JOHNSON OR HUNT FOR PM ? OR FARAGE ?

If I had a free vote to choose our next Prime Minister, I'd quite possibly cast it for Nigel Farage, not because he'd make a great Prime Minister, he might or might not, but because he does seem to have a clear message. However, I don't have such a vote and so I'm left to ponder as to whether I'd prefer Boris Johnson to Jeremy Hunt, for neither of whom do I have a vote either.

Boris Johnson has been fairly consistent in his opposition to the European Union over the last 3 or 4 years and has campaigned to get the UK out of its clutches. Jeremy Hunt, on the other hand, campaigned to remain in the European Union but is a recent convert to the cause of 'Leave', becoming ever more convinced and ardent as the days go by. The Remainer has gradually moved to a position of Leave, then 'No Deal', and to a range of contingency arrangements in the event of a 'No Deal' exit on 31st October. It seems to me that Mr Hunt is doing his best to move to a position which mirrors that of the majority of Conservative Party members, rather than being a principled politician.

The real problem is that while Mr Hunt seems to be vacillating, Mr Johnson remains a rather unknown and possibly unreliable quantity. Is Johnson's Euroscepticism real or just a ploy to gain votes and the Premiership ? Is Mr Hunt's vacillation no more than the same ? Does either actually have a principled position or are both just doing whatever they think will gain them the top job ?

Sadly, I'm driven to the view that both are politicians doing no more than saying whatever they believe will serve their own egotistical purposes. Neither has any real principles and both are likely to disappoint their supporters, particularly with regard to Brexit. Mr Johnson may be a very clever scholar who knows his Latin and Greek, but he also comes across as a bit of a buffoon, even if he is an apparently charming and attractive public personality. Mr Hunt is a suave and apparently efficient businessman, as he keeps telling us, who would be a 'safe pair of hands'; he knows how to negotiate with the European Union, or so he says. Hunt is undoubtedly also a clever and well educated man, but is he any more trustworthy than Mr Johnson, particularly given his varying position on Brexit ?

The truth is that I don't trust either of these two, any more than I trust any other politician. Johnson may be more likely to deliver a meaningful Brexit, but will he ? Hunt is more likely to deliver a fudge, which is quite probable. Johnson may lead us to a general election in the autumn, Hunt less likely so; either may decide on a second referendum. Forget the expansive promises of tax cuts for individuals and business, none of them are real; both will commit vastly more resources to assorted social causes and will avoid tackling the question of personal responsibility for our lives. Both will make all manner of grandiose statements about tackling crime, poverty, immigration - you name it, they'll promise to solve it. All bollocks, and as ineffectual as have been all governments over the last 30 or more years..

Neither is a true conservative, both are what might be termed vaguely centre-right, with socialist leanings. Truly, I'm not sure I care which one wins as I don't expect much from either; the one thing I'm sure of is that whoever it is, must make bloody sure they don't screw things up and let the other Jeremy, Corbyn of that ilk, into Downing Street. That would be a true catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions.

And so, I have to side with Boris Johnson for the simple reason that I think his more charismatic character is more likely to be able to carry the day in the event of an early general election. Eyes shut tight, fingers and toes crossed, nose firmly held. 

TO SAVE INSECTS AND ALL ELSE, HUMANS MUST GO.

There are times when I wonder about the intelligence of those who produce our news and current affairs programmes as there seems little doubt that very little thought goes into them.

This morning, the "Today" programme on BBC Radio 4 carried 2 reports close together and which could clearly have been linked, if the producer had given it a moment's thought. These reports covered the supposed need for 300,000 new homes to be built in England each year and the vanishing habitat for our insect life. 

From Oxford, we were told that insect species are disappearing and that millions, or billions, of individual insects are being eliminated every year due to the destruction of their habitats. Exactly where these habitats are was barely more than hinted at, but it was made clear that this is a problem. On the other hand, the building of hundreds of thousands of new houses every year was indicated to be at risk due to delays in the planning system, with no reference to the damage that such massive building does to the environment.

Is it not obvious that the 2 problems are inter-related, that the loss of habitat is at least partly due to excessive building, be it for social or commercial purposes ? Until the last 200 years or so, the population of England was quite small. The census of 1801 indicated that it was around 8 million, whereas today it is approaching 60 million; England is now one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. Vast swathes of forest that existed in the past have been chopped down to be replaced by land for agriculture, housing or industrial development. The habitats previously providing homes to a huge range of plant and animal life, including insects of all sorts, have simply vanished. 

Across the world, a similar pattern has emerged. Enormous increases in the human population have led to the destruction of every kind of natural habitat, from rain forests to river deltas. Insects along with animal, and plant, life of every kind has been put at risk, driven to the point of no return or even eradicated. The Dodo is far from the only creature to have suffered this fate at the hands of the burgeoning billions of humanity. The quagga and thylacine, the passenger pigeon and great auk have all fallen prey to human expansion over the last couple of centuries along with many other species. Today, gorillas, orangutans and chimpanzees are at risk, as are rhinos and elephants, lions, tigers, whales, dolphins ………… . How many species of plant and insect life either are at risk of or have already suffered extinction can only be guessed at.

Surely it must be obvious that the problem we face is not a need for housing or delays in gaining planning permission; even industrialisation and climate change is not the root problem. The problem is the vast growth in the human population which shows little real sign of slowing down. An estimated 1 billion in 1800 has risen to around 7.5 billion today and is forecast to rise to more than 11 billion by the end of this century; is it any wonder that the world is in trouble ?

The problem the world faces is humanity. Humans are naturally competitive and accretive; they look for opportunities to increase their possessions, wealth and power with little consideration for anything else. It's all about survival of the fittest and, at the moment, humans are clearly surviving better than most animals on the planet, though also at the expense of those other animals, insects included.

This won't continue. Unless we wake up to this real issue, humanity is doomed.

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS - KEYS TO SOCIAL MOBILITY.

Organisations called the 'Sutton Trust' and 'Social Mobility Commission' have produced a report, no doubt at considerable cost, which is claimed to demonstrate how elitist modern Britain is. 

This report, a complete waste of time and money, apparently tells us that the majority of senior professional jobs in our society are filled by people who have been privately educated and / or have attended either Oxford or Cambridge University. Why is this either wrong or surprising ?

The people who are successful in rising to the top are almost always going to be those who have received the best education; this inevitably means those whose parents are able to pay for private schooling, those whose abilities are such as to enable them to gain scholarships to such schools or those who, one way or another, gain admittance to the best universities. Of course, there are exceptions but these are few and far between, especially so since the almost universal destruction of grammar schools and the advent of the ubiquitous, and dumbed down, comprehensive system.

Grammar schools gave children from all backgrounds an opportunity that is now largely denied to them. Yes, it wasn't perfect but it was far better than what we have now, with academic subjects almost seen as being secondary to all manner of social indoctrination. When I was at my secondary school we took chemistry, physics and biology, now it's just a nebulous 'Science'; we had to learn French and either Latin or Greek, followed by choices of Spanish, German and, later, Russian. We were proud of our school and looked forward to the day when our own names might be written on the honours board. Today, such attitudes are derided as being elitist and unacceptable.

If the report's authors really want to bring about change, then they must surely recommend the reintroduction of grammar schools or something very similar; to continue to pretend that the comprehensive "one size fits all" philosophy is the right way to proceed is folly of the highest order. This is something that our next Prime Minister could and should take on board, but will they have the guts to go against the perceived, and horribly misguided, wisdom of the last 50 years ?

Jeremy certainly won't, but might Boris ?

LONG LIVE "THE BLACK AND WHITE MINSTRELS" !!

When I look for something to watch on television I frequently despair.

Despite there now being 100s of channels, courtesy of Sky, BT, Virgin or whomever else, the real choice is incredibly limited. Vast quantities of repeats or dramas, detective series and the like; quizzes, (mostly repeats), programmes devoted to cookery or antiques (also mostly repeats). News broadcasts that purport to be 'up to the minute' but are, in reality, hours, even days, behind the times, and rarely broadcast news, more often opinion.

Yes, there are occasional bright spots, but these are few and far between. More often than not, the most praised productions are those devoted to whatever is considered to be the flavour of the moment, whatever is currently 'politically correct'. So much of the truly great television of passed years is hidden away or rebroadcast surrounded by caveats indicating it's horrendously unacceptable attitudes - can anyone really object to the interplay of the characters in "Rumpole of the Bailey" ? It seems that some must, as every repeated episode is preceded by a warning of its outdated attitudes and ancient origins. Is this not lunacy ? When I was rather younger, one of the great Saturday night entertainments was the "Black and White Minstrel; Show", an utterly harmless but quite marvellous musical entertainment; today this is viewed as having been a shocking example of racism and is derided. This seems to me to be the most abominable bigotry and hypocrisy; the entertainment has been overtaken by political correctness of almost Stalinist proportions. Anything that doesn't conform to the standards of the modern day liberal elite view is to be warned against or banned. Is this freedom of expression ?

It seems that freedom of expression only exists when it's applied to left wing views, such as those of the supposed comedienne Jo Brand and her ghastly suggestion that protesters should forego milk shakes in favour of battery acid when assaulting political  figures of whom  they disapprove, So much of today's radio and television offerings are devoted to trying to appeal to a lowest common denominator of viewer that quality has almost disappeared; attracting an audience is all that matters. This has inevitably led to dumbed down drivel in huge quantities, stuff that requires no imagination or thought and is little in the way of an intellectual challenge. What little is left of serious programming has been sent to the outer limits of early morning or late night, although there  is even precious little of this and soon to be even less when "This Week" is killed off.

Why have we, the viewers and licence payers, allowed this to happen ? It is indoctrination of a most blatant, and yet somehow accepted, kind and we must be even more pathetic and impotent than I'd ever imagine to ignore it and do nothing.

ANTI-JOHNSON CAMPAIGN RAMPS UP.

It seems that there is now a concerted effort to prevent Boris Johnson from winning the race to become the next leader of the Conservative Party and, consequently, Prime Minister.

The actions of his neighbour in recording a supposed argument and then calling both the police and media are hardly normal behaviour. The neighbour is an avowedly left wing, anti-Brexit and anti-Johnson activist and so their actions might be at least partly understandable, if highly dubious. What is less explicable are the comments coming from some of Johnson's party colleagues who are threatening to bring down any government that he might lead, thus betraying their party, their electorate and those who voted for Brexit, as well as paving the way for the advent of an extreme left wing government led by the Marxists, Corbyn and McDonnell.

As an additional bit of supposed media 'scrutiny', the BBC, on today's Andrew Marr Show (perhaps rightly called a show rather than being a serious political programme) we were treated to David Miliband (anyone remember him ?), an arch-Remainer, having his say about the activities of the British government even though he's now forsaken these shores to further his lucrative career as head of some international charity based in New York, followed by Liam Fox, a former arch-Brexiteer who now seems to have morphed into just another unreliable and disingenuous politician. Neither had anything good to say about either Brexit or Boris, the latter, of course, now being a committed supporter of Jeremy Hunt. It seems that the BBC will drag in anyone who has nothing good to say about either Brexit or Boris Johnson, from wherever they originate and whatever views they previously held, as long as it will help the 'anti-Brexit' and 'anti-Boris' campaigns. Pointedly, there was no on the 'show' who overtly supported either Boris Johnson or Brexit in any meaningful form although the good old BBC would no doubt claim that Mr Fox is a Brexiteer - ha, ha. He is a political opportunist, no more, no less.

Boris Johnson is being subjected to character assassination of a type rarely seen except in relation to those guilty of the most heinous crimes, the most evil of dictators (right wing only, of course) and bankers and businessmen deemed to have profited from the exploitation of their workers and customers. While the left wing is also perfectly happy to vilify any political figure of the right who threatens to have a significant impact - Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, spring immediately to mind - it's not exactly common for both wings to attack someone simultaneously.

The attacks on Johnson's character are now becoming so sustained that they threaten to overwhelm all else. What we need is a debate about the respective political viewpoints of the 2 remaining candidates in the race, not a constant stream of innuendo and bad-mouthing. To his credit, Jeremy Hunt has not, so far, made other than vague comments about his opponent, while Mr Johnson has kept quiet and resisted criticising others. 

It will be interesting to see how Conservative Party members view all of this. Will they be less likely to vote for Mr Johnson or will they actually react against the campaign to discredit him and threaten chaos, and be more likely to support him against the reactionary forces of the so-called 'centre ground' ?

All will be revealed in a month's time. 

BOJO ROW IS AN IRRELEVANT DISTRACTION.

Given that Boris Johnson has said nothing about the supposed incident at the home that he shares with his lady friend, it's pretty well impossible to draw any conclusions about what really happened and whether it is an event worthy of any attention at all.

It's reported that a neighbour, having recorded (!?) a loud argument going on, rang the police, who then attended the scene but decided there was nothing with which they needed to be bothered. The neighbour then contacted the Guardian newspaper, a left wing, anti-Johnson organ of the media, and relayed the story. Why ?

How is it that the neighbour came to record a row next door ? Do the homes in that area have paper thin walls ? Was it a 'put up job' ? If the neighbour was genuinely concerned for the safety of another resident, wasn't alerting the police sufficient ? The police found nothing to concern them, so why did the neighbour feel it necessary to alert a left wing newspaper ? This smacks of either a simple and planned attack on Mr Johnson or a cry for their 15 minutes of fame. 

We are left with few facts. A neighbour called the police and the police found nothing to worry them. The neighbour called the Guardian newspaper which splashed a story in order to get readers; other parts of the media followed suit. That's it.

Is Mr Johnson a nice person or is he, as is supposedly claimed, spoiled, self obsessed and careless of others ? Does it matter ? What senior politician, captain of industry or leader of other organisations doesn't have these characteristics ? People in senior positions need to be able to take decisions based on facts, without emotion; they need to be determined and confident in their abilities. 

Personally, I'd rather have a Prime Minister who's prepared to upset people now and again rather than one who avoids action for fear of upsetting them. I'd rather have a prime Minister who speaks his, or her, mind and sometimes gets angry, and shows it. The only problem I have is that I really don't know if Boris Johnson is up to the job in the first place. If he is, then I really don't care whether he had a row with his lady friend or not; if he isn't, then a row is irrelevant anyway. 

You pays yer money and ………………………………. .

MRS MAY GOES TO BRUSSELS - ONE MORE TIME

That the European Union is an utterly moribund organisation has surely never been more clear than now. Theresa May, a Prime Minister in name only, has trotted off to Brussels for yet another 'summit' at which the next incarnation of the Union's multiple organ's will be discussed and possibly conjured up. 

All of the member states, including for now the United Kingdom, will have their say in who is to get plum appointments to 4 Presidential posts - Council, Commission, Parliament and Central Bank - as well as to the post of EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs; there will be horse-trading galore with every conceivable argument used in order to ensure that whoever gets the jobs fulfils the one critical criterion - that they are the lowest common denominator. In other words, there will be a continuation of the fiction of an independent EU government, while the real power rests with Germany and, to a lesser extent, France.

Juncker, Tusk, Tajani, Mogherini, Draghi - these giants of world politics are all at the end of their terms of office and are about to be replaced; one has to wonder if they'll be missed or if their disappearance from the world stage will even be noticed beyond their own tiny puddles of self importance. Their successors will be another bunch of non-entities drawn from Europe's less powerful nations and who will bestride the world stage like ants.

No concatenation of states such as the European Union can ever succeed as it inevitably has to bend to so many demands that everything it does has to satisfy far too many masters.; the consequence is that it is forced to adopt policies that are hated by many in order to get even some others of more importance agreed. Even then, many of its member states will fail to implement policies with any enthusiasm if their own electorates dislike them enough. The only way forward is a fully fledged United States of Europe, and that is the one destination which is unacceptable to almost everyone outside of the EU's central management.

The EU is not a safe haven, it is not something to which any major state should aspire to belong unless that state has ulterior motives. Germany and France see it as being a stepping stone to European domination without actual warfare, and so both support it wholeheartedly; most of the other member states see it as being a gravy train chucking out bundles of cash, although the reality is that it's a centralised dictatorship which has caused much pain in countries such as Italy and Greece. The United Kingdom has no such desire for the protectionist insularity of Europe, something for which it pays billions of pounds every year; it has no desire to be subservient to the dictatorship of Brussels and wants to get out, quite rightly.

This latest 'summit' should be Mrs May's last chance to parade around with her fellow European bigwigs and, if she has anything about her, she should tell them a few home truths. Not much chance of that, though. 

ARE VACCINES SAFE ?

The news today includes a story about the safety of vaccines which, it's reported, an increasing number of people are questioning. Apparently the general uptake of vaccines is falling and in France is now only at around 70% of what is expected. The blame for this reluctance of people to trust vaccination has been placed on misinformation spread on the internet, which may well be the case, but is there more to it ?

On one level the simple answer to the question of safety is obvious - of course vaccines are safe and they've saved the lives of countless millions of people since the discovery of their potential more than 200 years ago. Smallpox has been eradicated while childhood killers such as measles, polio, diphtheria and whooping cough are now little more than inconveniences in much of the world. Vaccines have been, and are being developed to combat more and more diseases with malaria being targeted as well as some cancers. How can anyone think this is bad ?

However, some have claimed that certain vaccines have dangerous side effects, such as causing brain damage and mental health; such claims have generally been refuted by those who promote vaccination as being essential and it also has to be acknowledged that the evidence for such effects is sparse. What concerns me much more is the way in which vaccination has taken a similar path to that of the use of antibiotics.

The viruses which are targeted by vaccines are tiny cells which can invade other cells and cause them to malfunction. Our bodies' immune systems can often deal with these in the same way that they deal with invasion by bacteria, but not always; this is where vaccines come in, training our systems before they suffer all out attacks and making us far more resistant. However, some viruses are able to undergo small mutations which prevent our bodies from reacting effectively, the prime examples being the viruses which cause colds and influenza; regular tiny changes in these viruses mean that effective and long-lasting vaccines are difficult to develop.

Where this leads is to a simple question. If bacteria have been able to adapt to antibiotics to such an extent that antibiotic resistance is now a major problem, might not viruses eventually do something similar ? Might vaccines eventually cause some viruses to mutate, become resistant and even more dangerous ? After all, nature is all about adaptation, mutation and survival.

While some of the diseases which were prevalent and deadly a century and more ago are now hardly considered, others have arisen. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) appeared, as if from nowhere but quite possibly from the mutation of some other virus in the 1940s or 1950s; the Ebola disease currently ravaging parts of Africa is another which seems to have been unknown as recently as half a century ago. The avian influenza virus - H5N1 - which has given rise to serious epidemics, is believed to have mutated from birds and become potentially very dangerous to humans within the last 20 or 30 years only. The simple fact is that viruses, just like all other living species, mutate and adapt to their surroundings. Which brings me back to the safety of vaccines. 

For now, vaccines are the best answer we have to combatting a host of dangerous and deadly viral diseases; in doing this, they are as safe as anything else that we do. There may be rare side effects which may cause isolated problems but, on the whole, wherever vaccination is available and recommended, it should be used. However, what the future holds may be a different matter. In combatting bacteria, we have developed antibiotics to which some bacteria have become resistant, to such an extent that we now have no effective means of fighting them. As resistance has appeared, new drugs have been developed, often with considerable toxicity in themselves, until we have run out of options. If the same thing was to happen with viruses and vaccines, where would that leave us ?

I don't say that this will happen, only that it might; it is a possibility. If it does happen, where will that leave humanity in 30, 50 or 100 years from now ? Vaccines are undoubtedly safe and highly effective today, but will these same vaccines still be safe and effective years in the future ?  Are we actually just initiating another biological timebomb with which future generations will have to deal ?

NOW REMAINERS THREATEN TO BRING DOWN GOVERNMENT.

It seems that the arch-Remainers in the Conservative Party - the likes of Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve, as well as leadership candidate Rory Stewart - have finally made their positions clear. In the event that any future leader of the Party, and Prime Minister, tries to bring Brexit about without a formal deal with the European Union, they will 'bring down the Government'.

Given that the nation voted for Brexit, is this not the ultimate in anti-democratic action ? These people talk about types of Brexit as if they have special knowledge of which the electorate are ignorant, implicitly saying that the electorate are stupid. What they want is simply to stay in the EU at any cost; they have no interest in democracy or carrying out the Will of the people. Just now, I've heard Rory Stewart imply that the views of 270 Members of Parliament must be listened to; what about the views of 17.4 million voters which he seems perfectly happy to ignore ?

It's suggested that members of the European Research Group, a sub-species within the Conservative Party, will migrate to Nigel Farage's Brexit Party if the UK does not leave the EU on 31st October, as is currently the law. Conversely, it's said that the arch-Remainers in the Party will move to the Liberal Democrats if Brexit is brought about without a deal that they like; these are the 'Wets' on the extreme left of the Party who have far more in common with the Liberals anyway and without whom the Party would probably be better off. Perversely, such a move by either wing of the Conservative Party could galvanise British politics, re-introducing a true right wing Conservative Party, be it by amalgamation with the Brexit Party or by the left wingers leaving in a huff.

For members of any political party to talk openly about bringing down their own government is shocking. For it to be a consequence of those same members ignoring the democratically expressed Will of the People, is appalling. They should be expelled from the party and Parliament, vilified and strung up. 

"THIS WEEK" CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DIE.

Is the BBC for real ?

I have read that the corporation was approached by Andrew Neil regarding a continuation of the marvellous "This Week" beyond the end of its current contract, but didn't like his suggestion that it should be broadcast at a slightly earlier time. As it is, "This Week" rarely starts before 11:30 at night and goes on until well after midnight, a bit late for a live programme.

As a consequence of the BBC's attitude, "This Week" will come to an end in a very few weeks time; the best, by a very long way, political discussion programme on television, will end. It's replacement will be a television version of a 'geeky and cheeky' podcast chaired by Laura Kuenssberg, meaning that serious political debate will be banished from the BBC in favour of it being trendy.

While Andrew Neil is a skilled, informed and brilliant political journalist, presenter and interviewer, being well supported by Michael Portillo and a range of others - Diane Abbot, Alan Johnson, Liz Kendall, Miranda Green, to name but a few - Kuenssberg is a lightweight who seems more interested in delivering monologues that end with a final 'clever' remark. 

Neil is always scrupulously fair in his questioning and remarks, being equally aggressive in his interviews of all and sundry, whatever their opinions, but has, nonetheless, been 'accused' of being a Tory, something which he denies but which is the usual slur aimed at anyone who isn't an out and out leftie; by contrast, some of Kuenssberg's questioning, comments and general intonation make it very clear what she does and does not approve of. 

I, for one, shall avoid the new programme which will undoubtedly be a 'dumbed down' offering, and can only hope that some other channel is encouraged to take Mr Neil and friends on board. Otherwise, "This week" will be very sadly missed.

JO BRAND - BATTERY ACID AND ALLEGED HUMOUR.

When Boris Johnson made jokey remarks about Muslim women in burkas looking like letter boxes, he was vilified, particularly by the supposedly caring left wing. The police launched an investigation to determine whether or not Johnson's comments amounted to some sort of 'hate crime', although the investigation came to nothing.

Jo Brand, a supposed comedienne although her humour seems to be largely based on left wing, feminist, puerile and smutty attacks on anyone with whom she disagrees (which means anyone with vaguely right wing views), has made a suggestion that rather than throwing milkshakes at "certain unpleasant characters (who) are being thrown to the fore and they're very easy to hate" protesters should throw battery acid instead. If this isn't an incitement to the committal of a serious crime, I don't know what is. Brand laughed it off as being a joke and saying that she wouldn't do such a thing, but the damage was surely done. Clearly, the "certain unpleasant characters" referred to included the likes of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, people whom Brand despises. Farage had, of course, had a milkshake thrown over him during the European parliament election campaign and on the day before Brand's 'joke' was recorded.

However, the response from the BBC, on one of whose programmes this appalling thing was said, as well as from the programme's presenter, Victoria Coren Mitchell, has been muted, to say the least. They have joined with other left wing 'comedians' to try to sweep Brand's remarks under the carpet, claiming that they represented free speech and were simply testing the boundaries of humour; clearly their ideas of boundaries are somewhat different to mine.

Now, Brand has eventually admitted that her remarks were "crass and ill-judged" although she has rejected suggestions that they were a mistake. Given the timing of the recording, the day after the milkshake was thrown at Nigel Farage, that the BBC chose not to edit the remark during the 3 weeks up to the date of broadcast drives me to the belief that those in charge of such matters were quite happy with, and even in agreement with, Brand's vicious suggestion. One wonders just what the BBC, and others, would have said had the remark been made by say, Farage, about left wing comedians. 

The matter has, apparently, been referred to the police and we can only hope that the outcome is, at the very least, a severe warning to both Brand and the BBC as to their future conduct.

UMUNNA ON THE MOVE AGAIN.

What a surprise !

Having failed to become leader of the Labour Party or, indeed, to make any lasting impact on it, and then failed in his bid to establish a new breakaway party, the mightily ambitious Chuka Umunna has now joined the Liberal Democrats. One is tempted to wonder exactly what are his political beliefs, if any; is he just an arch opportunist ?

It seems that Umunna is one of those politicos who actually have no firm beliefs, just a desire to get to the top, somehow, anyhow. He cares not what banner he waves, although in his case Brexit appears to be an over-riding issue, and will nail his colours to whatever flagpole is available. In reality, the Liberal Democrats are probably where he belongs, being a group of mildly left wing euro-fanatics whose policies and objectives are mainly focused on offering Nirvana to all and sundry at no cost to themselves. In other words, "pie in the sky"

With a return to the Labour Party all but impossible, Umunna may well have decided that his best chance of ever achieving any sort of high office is with Liberal Democrats who are also going through a time of change. The aged, arrogant and increasingly barmy Vince Cable is off to the funny farm and a leaden process to elect his replacement is underway; although Umunna cannot be a candidate on this occasion, what about next time ? At a mere 40 years of age, he must be well placed to get the job at a later date, when either Jo Swinson or Ed Davey receive their P45 from the party.

So there we are. A man who 4 years ago put himself forward as a candidate to lead the Labour Party, and withdrew 3 days later, is now positioning himself to become leader of the Liberal Democrats. What does that say about him or, indeed, both of those parties ? 

NO NEW MANDATE NEEDED - JUST GET ON WITH BREXIT.

As the election of a new leader of the Conservative Party gets under way, it seems highly likely that Boris Johnson is heading for ultimate victory, so long as he avoids doing anything silly. However, swathes of left wingers are hitting the airways with every imaginable reason why he shouldn't be elected, reasons why they consider him to be divisive and, most of all, how wrong it is that his election as leader of his Party, if it happens, will coincide with his promotion to the position of Prime Minister. They argue that this is wrong as he will not have a mandate from 'the people', having only been elected by the membership of the Conservative Party which, of course, does not share their political views.

That this is blatant and hypocritical nonsense should be apparent to all but is a point which has been largely ignored by the media. One strongly suspects that if this was an election for a new Labour Prime Minister and similar arguments were being advanced, there would not be the same media silence. This is all about the Conservatives, Mr Johnson and a largely left wing media.

In the not too distant past, we have been landed with Prime Ministers elected by their party midway through a parliamentary term and I don't recall there being much fuss made then. Theresa May, being a Conservative and coming to office immediately after the 2016 referendum was greeted with calls for her to hold a general election which were all about Remainers wanting a second bite of the Brexit cherry. However, I don't recall Gordon Brown, undoubtedly the most incompetent Prime Minister of recent times until surpassed by Mrs May, being hounded with such demands, nor was John Major when he succeeded Mrs Thatcher. Harold Wilson's successor, Jim Callaghan, moved into No 10 without any uproar and proceeded to create an almighty mess, but I don't recall much in the way of demands for him to seek a new mandate before the due time. Anthony Eden succeeded Churchill and Alec Douglas-Home succeeded MacMillan, both mid-term, neither lasting long but neither calling unnecessary elections. 

We do not have a presidential system in this country and our general elections are about electing a government, not an individual leader. When we vote in elections we almost invariably vote for a party or a local representative, we do not vote for the party leader. Whoever wins the Conservative Party's leadership election, will still be bound by the party's 2017 manifesto and, while they can choose their own inner circle, they are not free to do whatever they like. They have to deal with the same parliamentary numbers and views, the same opposition to carrying out the Will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum. It is sheer nonsense to try to argue that they have no mandate as an individual and it is irrelevant.

I want whoever wins to take our country out of the European Union as quickly as possible, deal or not. Frankly, I do not care who it is and I do not expect them to put us through the turmoil of a general election unless they have no choice. Replacing a Prime Minister mid-term is not unusual and does not require the consent of the nation; anyone who wants a say in such matters is free to join the relevant party, otherwise they should simply shut up.

FREE SPEECH ALL BUT DEAD.

If free speech isn't dead in this country, then it's very nearly so.

Labour Member of Parliament, Roger Godsiff, has expressed agreement with those parents protesting outside a primary school in Birmingham over the issue of whether certain lessons are appropriate. If the protests had been aimed at the teaching of history, science or languages, there'd have been little publicity but the issue has involved the 'teaching' of matters relating to sexual orientation.

In the past, schools taught children academic, technical or vocational subjects but, in today's world of 'inclusiveness' and political correctness, such subjects are seen as being almost secondary to the teaching of social behaviour. The argument in Birmingham has been about the appropriateness of 'teaching' primary school children about homosexuality, lesbianism and other fringe issues of sexual behaviour. The protesters maintain that such 'teaching' is not a matter for schools but for parents and families, and Mr Godsiff has supported this viewpoint, a stand for which he has been roundly condemned; Labour's education spokesman, Angela Rayner, has reported him for making "discriminatory and irresponsible" comments and has demanded that he have the party's Whip withdrawn, effectively separating him from the Parliamentary party. Thus far, the party's Chief Whip, Nick Brown, has declined to take such action and has, instead, said that Mr Godsiff will be "reminded of his responsibilities as an MP". What ?

Surely the primary responsibility of any MP is to represent and support his constituents and not to blindly follow whatever is currently considered to be the politically correct path. In this case, Mr Godsiff is being pilloried for having a point of view which differs from that of some others; is having a different opinion no longer permitted ? Are we now in a world in which there is only one acceptable point of view on each subject ? We are surrounded by rules, regulations and laws that attempt to enforce the perceived wisdom of the moment in ways which are entirely restrictive of free speech and freedom of expression.

If some idiot wants to deny the existence of NAZI concentration camps and mass extinctions, why shouldn't they ? Surely historical facts, if properly taught, will overwhelm bigotry and stupidity. If, as I believe, schools should concentrate on teaching children to read, write and add up rather than indoctrinating them with left wing political ideology, am I not entitled to my opinion and should I not be allowed to express it ? If I'm wrong, those who disagree with me are at liberty to make their arguments and try to convince me otherwise.

Instances such as that of Mr Godsiff serve only to show how close we are to a complete denial of free speech in this country.

SO WHO DIDN'T USE DRUGS ?

So Michael Gove snorted cocaine 20+ years ago, Rory Stewart has apparently smoked opium, Jeremy Hunt may have used cannabis, once, Andrea Leadsom smoked 'weed' 30 or more years ago, Dominic Raab smoked cannabis 20+ years ago and Boris Johnson has almost admitted to using cocaine and cannabis when at university, also 30+ years ago.

Do I care ?

When I was a student in the 1970s, I was aware that some of my fellow undergraduates used drugs, some were even stupidly proud of doing so, but I was never tempted. Indeed, I'd only ever tried smoking tobacco once, a small Hamlet-like cigar, 2 or 3 puffs on which made me cough and splutter; that was enough to put me off for ever. I really don't know whether friends, acquaintances and colleagues over the years have used elicit drugs or not and I really don't care; what has always been far more important has been their overall personality and ability.

Questions have been raised about the suitability of Mr Gove as a potential Prime Minister on the back of his admission and, by implication, the other contenders as well. Surely, if we are to condemn people forever for what they did decades ago, we are living in a world in which even Big Brother would feel uncomfortable. Gove has been criticised for comments he made in a newspaper article in which he railed against middle class drug users although he was, supposedly, himself using drugs at that time, but is this not ancient history ? What matters is what he is doing now, and what he has done in more recent times, as it does with the other candidates for leadership of the Conservative party.

Personally, I don't like Gove, I think he is duplicitous and utterly untrustworthy; he is a determined climber of the greasy pole who will do anything to reach the top. Sadly, I don't like most of the others either. Boris Johnson may be a likeable chap when out and about or on television, but do we really want a likeable buffoon as our next Prime Minister, regardless of whether or not he ever sneezed cocaine away ? Andrea Leadsom and Rory Stewart exude no great authority and give me no confidence that either would be able to resolve our current difficulties, again regardless of what they did or did not smoke, or otherwise ingest, in the past. Jeremy Hunt is far too suave, smug and self satisfied for my liking and Dominic Raab is simply too much of an unknown. Of course, there are other candidates who have yet to admit to, or deny, a drug taking past, but do any of them have what it takes to be Prime Minister at a particularly difficult time in our history ? In fact, who can name them ?

Sam Gyimah and Mark Harper, two real household names, not, have thrown their hats into the ring simply to be noticed; neither can be taken seriously. Sajid Javid may be serious about wanting the job but he's just another Gove, or Hunt, oily, greasy and prepared to say or do anything that will help his cause. His recent history isn't exactly good, either.

Esther McVey has a media presence but does she really have the gravitas needed ? Highly personable and determined, but what is her track record in government ? She might be a good choice as a running mate for one of the less resolute Brexiteers but Prime Minister ? Whether or not she's ever smoked, snorted, or injected dodgy substances, for me, she just doesn't cut the mustard. The last currently announced candidate, Matt Hancock, could almost be McVey in trousers; apart from being ambitious, what would he bring to the top job ? Being somewhat wishy-washy on the vexed subject of Brexit, he certainly wouldn't be my choice.

Which all leaves us precisely nowhere. We all know that politicians obfuscate and lie. Few go into politics for any reason other than to benefit themselves and few can be trusted, certainly none of those who seek high office. I really couldn't care less about whether they took drugs in the distant past, what I want is someone in whom I can have confidence, someone who will deliver on their promises. That means someone who will carry through on the promises made in 2016 and 2017, and get us out of the European Union, with or without an explicit deal.

Who fits that bill ? 

BREXIT PARTY RIDES STORM OF POLITICAL CHAOS.

The difference between the organisation of the Brexit Party and the chaos of 'Change UK' can hardly be more stark, while the others aren't much better either.

The Brexit Party came into existence only a few weeks ago and yet has caused a bear-tsunami in British politics. Coming first in the elections for the European parliament and almost winning the Peterborough by-election, it has terrified both of the main parties which have seen support haemorrhage. Some have complained that The Brexit Party has no manifesto, but the fact is that it has a clear purpose; it stands for leaving the European Union, restoring national sovereignty and democracy, and ending the complacency and smugness of our erstwhile political leadership. 

Set against that, Change UK is a disparate group of disaffected Members of Parliament with large egos but little following. The oily Chukka Umunna and acid tongued Anna Soubry, plus an assortment of others, seemed to believe that anyone would care what they said; in this they were very wrong. Of the 11 who stood under the 'Change UK' banner in the Euro elections, 6 have had enough and gone off to sulk together in a corner, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston having fallen out with fellow Tory, Soubry, and Chukka Umunna having probably come to realise that he'd made a horrible miscalculation by initiating this ludicrous grouping of opposites in the first place.

The Conservatives are embroiled in internal ructions over the choice of a new leader as well as what to do about Brexit. Labour have been dragged to the far left by a cabal of Marxists led by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, and have no idea what to do about Brexit either. The Liberal Democrats may have experienced a minor resurgence in recent weeks but that is largely a consequence of the failings of the 2 main parties; they, too, are in the middle of a leadership election with the aged and increasingly dotty Vince Cable on his way out and either Ed Davey or Jo Swinson about to take over - real heavyweights there, then.

The Green Party is the only other voice of any note and from an interview with a co-leader of this bunch of woolly hatted, and headed, loons on the BBC this morning, it's pretty clear that they are fanatics who will claim almost anything in order to grab headlines. Today the claim is that so-called austerity, which has never really existed, has resulted in 130,000 deaths; despite being pressed by the interviewer, Sian Berry produced no evidence in support of this outlandish claim and, instead, just ranted on about whatever came into her head, which resulted in a mish-mash of nonsensical drivel. 

The somewhat shocking result of all of this is that there is currently only 1 political party in this country which has any organisation and knows what it's about, and that party has only existed as an electoral option since the 5th February 2019. Perhaps I should include the Liberal Democrats as knowing what they want which is, of course, the diametric opposite of the aims of the Brexit party = that is, continued membership of the European Union, surrendering evermore of the little sovereignty which remains to us, giving up on democracy altogether and maintaining the complacent and cosy little worlds of Westminster and Brussels out of which they profit.

Who will emerge to save us from all this ? Where is our Drake, Nelson, Wellington, Churchill or Thatcher ?

LIKE HIM OR NOT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS A FRIEND.

Whether one reveres or loathes him, Donald J Trump is President of the United States, the most steadfast ally of the United Kingdom and a nation with which we have the tightest possible bonds. As such, President Trump is entitled to be shown at least the respect which any visiting head of state might expect.

Sadly, almost shockingly, on visiting our shores the President has been greeted with some appalling rudeness and incivility, exclusively from the left wing of our political establishment. Assorted individuals, most notably the egregious Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the rabble rousing Jeremy Corbyn, and the increasingly batty Vince Cable have all refused invitations to attend a State Banquet, hosted by the Queen, in honour of the President. Bercow has refused to allow Mr Trump to address Parliament because he doesn't like the President's political views. Corbyn has chosen to show his support for anti-Trump protesters by addressing a street gathering of them, while Cable has opined that we all know the President's visit is about 'fixing Brexit'; given that the invitation to the President was issued when the question of Brexit was barely out of nappies, Cable's opinion seems like ludicrous nonsense. Reporters for the BBC have shown an almost universal lack of respect for the President by the nature, tone and tenor of their questions and comments, the only one who made an attempt to be even-handed being Norman Smith, perhaps and older and wiser head.

Also crawling out of the muddy slime, Sadiq Khan, rumoured to be a politician of importance though whether or not he is may be a matter of conjecture, has made various nasty and entirely disrespectful remarks about Mr Trump, and then, together with his left wing buddies, exhibited mock outrage when the President has responded in like fashion. Reporting on this childish spat, the media, led by the BBC, has largely ignored Khan's nastiness and concentrated instead on the President's responses, making it seem that it is he who is to blame on account of his 'right wing' views. Khan has gone on to call  the President of the United States a "poster boy for the far right"; far right is, of course, a euphemism for all those nasty groupings such as NAZIs and Fascists, and an epithet used by the left as a label for anything or anyone with whom they disagree. 

In a continuation of this left wing assault on the President, the General Secretary of the TUC, Frances O'Grady, another left wing mouth, has called Trump a "dirty old man" when addressing a crowd of scruffy herberts at a street gathering in Whitehall. To my knowledge, Mr Trump has not replied to this rude and offensive remark but then why would he ? Ms O'Grady is not exactly a shining light in the left wing firmament, more a dim candle. Other, even less significant, figures have attempted to grab the headlines by launching or displaying offensive balloons and blimps in and over London, in reality displaying little more than their own prejudices, bigotry, bad taste and stupidity.

I don't recall there being this huge outpouring of rudeness, offensiveness, prejudice and bigotry when other, far more objectionable national leaders have visited the United Kingdom. Heads of State from Russia and China, two of the most tyrannical nations, may have drawn a few protestors out but nothing on the same scale as for President Trump's visit; of course, extreme left wing dictators are always more acceptable than moderately right wing democratically elected leaders, at least to those most prone to demonstrating their moral rectitude, that is, the left wing rabble rousers so beloved of the likes of Corbyn, Cable, Khan, O'Grady and the rest. 

It really is time for the Right Wing to wake up to this constant stream of bigotry that is emanating from the left, and to the 'liberal elite' which does everything it can to appease the demands of the left in order to retain power. If it continues to sit on its hands and does nothing, we are heading for bloody revolution.