IGNORE THE BEEB, IT WAS A GOOD BUDGET.

Yesterday's budget speech by UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond included tax cuts, freezing of duties and significant investment. One would think that this was good news for most of our population, but not if you listen to the BBC.

Coverage of the budget by 'Auntie' has been entirely negative, concentrating on 'what if ?' scenarios, the most important being 'what if there is no deal on Brexit ?' Despite the substantial tax cuts and additions to the budgets for universal credit and the NHS, those invited to comment have been overwhelmingly niggardly in their remarks. It smacks of a left wing organisation being very selective in order to ensure that its own views are very much to the forefront.

Assorted Labour and Liberal politicians seem to have been given carte blanche to criticise the Chancellor at length, while a mish-mash of single mothers, nurses, OAPs and others have been trotted out to witter on about how there is nothing like enough to meet their wants and desires. It seems that the vast extension of state support which has been introduced in recent years has caused many people to forget that they have a primary responsibility to look after themselves and that they should not rely on the state to pay for their profligate ways.

The NHS absorbs an ever-increasing amount of money while wasting much of it on useless or cosmetic treatments; it commits resources to IVF for women who have simply not bothered to have children until late in life - why ? Money is pumped into a black hole for mental health services, an area which is largely subjective in nature; why was there so little mental illness when I was a boy but so much now ? It seems to me that much of it is invented by those who profit, that is, the assorted 'professionals' who provide the services they claim are so urgently needed but without there being any real evidence for.

If their presence on the BBC, and in other media, is truly representative of their numbers in society, there must be more single mothers now than at any time in our history; why, when sex education is everywhere and contraception is so readily available ? Are these women simply too stupid to understand the basic biology or to take the simplest of precautions ? Rather than expecting the state to pay for the resulting offspring, where are the fathers ?

Rather than debating these and other issues, the BBC simply puts forward those who bleat for more, in the fashion of Oliver Twist but with far less reason. We are blessed with the wisdom of John McDonnell, would be Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would bankrupt our country but who is allowed to make the wildest of statements virtually unchallenged. Only a few days ago, he was allowed, by, I think, Nick Robinson to get away with saying that spending £90bn on assorted privatisations would be 'cost neutral'. Cost neutral, according to this Machiavellian of the Left, because the cash outlay would be matched in the government's accounts by the purchased assets; no mention was made of the source for the £90bn needed, nor of the need to finance and repay it, and Robinson made no effort to challenge McDonnell on this point, surely a major omission. In common with his Labour colleagues, McDonnell makes the most unsustainable claims and goes virtually unchallenged, while any and every Conservative statement on the economy is questioned, debated and criticised ad infinitum.

The budget was a decent one and the continuation of some small borrowing for a year or two more is of little consequence when set alongside the vast and ballooning deficit left by the previous Labour government and its financial wizard, Gordon Brown. Inevitably, it has taken a long time to bring the economy back into balance but there is now real light at the end of a very long tunnel; those who demand more public spending now, are the same as those who demanded it in the past and where did that lead ? Long before the financial crisis of 2007/8, the seeds had been sown by governments around the world, not least our own which had set upon a path of financial profligacy and state support the like of which had never before been seen. Allowing Corbyn, McDonnell and their friends to have the keys of Nos 10 & 11 would not just return us to those days, but to the dark days of the 1960s and 1970s when the lights went out, rubbish and corpses piled up and Chancellor Healey was forced to go on bended knee to the International Monetary Fund for help.

Once the matter of Brexit has been settled, which it inevitably will be by some fudge or other, the economy will bloom, aided by Chancellor Hammond's relative generosity. At that time, the prospect of a Corbyn led Marxist government will begin to recede into the distance where, with luck, it will simply whither away. 

REMAINERS CARRY ON THE FIGHT.

There always are people who are more than happy to join in a demonstration about almost anything. It's an opportunity for a day out with lots of chanting and flag, or banner, waving for whatever the cause is. In truth, the cause is rarely the real reason for the demonstration, it's just an excuse.

Today, in London, it's reported that anything up to 500,000 people joined in a demonstration against Brexit. Apparently, these people all want there to be a second referendum, ostensibly to allow the electorate a say about whatever deal is, or is not, agreed between the United Kingdom and European Union; in fact, those who actually care simply want an opportunity to reverse the result of the referendum held in 2016 and which their side lost. They are anti-democrats of the type so beloved of the bureaucrats of the European Union.

In 2016, 17.4 million people voted for the UK to leave the EU. Today, 0.5 million demonstrated their opposition to the democratic result of a democratic vote, their leaders citing a raft of spurious reasons why a second referendum should be held, why it wouldn't actually be a referendum but a 'people's vote' and why such a vote wouldn't simply be an undemocratic rejection of a wholly democratic original process.

Had the 'remain' side won in 2016, Prime Minister David Cameron would have praised the sense of the electorate and charged on regardless, immersing the UK ever deeper in the mire that is the EU. The very notion of there being a second vote, whatever it might be called, would have been laughed out of court and the views of those, however many, who had voted to leave the EU would have been trampled underfoot. Had Cameron got the result he wanted, and expected, the voice of Brexit would have been silenced forever. So why is it so different now that 'Leave' won ?

Simply, the establishment didn't get its own way. The people didn't do what they were expected to do, told to do, even frightened into doing. Instead, they took the opportunity to have their voices heard and gave the establishment a good hard kick in its complacent, supercilious backside. Unfortunately, the establishment had no intention of letting this minor setback upset its longer term plans, and so it's kept up a campaign to get the result reversed, one way or another. A second referendum, delaying tactics, 'impossible' problems to resolve, any and every obstacle has been put in the way of a successful Brexit and, today, it was a demonstration in London backed by an assortment of dedicated Europhiles. 

However, in the end it's the balance of numbers which must win. 17.4 million voted to leave the EU, 0.5 million may have demonstrated to stay in. Seems pretty clear to me.

IRELAND CANNOT PULL THE UK'S STRINGS.

Theresa May has said that any 'backstop' agreement for the whole UK, or even just Northern Ireland, to stay within the European Union's customs' union beyond the 29th March 2019 must be time limited. Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionists, who support Mrs May's government, have made it clear that they will not accept any Brexit deal which leaves either Northern Ireland inside the EU's customs' union or in any way separated from the rest of the United Kingdom. Simon Coveney, deputy Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, has said that his government cannot accept the imposition of any time limit on the so-called 'backstop agreement'.

Clearly, the positions of the UK and Irish governments are diametrically opposed, while the position of the Democratic Unionists simply seeks to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Irish government sees Brexit, and particularly the ill-advised agreement on a 'backstop' that was arrived at last year, as an opportunity to advance its ambition of annexing Northern Ireland and will do everything in its power to frustrate all proposals for resolving the border issue in any other way.

Enough is enough. Ireland is a piddling little country which relies heavily on the UK for its economic wellbeing. That the UK's government should be required to satisfy its wholly unrealistic demands and political ambitions is ridiculous. That the European Union as a whole is happy to allow this situation to persist shows just how it will use anything it can find in its efforts to frustrate Brexit. 

The European Union is an abominable organisation, hell bent on turning itself into a socialist European 'super state'. It ignores all opposition and every reality in its pursuit of this goal and is an almost perfect parody of Oscar Wilde's description of fox hunting - "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". As the populations of various nations become ever more disenchanted with the EU - Italy and  Hungary leading the way - its principal adherents, Germany and France, become ever more belligerent in their attitudes to dissent. 

Having been founded as a means of avoiding further conflict in Europe, the EU has now become a club for unelected bureaucrats who happily plough their own furrow, regardless of the opposition that is growing amongst the common people. They take vast salaries and perks of all sorts while the people starve; they impose all manner of rules and regulations regardless of the impacts. They steal hundreds of billions of euros, pounds and whatever else they can lay their hands on, every year to spend on pet schemes with little or no real financial accountability. In truth, no one really knows where all the money goes.

That the UK joined this rabble in the first place was a mistake. That it allowed itself to be dragged along with developments such as the transmogrification from Common Market to European Union, the introduction of the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism, and the Maastricht, Lisbon and assorted other treaties, defies belief. The difficulties now being thrown up in the face of Brexit show just how convoluted and tentacular are the ramifications of membership of this spider's web of bureaucracy.

Theresa May made a monumental error when she agreed to the lunacy of the 'Irish backstop' at the end of 2017 and the EU leaders must have heartily congratulated themselves on their success in getting her to agree to it. It was always intended to be an impossible sticking point to overcome and so it has proved. The only answer is for the United Kingdom to walk away and leave it for the European Union to see sense.

MRS MAY'S ETHNIC MINORITY PAY GAP.

I'm fairly sure that people who voted Conservative in the last election expected to get a Conservative Prime Minister but it seems that what they've got in Theresa May is a just another wishy-washy Liberal.

It's reported that Mrs May has launched a consultation on whether mandatory reporting will help to address a claimed disparity between the pay and career prospects of minority groups in our society, presumably when compared to their majority white Anglo-Saxon colleagues. This is a follow-on to the decision to make it mandatory for companies to 'reveal' their so-called gender pay gap, although when people can now 'self-identify' their gender regardless of actuality, one wonders how much use such knowledge will be.

This latest, and ludicrous, idea is so fraught with obstacles as to render it impossible to implement. In the first instance, what counts as an "ethnic minority" ? Will rules be introduced to define an "ethnic minority" in terms of numbers, colour or place of origin ? What if I look "white Anglo-Saxon" but have a "minority ethnic" name ? What if I'm only part "minority ethnic", say a half, quarter or eighth ? Given that most, if not all of the white population have some "minority ethnic" blood in our ancestry, can we not all claim to be "minority ethnic" to some degree ? 

Of my great grandparents, 2 were Swiss, 2 German, 3 were Irish and 1 was English - do I count as being a member of an "ethnic minority" ? I can be reasonably sure that that there aren't too many around who can claim a similar heritage and that, surely, makes me part of a minority. Should I make a claim for discrimination ?

In my working life I had colleagues of all sorts. Men, women, black, brown, yellow and white; there were some who had freckles, some were balding and some were disabled, Some were young and some were old; there were English, Irish, Scots and Welsh, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Polish, West Indian, Nigerian and Iranian, and that's only what I can immediately recall. There were Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims and more than a few atheists, but we all rubbed along pretty well and there was no hint of any discrimination other than on the grounds of work performance.

If Mrs May's idiotic liberal-socialist  ideas take hold, what comes next ? Companies having to report on the pay gap between members of different religions, or of different 'sexual orientations' ? Perhaps the gap between those who went to state schools versus those who went to the local comprehensive, or those who attended nurseries or play groups compared with those who did not ? Maybe we could look at the comparative pay of those whose parents were married and those whose parents were not, those whose parents were in politics and those whose were not.

The almost endless opportunities for dividing our society up into smaller and smaller 'minorities' is mind boggling and utterly pointless. Perhaps that's why our political masters love doing it; it makes it look as though they care when, in reality, it's just about appearing to do important things and gaining votes.

Let's hope that this latest daft nonsense never sees the light of day. Given that Mrs May could well be gone within 6 months, that could well be the case.

STURGEON SHOULD BE IN THE TOWER !

Nicola Sturgeon really is an annoying little troll. The grandly titled Scottish 'First Minister' is so fanatical about the notion of independence for her territory that she bangs on about it at every opportunity.

With the SNP's annual conference getting underway, Sturgeon has appeared on both radio and television telling us, again and again, that Scotland voted to stay in the European Union and that her mob would back a second referendum on the subject. She also appears to be hell bent on using Brexit as a springboard for holding another referendum on Scottish independence as soon as possible, notwithstanding that the referendum in 2014 was trumpeted as being a "once in a generation opportunity". Of course, as with the EU referendum, those who got the 'wrong' result, that is the result they didn't want, are now dead set on holding another one in an attempt to get the 'right' result.

Sturgeon insists on behaving as though Scotland is an independent entity, rather than being part of the United Kingdom; the UK is a sovereign nation, Scotland is not. The UK has a seat at the United Nations, Scotland does not; neither, for that matter, do Wales, London, Cornwall or any other constituent part of the UK. The United Kingdom held a referendum and the decision of the majority was to leave the European Union; it matters not one jot that this area or that county had a majority in the opposite direction. When Scotland held its independence referendum in 2014, was there interminable chatter about which areas voted to stay in the UK against which wanted independence ? Indeed, was there a clamour from the people of Glasgow, Dundee, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire demanding that, as they'd voted for independence, they should now be allowed to go their own way ? Of course not.

Sturgeon's notion of democracy is whatever she wants it to be at any particular time. Rather than accept the will of the people of her country, the United Kingdom, Sturgeon wants to break up that union for her own antiquated concept of sovereignty which, by the way, then leads to her taking her newly independent Scotland back into the European Union, a move which would result in far less autonomy than Scotland now enjoys under the United Kingdom. Enforced use of the Euro as its currency and total control of its finances by the EU, with only a very small voice in the Union's debating chambers. Given the current fuss being made about the Irish border, the little matter of the border that would then be created between Scotland and England, and the sea crossing from Stranraer to Larne and Belfast, would keep the EU's negotiators scratching their heads for decades. Clearly, Hadrian's Wall would have to be restored, and there'd be a floating border in the North Channel - wonderful.

Rather than supporting her Prime Minister through difficult negotiations with European bureaucrats, Sturgeon plays the part of a termagant, doing her best to stir up trouble and to use the situation against her own country and for her own narrow political objectives.  

People should see her for the troublemaking political opportunist - dare I say traitor ? - that she really is.

JUNCKER & CO. BLINK !

How remarkable !

It's reported today that Jean-Claude Juncker, one of the multitude of bureaucrats who gorge themselves at the European Union's bounteous table, has said that the chance of agreeing a 'Brexit' deal has increased in the last few days. In fact, Juncker is now so confident that he's saying if a deal isn't agreed this month, it is quite likely that it will be by the end of November. With the UK set to leave the egregious organisation on 29th March next year, that has to be good news.

Only a few short weeks ago, EU representatives sent Theresa May packing with a significant flea in her ear after being told that her 'Chequers' Deal' wasn't a runner. May responded with a television appearance, in which she was clearly angry, and made her own position abundantly clear. What couldn't be denied was that someone had to blink. 

It was subsequently suggested that Mrs May was convinced that it would be the EU that blinked first and it appears that she was right. Fearing the consequences of an uncontrolled 'Brexit', the EU's leaders have suddenly begun to talk more positively; although they're also continuing to make occasional noises about preparations for a 'No Deal' scenario this seems to have been put on the 'back burner'.

As the deadline for a deal approaches, and November is about as late as it can get due to the need for 28 governments to agree the terms (including our own), the true horror of a possible 'No Deal' outcome has finally come to the fore; at last, the EU's negotiators are starting to realise that the UK is less frightened of this than are they. Consequently, it's going to be 'all hands to the pumps' over the next few weeks as a deal is concluded.

Of course, no one should expect that this will be the end of it. It's more than likely that any deal, whenever it comes, will be a fudge that leaves various difficult issues, notably the Irish border question, unresolved though with some sort of temporary fix in place. Most importantly, trade will continue, the 'planes will fly and life will go on.

Whoopee !?

MAY SURVIVES CONFERENCE.

Theresa May has made her 'big' conference speech and I have to say that it was pretty dull. In fact, following on from an exceptional performance by the recently appointed Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, it was little more than mediocre and something of a yawn.

True, Mrs May didn't make any blunders and nothing fell off of the wall; she didn't cough and splutter but she also didn't really tell us anything that we didn't already know. Lots of high minded rhetoric and calls for her party to work together, but little of any real substance. There was more about the potential horrors of a Jeremy Corbyn led government than there was about the future policies of a Conservative one, other than rather vague references to policies to come.

Some commentators have said that Mrs May seems to have done enough to stave off any imminent leadership challenge, although whether any such thing was ever really on the cards may be debatable. Would anyone, even Boris Johnson, really want to take over now, when the party is riven with splits over Brexit ? Indeed, would not a challenge at this time be catastrophic for both the party and those who desire a genuine Brexit to be agreed at the earliest possible date ?

What Mrs May has done is to give herself a little more time. Her future as Prime Minister remains in the balance and as much in the hands of the European Union as in the hands of her colleagues in the Conservative Party. The outcome of the Brexit negotiations must be known within the next few weeks; Mrs May's future is inextricably linked to this and the way in which it is received by her friends, and enemies, in Parliament.

PROFESSOR STRUMIA HAS A RIGHT TO BE HEARD.

Professor Alessandro Strumia is a man with fairly strong views. A couple of days ago, he expressed a view that the science of physics "was invented and built by men" and that physics was "becoming sexist against men". Professor Strumia's employers at the European nuclear research centre, CERN, have suspended him from his duties pending an investigation. Into what, I ask ?

If this isn't proof that we live in a world in which free speech no longer exists, I don't know what is. Professor Strumia has his point of view and, whether he's right or wrong, surely he's entitled to air them. It is a fact that most historic scientific research was carried out by men and most of the basic theories which persist today were proposed by men. Indeed, until Marie Curie emerged in the late 19th century it is difficult to think of any female scientist of any sort who achieved real prominence. Caroline Herschel worked alongside her brother, William, and became a noted astronomer in her own right, while Ada Lovelace is credited with being a founder of general computing, but who else is there ? From Archimedes to Einstein, most science and certainly most physics, has been the province of men.

That there may have been cultural reasons for at least part of this male dominance cannot be disputed but facts are facts and Professor Strumia is correct in his historical perspective. However,whether or not women are generally better or worse at physics than men and whether or not there is now a sexist bias in favour of appointing women to research posts in physics is a different matter and one that is unproven, possibly unprovable, but surely the Professor is entitled to voice his opinion on the matter without running the risk of being sacked from his job. There is no doubt in my mind that men and women have different interests and abilities and the Professor may well be right on that score. In terms of there being a "sexist bias against men", he may well be right in that too; we know only too well that there is a general clamour from some in many quarters for there to be quotas and other special arrangements aimed at increasing the number of women in a variety of careers and roles.

Professor Strumia's views may go against the currently prevailing tide of 'equality', but he has a right to have them heard. We already have 'no platforming' at many universities, no one is allowed to criticize Israel for fear of being called anti-Semitic, and to deny that the so-called Holocaust ever happened is increasingly labelled as a criminal offence. Now, expressing a personal point of view seems to be under threat.

The more that free speech is denied the more dictatorial our society becomes. Words cannot harm anyone; they can be discussed and debated, debunked or confirmed. If Professor Strumia is right, then he will have opened the way for discussion of future approaches; if he is wrong, he will be shown up for having been an old fool. Either way, it is the women who will benefit and only the Professor who may be harmed. 

For heaven's sake, CERN, wake up to the real world, not the one in which no one can say anything which others may dislike or find offensive. You, of all people, surely know that it is by challenging established beliefs that progress is made.