bother dyed-in-the-wool Marxists; they happily ignore the realities of a world in which 'the rich' simply move, leaving the rest of us to pick up the bill.

Anyone who experienced the strike ridden days of the 1960s and 1970s knows that nationalization doesn't solve anything. Strikes at British Leyland and Ford destroyed our car industry, strikes by coal works, steel workers, ship workers and the rest, all nationalized industries, reduced our industrial base to almost nothing. The only results of nationalization were strikes, unemployment and the eventual demise of the affected industries. That isn't to say that private enterprise has necessarily been a panacea but it certainly hasn't been as bad as is claimed by the likes of John McDonnell. British Gas, British Telecom, British Airways, National Grid and others haven't exactly been failures.

McDonnell is a typical Marxist. He will promise the earth, at no cost, and will deliver only dictatorship and misery. Unfortunately, many of our younger people simply don't remember the days of the old Soviet Union and have no conception of the appalling lives that the people lived under that regime; they don't even remember our own dark days of strikes and 3 day weeks in the 1960s and 70s, when Labour governed and the unions ruled our lives.

They have no knowledge of the old Soviet states or the old eastern European bloc - Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (where, I hear many cry !) Romania and Poland, not to mention East Germany, from where the present German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, hails. The old Soviet regime was horrific but McDonnell cares nothing for that. He ignores the inevitable consequence of any dictatorial state, that is, that those who oppose it in any way are eliminated. He is an idealist who happily forgets about the tens of millions murdered under Stalin in Russia and Mao in China; he prefers to concentrate on promising to run the railways well, as did Hitler, to everyone's cost.

No one should be fooled. McDonnell, and his partner in crime Jeremy Corbyn, are dinosaurs who would drag the United Kingdom into a new dark age. Their ideas, as vaguely proposed, may be popular with the uneducated and uninitiated, but no one should be fooled. Given power, they would destroy our country.

THERESA HITS BACK !

At last !

Finally, the negotiations over the UK's exit from the European Union have begun in earnest. Following hot on the heels of the EU's dismissive comments about the UK's proposals, Theresa May made a long awaited speech in which she berated the EU's leaders for their failure to be realistic and to treat the UK with the respect it deserves. In response, Donald Tusk on behalf of the EU expressed surprise, accused Mrs May of being "tough" and "uncompromising", but still said that he believed a deal was possible.

Having suffered Michel Barnier's rigid approach over the last year and more, for Tusk to now call Theresa May tough and uncompromising is almost risible. Throughout the negotiations, the EU, in the person of Barnier, has maintained the most uncompromising stance imaginable, particularly over the question of the Irish border. While the UK has proposed, or accepted, compromise after compromise, the EU has had one approach - it's our way or no way. Now, at long last, hit back; Mrs May has hit back and it's clear that the EU has been both surprised and nonplussed by her change of attitude.

Of course, there is a large amount of posturing on both sides but Mrs May seemed genuinely angry when delivering yesterday's speech; there was a note of fury in her voice, which appeared to tremble slightly at times. Mr Tusk and his cronies cannot have missed it and may now be realizing that while the UK can't have it all their on way, neither can the EU.

The next few weeks promise to be dramatic.

IT MUST BE "NO DEAL" : THE BULLIES CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO WIN.

So now we know just how the European Union works. Yesterday's events following the meeting in Salzburg have shown us exactly why we must leave this egregious organisation.

Theresa May has done her best to offer a plan for the position after the UK leaves the EU but has been strongly, even rudely, rebuffed. Donald Tusk and his gang of playground bullies, with French President Emmanuel Macron to the fore, has made it clear that it's their way or no way. Effectively, the UK has been told that either we accept the EU's proposals for a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom or there'll be no agreement. In response, Mrs May has insisted that there'll be no such arrangement and other senior Conservatives have echoed her words. Nonetheless, the manner of the EU's behaviour has upset many, including Remainers who are now beginning to see the EU for what it really is - a highly bureaucratic, dictatorial and bullying organisation which demands utter obedience from its members.

Some EU leaders have even had the gall to suggest that the UK should now hold a further referendum, this being the usual EU way of getting the result that they want. Having lost the first vote, they simply keep on 'asking the people' until lethargy overwhelms them and the vote goes the 'right' way. Shockingly, the BBC also jumped on this bandwagon this morning, interview Gina Miller, a rich, Europhile and highly opinionated woman who is also in favour of another referendum, although she prefers to call it anything else. In her view, people around the country are clamouring for another vote and we should now have a choice of three options - stay in, no deal or whatever the EU demands of us for leaving. Having rejected the original vote which was won by the Leave campaign with more than half of the votes cast, she believes that such a choice would be a better one; given that none of the options is likely to gain as many votes as the original vote to leave or, indeed, gain a clear majority, what sense can this possibly make ? It is nothing but yet another ploy in the campaign to reverse the original decision to leave. 

The European Union is a club for bureaucrats, enveloped in rules and regulations so extensive that few can understand them. It's senior figures, the likes of Tusk, Juncker and Barnier, swan around like little tin gods, throwing their weight around and enjoying all the very substantial perks which come with their undeservedly elevated positions. They are entirely unelected and yet they wield enormous power in pursuit of the long term plan to create a single European super-state over which they will preside.

God help us ! I have always been opposed to the European Union and voted against the original Common Market when Harold Wilson gave us the opportunity back in 1975. Nonetheless, I have preferred that we leave on friendly terms and with a sensible and workable arrangement for the future, until now. Now, I want us out, out, OUT ! I will vote for NO DEAL anytime I'm asked as any 'deal' with this bunch of crooks won't be worth the paper it's written on, unless it's written with nothing but their own interests in mind.

Please, please, please, Mrs May, don't let us down. You must stand firm. No Deal is far better than kowtowing to this corrupt and bullying mob for a moment longer.

TIME FOR MRS MAY TO STAND FIRM.

Following assorted meetings and discussions between European Union national leaders yesterday, one of the multitude of EU bureaucrats with their noses in the trough of public money, Donald Tusk, has reported back. It seems that Theresa May's latest proposals regarding the Irish borer and future trade arrangements are unacceptable and she's been told to go away and think again.

Tusk has said that the proposed new economic partnership "will not work" and risks undermining the EU's single market; he appears not to care about the UK's own single market which includes Northern Ireland. It's reported that Mrs May has said that she'll listen to any new ideas, although it appears that she is still wedded to her Chequers' deal, which almost no one else considers workable, and won't listen to suggestions from the European Research Group, chaired by Jacob Rees-Mogg; she's far more likely to make further concessions to the EU.

Throughout the Brexit negotiations, the UK government has adopted the position of supplicant, doing the EU's bidding and being repeatedly told that their homework has not been well received and they need to do better. Instead of telling the EU what they were prepared to offer, they have bent over backwards to meet every demand that the EU has dreamt up. Even now, it seems that Mrs May might well concede more ground.

The EU is like a greedy child, the more you give it, the more it comes back for yet more. If, at the outset, the UK government had taken a firmer stand, things would now be much easier and clearer. The EU would have been in no doubt that the UK was serious and would have been far more amenable to make concessions of its own; sadly, the boot is on the other foot and it is the UK which is making all of the concessions.

We can only hope that Mrs May stands her ground, listens to the likes of Mr Rees-Mogg, and tells Mr Tusk and his fellow EU cronies that enough is enough and there will be no more concessions from the UK. 'Like it or lump it' should be the message and 'No Deal' should be the clarion call, loud and clear, if they won't take note.

What chance of that happening ?

BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS BUBBLE NICELY.

As we approach the 'crunch point' for Brexit negotiations, things seem to be hotting up. Theresa May is reportedly going to tell EU leaders not to demand the "unacceptable" in negotiations over the Northern Irish border, while Donald Tusk, for the EU, has said that the UK's proposals regarding both the Irish border question and future economic cooperation "need to be reworked and further negotiated". At the same time, Michel Barnier, also for the EU, has suggested that they may be prepared to move their position on the subject of the Irish border.

Clearly, the EU is becoming a bit twitchy about the potential for a 'No Deal' scenario, which is hardly surprising given what they would lose if that came to pass. It's already been clearly stated by the UK's 'Brexit Secretary' that 'No Deal' would mean no divorce settlement; the EU would miss out on the little matter of £39bn. Additionally, the EU's annual trade surplus with the UK is reported to be around £70bn; the prospect of seeing this substantially reduced can't be a happy one. While the UJ would undoubtedly suffer in the event of 'No Deal', there would surely be a significant drop in the number of German, French, Italian and Swedish cars bought in the UK, while imports of wine, fruit, olive oil and much more would also be affected, none of which would be popular on either side of the channel. The Irish economy could be decimated.

The question of the Northern Irish border is one which the UK government should have been firm about from the outset. Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and the integrity of our nation must always come first. However, we seem to have allowed the Eire government to hijack this issue and turn it into an opportunity to push its own political agenda; consequently, we have the nonsense about the nature of the border between the 2 parts of the island of Ireland. In truth, the UK sees no issue and it is only the EU, driven on by the relatively new government in Dublin, which has made a fuss. Why does the UK not simply tell the EU that we will impose no border restrictions and leave it to them to do whatever they want on the Eire side ?

As far as trade is concerned, why has the UK been so wishy-washy in its approach ? Either we have a free trade agreement or we don't. If we do, everything will continue much as now; the policies and general approach of the UK is much the same as that of the EU and will undoubtedly remain so for the foreseeable future, so why the fuss ? If there is no deal, prices will rise as WTO tariffs will be applied, making the aforementioned BMW will simply swap my BMW for something from a non-EU country, my French wine for wine from Australian, New Zealand or elsewhere, and so on. I've no doubt that others will do the same.

All of this adds up to the single fact that it is the EU which needs to "rework" its thinking and be more flexible and realistic. What are the chances ? 

HAMMOND & LAGARDE : DOOM MONGERS BOTH.

It seems that the big guns really are doing their best to derail Brexit.

Today, Chancellor of the Exchequer has ignored Prime Minister May's stated opinion about Brexit and predicted that a 'No Deal' scenario would bring gloom and misery to the UK's economy, echoing a similar message from Christine Lagarde, managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. 

Of course, both Hammond and Lagarde have been firm opponents of Brexit, of any sort, since Day 1; both have issued similar dire warnings repeatedly over the last 2 years and more. Hammond, like his partner in crime, Mark Carney, has stuck rigidly to a script which forecasts nothing but disaster for the UK in the event of there being no deal, while making no concessions to the views of Brexiteers. Lagarde is a former finance minister of France, a committed Europhile and one who has become totally inured to the workings of highly bureaucratic and centralised organisations such as the European Union. 

Both Hammond and Lagarde can see nothing but good in the EU, and nothing but bad in Brexit. It is in their blood, in every fibre of their being, to oppose Brexit in every possible way. We must not let them win the argument.

'BREXIT IN NAME ONLY' IS NOW FIRM FAVOURITE.

With Labour Party policy currently set to oppose any likely deal, or no deal, that the government makes with the European Union, things seem set for an interesting few weeks.

Should Labour vote against whatever the government comes up with, the fate of the government will rest with the Conservatives who have already said they will not vote for the 'Chequers' Deal' and those who are implacably opposed to even the notion of no deal..

Either way, it seems that the government will be in trouble. If whatever is proposed is voted down, what will then happen ? Mrs May can hardly go back to the EU with a begging bowl, and she has already ruled out any thought of extending the March 29th deadline for leaving. Her only remaining option seems to be to make Brexit a matter of confidence.

It hardly seems likely that Conservative MPs would then vote against the government as this would almost certainly trigger a general election which Labour could well win. So Mrs May, and the country,would end up with whatever she agrees with the EU, however poor that is.

'Brexit in Name Only' is surely an odds-on favourite.

DIVORCE ON DEMAND MAKES MARRIAGE DISPOSABLE.

While we now have the lunacy of marriage between two men or two women. the government is launching a consultation proposing to overhaul what they consider to be our "archaic" divorce laws.

David Gauke, the Secretary of State for Justice, believes that obtaining a divorce should be 'less confrontational' and so wants to remove the need for either party to demonstrate "fault" or, it seems, to have to wait the current 5 years after separation, 2 years if the couple agrees. Mr Gauke says that the current divorce law is "out of touch with modern life".

In many areas of our lives the government tells us all what to do and effectively creates "modern life"; think about laws on drink-driving or smoking, civil partnerships and marriage, and the proposals to introduce presumed consent for organ donation. Having thus created this framework, now they argue that more must change in order to keep in step. Why ?

Marriage is already seen by many as a disposable commodity, something to play at for a while but ultimately of no more value than last year's fashion items. The women, often the men as well, enjoy the dressing up and all the fuss, they love being the centre of attention and spend vast amounts of money on frippery. They set up home, produce a couple of children and then get fed up with the whole restrictive nature of real life; accordingly, they go their separate ways, often acrimoniously and usually to the detriment of the children. Now, Mr Gauke wants to make the disposal of marriage even easier, threatening what is left of true family life in this country.

It's suggested that divorce in future will be akin to the Islamic approach, with either party able to do little more than say "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee" and that will be it. There will be no need to prove "fault", nor any need for the parties to demonstrate irretrievable breakdown beyond one of them saying that they've had enough. All that will be needed is to notify the courts of the intention to seek a divorce and the rest will be automatic. The other party will have no right to contest the action.

While Mr Gauke may be partly correct in saying that the current law is out of touch with modern life, he's utterly wrong in his answer to the problem. Rather than changing the law and making divorce easier, what he should be doing is emphasising the seriousness of marriage and the responsibilities which come with it. In fact, the government should be considering making marriage much more difficult to get out of, especially in the first few, say 10, years. This might focus the minds of the those thinking of tying the knot, making them realise that marriage is not something to be toyed with.

Sadly, politicians with an eye on grabbing votes from wherever they can by pursuing whatever policies seem to be 'flavour of the month', rarely make the right choices.

CARNEY SPREADS MORE ALARMIST TRIPE.

My God !

Operation Fear really is back in full swing with the Governor of the Bank of England, who's contract has just been extended, doing his best to prop up the anti-Brexit lobby. Mark Carney, who's been predicting economic catastrophe since before the 2016 referendum, is now reported to have repeated his dire predictions, but instead of linking them to any Brexit, he's now claiming that a 'No Deal' Brexit will have the same consequences. Carney has apparently told government ministers that 'No Deal' could result in house prices falling by a third, the value of the pound collapse and Britain go into a recession.

If this isn't simply more alarmist codswallop, I don't know what is.

Back in 2016, Carney told us that a vote to leave the European Union would instantly lead to a collapse in the pound, huge inflation, a collapse in house prices, massive rise in unemployment etc., etc. None of it has come to pass. Now he's repeating the same old dire warnings, presumably because he believes in the old adage "if at first you don't succeed, try, try, again". He must also be spurred on by his own pro-European sympathies and natural inclination to be in control and prevent the hoi polloi from ever having their way, which he no doubt sees as being part of his duty to ensure that we all travel down the path of his view of economic righteousness.

Where Carney may find himself particularly exposed on this occasion is that lower house prices may well be highly attractive to many, while being of little consequence to many more. Yes, those with large mortgages could find themselves in difficulty but that would not be anything to do with Brexit, it would be the fault of themselves and those who extended excessive loans. A lower value for the pound would boost exports and where the idea of a recession comes from is anyone's guess; presumably one of the much vaunted models so prized by the economic elite, and which have failed so miserably in recent years, is to blame.

Carney has one item on his agenda, that is, to thwart Brexit. That he's still being allowed to spread his economic bullshit is a measure of the government's determination to thwart it as well.  

PUTIN, PETROV & BOSHIROV - AN UNHOLY TRINITY.

Vladimir Putin must think that the western world really is stupid.

After the UK government identified and named 2 men responsible for the 'novichok' poisonings in Salisbury, Putin has come out with a not unexpected denial of the men having no connection with the Russian state and simply being civilian tourists. Does he really believe that a government with a highly sophisticated intelligence service would have gone so far as to name the suspects without having the strongest evidence ? 

Hot on the heels of Putin's comments, the 2 men concerned, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, have appeared on the 'Russia Today' television network. Given that 'Russia Today' is state funded organisation, it's hardly surprising that Petrov and Boshirov have repeated the claim that they were innocent tourists who just happened to be in Salisbury at the time of the original poisonings. Almost laughably, these 2 men, who appear to be in their 30s, claim that they'd visited Salisbury as tourists to see the cathedral, its spire, and a famous clock. They say that they wanted to go to see Stonehenge but it was too muddy for them and they got wet, so they simply returned to London instead.

Tellingly, CCTV surveillance images from various places demonstrates that he men arrived in London from Moscow on a Friday afternoon, journeyed to Salisbury for less than 2 hours on the Saturday and returned there, for perhaps 3 or 4 of hours, on the Sunday. Returning to London, they took a flight back to Moscow on Sunday evening. Is anyone really expected to believe that they made a return trip from Moscow in little more than 48 hours just because friends had told them to visit Salisbury ? Additionally, it almost defies belief that any Russians would be deterred by a bit of mud or by getting wet; much of Russia is often very cold and wet, including Moscow and other major cities. It also seems a little strange that 2 men from Russia would want to make a point of visiting a rather unheralded place such as Salisbury, rather than better known places. 

Overall, this is utter bullshit. If they are so innocent, let them come back to the UK to be questioned properly, or would that not suit Putin's purposes ? 

INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES FALLS SHORT.

The reporting of the conclusions of a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) seems to be a classic example of leaving things out.

In an analysis carried out at the behest of the BBC, the IFS has apparently said that people's wages are now, on average, 3% below what they were 10 years ago at the start of the financial crisis. The BBC reports that this effectively means that, on average, 'real' annual wages are £800 lower than they were. They add that for people aged between 30 and 39, the fall is even greater, at £2,100 a year or 7.2%.

No doubt many will see this as being a terrible indictment of government policy over the intervening period, presumably this being the intention of the extremely dubious reporting. However, so much information is omitted from the reporting that it's actually impossible to draw any conclusions from them.

There is no mention of the substantial increase in personal tax allowances which has occurred over the same period, nor of the rate of inflation compared with what might have been expected but for the impact of the crisis; for instance, what has been the impact of the multi-year freezing of petrol duty ? There is no mention of the impact of state benefits and other state intervention such as free nursery places and free school meals. There is no explanation as to the meaning of the various terms - are we talking about gross or net wages ?  What does 'real' annual wages mean ? Indeed, what did the study consider and how have the results been arrived at ? What assumptions have been made about wage growth, and other factors, had there not been a financial crisis ?

It is also the case that the study seems to assume that average wages should always rise and that any fall is automatically bad. What about productivity ? What about the effect of falling unemployment and how more people working on the lowest wages may have affected the figures ? Has there been an increase in people choosing to be self-employed which has had an impact on the figures ?

I have not read the report itself, but it's clear that either it's a very limited report or it's reporting by the BBC has been extremely selective and highly questionable. Either way, reports about it should be read with extreme caution and cynicism.

BARNIER SOFTENS TONE, TURMOIL AWAITS MAY.

With Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit proposals under attack from all sides, the European Union's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, seems to be softening his position. 

Barnier's approach to the negotiations has been to demand that the UK complies with every EU requirement while rejecting everything that the UK itself puts forward. Thus far, he's adopted the position of an overlord, while the UK has acted like a subservient vassal. However, might it now be that the stronger tone adopted by the likes of Boris Johnson and Steve Baker, allied to Mrs May's difficulties and the rapid approach of the point of no return, have persuaded Mr Barnier that he'd better be a bit more accommodating or risk a 'No Deal' outcome ?

Barnier has been careful to say that there are still points of difference to be resolved but he's also said that a deal could be reached in a matter of a few weeks if both sides are "realistic"; one has to presume that by "realistic", he means if the UK kowtows to EU demands, although it could also be a veiled warning to EU leaders. Theresa May's position is fragile and her 'Chequers Deal' could well find itself rejected by the House of Commons, in which case 'No Deal' would become the only real option left. May would go and Boris Johnson, or another confirmed Brexiteer, could find himself in No. 10. How would the EU like that ?

A Brexiteer-led government would undoubtedly pursue policies which the EU would find difficult to swallow - free trade, lower taxes, attractive offers to large companies and so on. In order to avoid such an outcome, the EU now finds itself needing to offer support to Mrs May, ridiculous though that may seem. However, the more the EU supports Mrs May, the weaker her position will become with members of her own party and the Brexiteers in particular.

The Conservative Party conference begins on 30th September and the terms of a deal, if one is reached, will have to be put before Parliament not long after that, perhaps in early November. What are the odds that Mrs May will survive the turmoil that these events will bring ?

BORIS TELLS IT AS IT IS !

Boris Johnson has been at it again, using intemperate language to make a point. His words, as reported in an article in the 'Mail on Sunday', have been directed at the government's approach towards Brexit negotiations and, frankly, make sense. However, his intervention has not been welcomed by  some in his party, nor by others who simply don't like him or agree with him.

As one of the most prominent 'Brexiteers', Johnson is ramping up the pressure on Prime Minister Theresa May, her 'Chequer's Deal' and 'backstop agreement'. That both the backstop and Chequer's deal have given the European Union a massive advantage in negotiations seems obvious, though the government continues to deny this. Johnson, no longer in the government nor bound by collective responsibility, is free to tell it as it is. About time.

Some are reporting the story with the caution that Johnson's views have been condemned by 'senior Tories', but this appears to be somewhat disingenuous. The BBC and Guardian, both left wing and both Europhile, name some of these 'senior Tories' and, surprise, surprise, the names mostly belong to members of the government who are Europhile in inclination. Home Secretary Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Housing, James Brokenshire, Alan Duncan and Alistair Burt, both ministers at the Foreign Office - none of these could support Johnson, even if they wanted to, without losing their jobs.

More significant than the reaction of left wing, Europhile media and government flunkies will be the comments of backbench Conservative MPs and others who favour a tougher approach to Brexit. If they rise up in sufficient numbers and with sufficient force, Theresa May's days as Prime Minister may be numbered; if not, Johnson could find himself side lined and Brexit will be, as feared by Lord King, 'in name only'.

SERENA WILLIAMS - ROLE MODEL FOR NO ONE.

Serena Williams may have dominated women's tennis for over 15 years, but her disgraceful behaviour in yesterday's final of the US Open Tennis Championship shows her to be an anything but sporting in her outlook.

When she's winning, Williams is all smiles. Life is wonderful and she can't stop dancing around and putting on a 'giggly girl' act. However, when things don't go her way, as in yesterday's match against young Japanese Naomi Osaka, she adopts a different persona. Finding herself struggling, she accepted coaching from the stand for which she received a 'code violation' warning. Later, as her opponent proved more than a match for her, Williams lost her temper and smashed her racquet, this time drawing a point penalty for a further 'code violation'.  She then continued to berate the umpire, finally calling him a thief; this resulted in her being penalised a game, after which Osaka, who had remained calm throughout, saw out the rest of the match and claimed the title.

Williams refused to shake the umpire's hand after her defeat, and later accused him of sexism in penalising her. In what was little more than a rant, she tried to divert criticism of her, saying that she was really "here fighting for women's rights and equality", although what this could possibly have to do with her on-court behaviour escapes me. In fact, from her lofty position as a fabulously wealthy, sporting superstar, I suspect that her behaviour did nothing but damage to women's causes, As a role model, she falls far short of other great female tennis players, those such as Margaret Court and Steffi Graf, 

As well as the latest events, Williams has a history of arguing with officials and even abusing them. In the 2004 US Open, her defeat by Jennifer Capriati was attributable to a barrage of unforced errors, though she still accused the umpire of insanity and said she "felt cheated". In the same event in 2009 in a semi-final match against Kim Clijsters, Williams received a warning for smashing her racquet after losing the first set. Later, when serving to save the match, she was 'foot faulted', which gave her opponent 'match point'. This resulted in a furious  tirade against the line judge, including profanities and threats. For this outburst, Williams was given a point penalty and, thus, lost the match. A further incident occurred in the 2011 US Open final when Williams again berated the umpire and threatened her; once more, she refused to shake hands at the end of the match, which she lost.

Williams is not the first tennis player to lose her temper on court - one immediately thinks of John McEnroe and Ilie Nastase from the past and Nick Kyrgios today - but her behaviour is wholly unacceptable, as are her lame excuses. Multiple winner of tournaments she may be, but great champion, sportswoman and role model, she is not. For that accolade, one has to look at the likes of Court, Evert and Graf amongst the women, Laver, Sampras, Federer and Nadal amongst the men.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE, POPULISM TO THE FORE.

The Swedish Prime Minister and, no doubt, other members of the Swedish liberal elite, are getting worried. After having things all their own way and running the country for decades, they're in danger of losing power. A party with an anti-immigration stance, Sweden Democrats, is expected to win a significant proportion of the votes in the imminent General Election and Prime Minister Stefan Lofven has been chucking mud. He's 'warned' voters about the dangers of what he sees as extremism and fascism, and said that a vote for the Sweden Democrats would be "dangerous" and "counterproductive".

This is, of course, not the first time that a ruling elite has reacted to the rise of a bit of competition in this way. In the UK, Ukip has been accused of being extremist, alarmist, racist and more while in France, Germany, Italy, Hungary and Austria right wing parties have been similarly maligned. In their desire to keep power at all costs, the establishments of these and other countries impugn any right wing group, referring to them as being extremist, 'far right', nationalist, racist, fascist, and even comparing them with Hitler's NAZIs.

That it is the 'soft left' which is attacking anyone who is vaguely right wing in this way might be expected, but  why is it that those on the right do not habitually refer to the left wing in similar terms ? Communist, Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist, elitist, or simply 'far left' could be levelled as slurs against most supposedly liberal but actually left wing governments with as little relevance or truth as the words used to denigrate parties of the right. For some reason, politics of the liberal-minded soft left is automatically 'good' while anything which is 'bad' is immediately labelled as being 'right wing', and anything that is 'right wing' is automatically 'bad'.

In the USA, whatever Barack Obama did was considered 'good' by the ruling elites, to such a degree that he was even awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace before he'd actually done anything. In contrast, Donald Trump has been vilified since before he was even elected and is now subjected to every possible slur, regardless of what he actually does. Trump is also accused of one of the new slurs, 'populism', which seems to be an invention of the left designed to apply to politicians who do what their electorates want, and yet is considered 'bad'. In other words, the liberal elite knows what is best for us and must be allowed to carry on doing it, regardless of what we, the people, actually want.

In the UK, something similar has happened with Brexit. The liberal establishment is desperate to keep us in, or at the very least closely tied to, the European Union, regardless of the result of the referendum. Their arguments include claiming that the people were misled by the right wing 'Brexiteers', that we did not understand what we were voting for or that we'd vote differently now. Worse still, supposed right wingers such as many members of the Conservative government have shown themselves to be, in reality, members of the soft left, liberal elite in disguise, as they have done their best to undermine Brexit in pursuit of continued membership of the strongly socialist and centralizing European Union.

We should start calling spades 'spades' and we should stop accepting that 'mother knows best'. The EU is an abomination and wanting to leave it is not 'populist', although the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell most certainly are. Wanting to control the extent of immigration is neither nationalist, racist nor populist, it is common sense. Donald Trump may be erratic and rather unusual as President of the US, but he's not the lunatic that the left wing portray him as; his policies are only portrayed as being 'populist' by those who don't like them. The condescending arrogance of others, such as Christine Lagarde, Mark Carney, Messrs Juncker and Barnier, and others, should be clearly stated; these all have the same dislike for the 'populist' views of the people they claim to act for.

Here's hoping that the Sweden Democrats really do cause a few waves, and that the 'populist' backlash which has been building momentum over the last few years in many parts of the world continues to build.

LORD KING : A VOICE OF COMMON SENSE AND REASON.

While the current Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, seems to be doing everything he can to thwart Brexit, a former Governor, Mervyn King, appears to sing from a different hymn sheet.

In contrast to his successor, Lord King supports Brexit, although he does not support the way in which Theresa May's government has approached the matter. In fact, he considers the approach to have been incompetent in the extreme. However, he does not reserve his criticism for the government alone and has not directed his remarks at one side of the argument only; he has lambasted both the 'Leave' and 'Remain' camps.

Lord King finds it incomprehensible that the government had not made a possible 'no-deal' scenario a cornerstone of its approach from the beginning and says that to not do so has undermined its whole negotiating strategy. He says that it "beggared belief" that the world's sixth largest economy should now be talking about stockpiling food and medicines in the event that there is no deal.

That the 27 countries of the European Union seem to have been united in their negotiating stance while the 1 country of the United Kingdom has been unable to agree on an approach has also caused Lord King serious concern. He finds the current level of debate depressing, with both sides of the argument doing little more than throw insults at each other while ignoring the real issues which affect the nation. In Lord King's view, Brexit is almost the least of our worries; he cites a failure to save for retirement and pensions, social care and the NHS as being of much greater significance, but these matters have been side-lined by an all-consuming row about Brexit.

Because of the lack of a united front or a proper negotiating strategy, Lord King believes that the UK will end up with 'Brexit in name only, a situation in which we leave the EU but remain wholly subservient to it; this he describes, quite rightly in my view, as the worst of all world. He also feels that such an outcome would lead to many more years of debate and conflict as the 2 opposing camps of Remainers and Brexiteers continue to row amongst themselves.

Lord King's remarks are equally critical of all concerned in this mess. It's a bit of a shame that he's not still the Governor of the Bank of England as, if he was, perhaps things would have been different.

IS ISRAEL ANTI-SEMITIC ?

Despite caving in to the demands of the pro-Jewish lobby, it seems that the Labour Party's anti-Semitism row is going to continue. One wonders why.

Labour has now agreed to adopt the highly subjective definition of anti-Semitism promulgated by Jewish groups and organisations, with a proviso regarding comments about the state of Israel. While Jewish groups want any criticism of Israel to be considered as anti-Semitic, the Labour Party has given itself a bit of wriggle room in this respect. What is wrong with this ?

Israel is a country founded on discriminatory principles; it has an overriding ethos of promoting and protecting Jews and Judaism to the exclusion of all else. In many ways, the state of Israel is little different to South Africa under the apartheid regime, and yet it seems that to voice such a view is to be considered as anti-Semitic. I fail to see how criticising a state for its actions can be equated with exhibiting hatred or even ill-will towards adherents of a religion which is world-wide.

Israel is a racist state, as are the assorted Islamic states which are criticized daily for their behaviour. Iran, Syria, Israel, and others, all have oppressed minorities which are treated as second class citizens at best and as vermin to be destroyed at worst. In general, the ruling groups espouse one set of religious beliefs and the oppressed espouse something different which is frowned upon. 

In apartheid South Africa, the distinguishing factor was colour, in Israel it is religion - in both cases the result is the same. Laws are made to protect one group while discriminating against the other and, where the law is unclear or doesn't cover a particular issue, the decision invariably goes with the ruling elite. In South Africa, the black native population had no real rights; in Israel, the native Palestinian Arab population has seen its land taken from it and its rights incrementally taken away also. 

Israel, and the Jewish elite generally, have hijacked the word 'Semite' and made it seem that it applies only to Jews; in turn, anti-Semitic then applies only to Jews. In fact, Arabs and assorted others are also Semitic people, logically making the term 'anti-Semitic' far broader in meaning than its current usage. In truth, Israel's own behaviour towards its Arab population could be considered as being anti-Semitic.

Now there's a thought.

'NO DEAL' LOOMS EVER CLOSER AS BORIS INCREASES THE PRESSURE.

Boris Johnson has stuck his oar in again on the subject of Brexit and drawn a furious response from Downing Street, presumably because he's struck a nerve. At the same time, it's reported that the Treasury is in discussion with the highly political and Europhilic Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, in an attempt to get him to remain in post for longer than originally agreed. Project fear remains in full swing.

On the other side of the equation, Michel Barnier, on behalf of the European Union, has made it clear that he has serious issues with various elements of Theresa May's 'Chequers deal' proposals, while it seems that the chances of the UK parliament approving Mrs May's plans, never good, are reducing by the day; neither remainers nor brexiteers seem enthusiastic about it.

Where will it all end ? Whether or not Mrs May gets her proposals through parliament, if Barnier rejects them it matters not; either way, she'll be dead in the water and Boris will be leading the race to replace her. If Boris, or another brexiteer, gains power, Mr Carney will find his wings clipped if he's been fool enough to stay on as Governor, and a 'No Deal' Brexit will be a near certainty.

One can hardly believe that this is what Barnier and his friends really want but, if they don't start being realistic very soon, that's what they're going to get.

McDONNELL HEIR APPARENT TO CORBYN ?

Following David Blunkett calling for "seismic change" in the Labour Party, John McDonnell has been reported as saying that he's "worried and saddened" by the prospect of the party splitting over the anti-Semitism row. McDonnell has also said that he wanted to avoid a split "at all costs" and is happy to talk to unhappy MPs.

What ? 

The person who should be saying these things is the party's leader, Jeremy Corbyn but it seems that he is almost nowhere to be seen. For McDonnell to talk of HIS desire to avoid a split in the party "at all costs" and to say that HE is happy to talk to unhappy MPs is highly suggestive of a leadership bid. 

With the party conference season soon upon us, Jeremy Corbyn may well have a pretty rough ride ahead, so is McDonnell lining himself up as the heir apparent, the more acceptable face of the extreme left who will carry on the fight if Corbyn is forced out ? 

In Russia, they've been unfortunate enough to have Putin and Medvedev running the show between them for decades - is the Labour Party about to set off on a similar course ?

NO HONOURS FOR TAX AVOIDERS !!

It's been reported that HMRC routinely blocks the award of honours to people whom it considers avoid paying enough tax. Apparently other government departments and agencies also have an input to the system, providing views on the 'suitability' of potential recipients.

A government spokesman has reportedly said that it is a "longstanding policy ….. to protect the integrity of the system". Really ? People taking perfectly legal steps to reduce the burden of tax upon them are routinely being denied recognition to protect the 'reputation' of the honours list; how can this possibly be right ?

For ever and a day, honours have been bestowed on individuals of dubious character but who have performed some supposedly valuable service. Honours have been handed out like sweeties to political appointees and apparatchiks, they are granted to pop singers and other third rate 'celebrities' for no reason other than that the recipients are in the public eye. These days, winning a gold medal seems to be an automatic route to an MBE, OBE or, if multiple medals, even a knighthood or damehood. How ridiculous !

To equate wholly legal tax avoidance, in which we should all engage if we can, with the illegal tax evasion, is simply wrong. To claim that the honours' system has a reputation which needs protecting is risible; its reputation was shot to pieces the day that the Beatles were given their MBEs by Harold Wilson's populist government in 1965 and it's been downhill ever since. What we have now is an utterly discredited system which is being abused in an attempt to appear fashionably moralistic. Are we really to believe that the modern day, high profile recipients of awards, many of whom are very wealthy, pay their taxes without considering perfectly legal ways to reduce the burden ?

There was a time when honours were awarded for services rendered over and above the call of duty. Now they're simply a way for government to court popularity and to pretend to moralistic values which they do not possess.