BRAVURA BORIS !!

Anyone who saw Prime Minister Boris Johnson's bravura performance in the House of Commons today can be in no doubt that things have changed. Where May was stolid, Johnson was energetic; where May was controlled, Johnson was vibrant; where May was hopeful, Johnson was determined. Above all. where May was boring, Johnson was anything but.

Voters may love Johnson or they may loathe him; what cannot be denied is that he is a different beast to most, if not all, of those that have gone before. He exudes a confidence and enthusiasm which has probably never been seen before in any British Prime Minister; only the wartime Winston Churchill ever quite threatened to galvanise the nation as does Boris Johnson.

The problem is a single question. Is this all bluster and bravado, or can he actually deliver ? His performance in the House today suggests that his knowledge of current issues is somewhat greater than has generally been touted. His answers showed a degree of diplomacy that we have not, perhaps, come to expect from him. For some 2½ hours, Johnson responded to questions from all sides, 129 questions according to Mr Speaker Bercow whose own interventions followed the usual pattern of excessive pomposity and verbosity.

Johnson actually seemed to be enjoying it all. He never wavered, never flagged; he set out his stall and made it clear where he was headed and in what he believed. Most importantly, he was absolutely unequivocal in stating that the UK will leave the European Union by 31st October at the latest, come what may.

How that last ambition will be achieved is yet to be seen. He is opposed by some in his own party, most of the Labour opposition, now that Corbyn has been bludgeoned into submission, the Liberal Democrats who despise both Brexit and Johnson, and the Scottish Nationalists who despise being subservient to the United Kingdom while welcoming the notion of servitude to the EU. EU representatives have already made it clear that they will not enter into any meaningful form of renegotiation over the withdrawal agreement, which is binding, but will discuss the political declaration which, surprise, surprise, is not. In other words, the EU plans to give not an inch.

We are heading for a showdown, maybe more than one. Johnson versus the EU, Johnson versus Parliament, even Johnson versus his own MPs. How it will all end no one knows, but we can be sure that the ride will be pretty hairy and 31st October is the deadline.

JOHNSON CULLS THE CABINET

As if anyone needed proof that we have a new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson provided it in Spades yesterday. Harold MacMillan's 'Night of the Long Knives' pales into insignificance alongside Johnson's 'Culling of the Cabinet'.

By my reckoning, only 6 members of Theresa May's Cabinet remain as Cabinet Ministers, 2 others, Michael Gove and Brandon Lewis, being demoted to the position of attendees. Two former attendees, Liz Truss and Julian Smith, have been promoted to full membership while the Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, remains as an attendee. All this carnage results in the most dramatic mid-term Cabinet reshuffle on record and means that around 20 of the 32 men and women who will attend Cabinet in future did not do so last week.

Johnson has set out his stall and shown the world that he is serious about changing things; as new brooms go, his has been shown to have some pretty strong bristles. Whether this will produce the desired outcomes we can only wait to see. 

IT'S BORIS ! NOW LET HIM GET ON WITH BREXIT.

Even before his announcement as the next leader of the Conservative Party and, consequently, Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has witnessed the resignations, or promised resignations, of several members of Theresa May's government. I doubt that any of them will be missed.

The likes of arch-Remainers Philip Hammond and Alan Duncan have made no secret of their opposition not only to Johnson but also to Brexit, basically in any meaningful form whatsoever. Alan Duncan has gone so far as to suggest the holding of a confidence motion in the House of Commons, even before Johnson takes up office, while others have been touting the idea of a so-called 'Government of National Unity' possibly led by Keir Starmer, a leading member of Jeremy Corbyn's front bench - can they really be serious ? 

All of this noise is coming from those in Parliament who oppose Brexit and are continuing to fight against the democratically expressed Will of the people. They are also fighting against what they themselves have previously voted for, all of them having voted to implement the provisions of the European Union's Article 50 which included the final leaving date of 29th March 2019, come what may. Since then, they've done their utmost to thwart Brexit and, now that their arch enemy Johnson is to take the reins of power, they are actively talking about bringing down their own government.

These supposed representatives of the people were all elected as Conservative Members of Parliament but are now showing their true colours; Hammond, Duncan, Grieve, Gauke and others are not Conservatives by any traditional meaning of the term, they are all middle-of-the-road liberals, committed to avoiding doing anything which might upset their own particular apple carts. They all hate the idea of change and are terrified of the prospect of the UK leaving the comfort blanket of the EU. They are like over-protective parents, doing everything they can to keep their little darlings from leaving the safety of the nest for fear of what might befall them in the nasty outside world.

What a load of old tosh, but absolutely in keeping with the modern adherence to the nanny state. However, it's now time to put nanny out to grass; she's done her job and the children have grown up and want to leave home. Philip Hammond and his bunch of rebellious and overbearing pseudo-parents need to accept things and stop getting in the way.

SPREADSHEET PHIL HEADS TO THE HILLS !

Oh, pass me the box of tissues, please !

Spreadsheet Phil, otherwise known as the lugubrious arch-Remainer and Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, has told the world that he'll be resigning on Wednesday if Boris Johnson wins the race to become the next leader of the Conservative party. Given that Johnson is highly likely to win, and Hammond must have been number 1 on his list of cabinet sackings, this is surely no surprise.

Hammond has made no secret of his opposition to Brexit and has contributed loudly to the 'Project Fear' campaign aimed at preventing it from happening. Together with the also soon to be gone David Gauke he's made it clear that he has no time for democracy unless it's in support of his own point of view. Another on his way out is the highly political Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who has also done his best to promote every negative view of Brexit; he goes early next year and we can only hope that his replacement sticks more to facts and gives less prominence to potentially misleading forecasts based on spurious assumptions.

Tomorrow, the Conservative leadership process reaches its conclusion with the winner to be announced on Tuesday. Theresa May will formally resign on Wednesday, after Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons (as will Hammond - hurrah !), and the new Conservative leader and Prime Minister will be in place on Thursday. Whether it's Johnson or Hunt, what fun there will be in the succeeding days !

THE MOON, MARS AND BEYOND - BRING IT ON !

Fifty years after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to walk on another world, while Michael Collins orbited and waited, the media is full of nostalgia. I was there at the time and well remember the awe with which the adventure was greeted. The whole world held its breath at the launch, during the quarter of a million mile journey and especially during the final descent and landing. It was a moment of not only a lifetime or even a generation; it was a moment in human history that can never be forgotten. The subsequent return was followed just as closely as it was not until those unbelievably brave pioneers were safely back on earth that the mission was truly complete. 

In the 3 years that followed another 6 Apollo spacecraft set off for the Moon and another 10 men actually set foot there, Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 17, being the last human to leave a mark on its surface when he climbed back aboard his spacecraft in December 1972. Not all of the missions were successful, the unbelievable drama of Apollo 13 perhaps providing the single most 

incredible achievement of the entire space programme. Again, the world held its breath as the impossible was achieved and the 3 astronauts were somehow brought back alive.

As well as the men who walked on the Moon there is a tendency to forget that there were those who, like Michael Collins, simply circled the Moon waiting for their colleagues to return and never had a chance of landing. Then there were the crews of Apollos 8 and 10 who made the journey but, after travelling so far, never made the final step. Altogether, 9 craft and 27 men travelled to the Moon and back between December 1968 and December 1972 but no one has gone further than Earth orbit ever since.

The men who travelled into space all those years ago were certainly brave. They sat atop the huge Saturn V rockets knowing that the slightest problem might see them blown to pieces or incinerated, as were the crew of Apollo 1 when fire broke out during a training exercise. Once airborne, they had to rely on technology which, by today's standards, was incredibly primitive; their onboard computers had little more power than a modern digital watch. It was them against the elements, with death waiting for them around every corner; incredibly, all those who made the journey to the Moon came back safely.

However, and it's a big however, were those brave spacemen any more brave, or even as brave, as those who journeyed across the oceans of Earth in the past ? The astronauts knew where they were going, they could see their goal and had massive numbers of people helping them; those, like Vasco da Gama, Columbus, Drake, Cook, and others genuinely set off into the unknown; they headed off without usable maps and with the most basic of navigational aids. They didn't know where they were going or what they'd find wherever they ended up; the earliest of these pioneers didn't even know if they would come to some void, an edge of the world off which they would fall, or would they arrive in a place inhabited by ferocious dragons.

Human history is full of adventurers. Those who first migrated from Africa many thousands of years ago, spreading out across the globe had no real idea of where they were going or what they would find. Over the millennia, humans have explored their surroundings, an insatiable curiosity driving them on, and the brave men who travelled to the Moon were just the latest in a long line of pioneers. Now it seems that humanity is gearing up for a new round of exploration with plans being put in place for a return to the Moon within the next few years and for missions to Mars and beyond soon after.  

Today's knowledge and technology is vastly superior to that of the 1960s and it is undoubtedly time for us to take that next step. I just hope I'm still around to watch in awe as the first man, or woman, sets foot on Mars and the incredible story of humanity moves on.

MOTORISTS TO BE HAMMERED AGAIN.

As if motorists aren't already subject to more than enough obstacles, obstructions and legislation, it's now been announced that the penalty for failing to wear a seat belt is to be upgraded from a fine to penalty points, no doubt with a fine attached. The reason given is that more than a quarter of car occupants killed in road accidents in 2017 were not wearing a seat belt at the time, all 200 of them. Apparently, the penalties for other driving offences are also to be increased.

It is entirely unclear to me why something which affects so few and is a personal cost should be seen as reason to inflict yet more pain on others. Admittedly, wearing a seatbelt is now something that the vast majority of drivers accept without any thought, but this proposal is yet another imposition on the already hard done by motorists who have little to be cheerful about.

Buying a new car incurs a massive tax - 25% car tax plus 20% VAT amounts to a third of the total cost. Somewhere in the region of 65% of the pump price of petrol is tax, then there's the 'road fund licence' not to mention insurance premium tax every time we insure our vehicles. Every service and replacement part - tyres, exhausts, brake pads and the rest - incurs 20% VAT too. Sadly, money is only the tip of the iceberg.

Legislation abounds. Laws against speeding, drinking, smoking, using  mobile 'phones, wearing seat belts not being insured or having an MOT, failing to abide by assorted traffic signals and signs, having worn tyres or defective lights and much more; the appalling thing is that I doubt even 1% of those guilty of any of these offences is ever brought to book, meaning that they are the victims of an appallingly hopeless system. Laws that are rarely enforced fall into disrepute and bring contempt on those who made them.

And then we come to the worst aspects of motoring in the modern world. In the UK, our towns and roads are simply not able to cope with the volumes and types of traffic. Lorries and buses are far too big for roads constructed in the days of horses and carts; many 'cars', the SUVs so beloved by many, are now also too big, blocking views for other road users and being driven as if their owners owned the road too. We have ever increasing numbers of traffic lights, appearing at every junction, roundabout and motorway slip road; there are lumps, bumps and humps in our roads everywhere, supposedly to slow we crazed drivers down but, in reality, just causing annoyance being potential hazards. There is an abundance of road side signage, some flashing distracting messages (another hazard), some being superfluous, some being indecipherable and some hidden from view by overgrown foliage and yet all to be ignored at our peril. Yellow lines, double yellow lines, red lines and bus lanes, all add to the motorists joys, while the humourless traffic wardens hunt us down with glee, handing out their extortionate fines for the slightest contravention.

Added to all of this is the almost unbelievable state of some roads, peppered with potholes, and the extent of road works almost everywhere. Our towns are clogged up with traffic held up by gas works, sewer works, telecoms works, the construction of new housing estates, resurfacing works and road widening. No longer are such works scheduled so as to avoid all main roads in an area being affected at the same time - instead we have frequent gridlock. Our local streets are too narrow and modern housing estates having little provision for parking while older areas often have none, as there were few cars when they were built. 

Our motorways seem to be in a constant state of repair and regeneration. To my personal knowledge, the M1 has been undergoing road widening and upgrading (to a 'Smart Motorway', whatever that is) since the early 2000s, with no end yet in sight; the resulting delays to motorists even when there isn't an associated blockage of some other sort, have been horrendous. Any serious incident on the motorway network results in the police closing whole sections while they investigate, often causing hours, or even days, of difficulties for drivers and resulting in enormous disruption and congestion on alternative, local roads. 

Wherever we poor benighted motorists are, we are put upon, monitored, taxed and vilified. We are pursued by the law, local councils and even self appointed vigilantes in some places. Picking the wrong route at the wrong time can result in being stuck in mile after mile of traffic jam, with no way out; even relatively short local journeys can turn into hour long nightmares, stuck at crossroads, traffic lights or road works. In most of the country we have little or no alternatives, with public transport outside of the major cities being of little use.  

Those who planned our towns and roads have proved to be as useless as those who plan everything else. The assumptions on which they made their plans were so far from reality as to be no more than hopeless stabs in the dark. Adherence to outdated desires to keep supposedly iconic buildings has prevented proper development in many town centres, leading to a failure to make provision for modern traffic flows and needs in many places. 

All in all, motorists have a pretty bad time and yet we seem to make little protest. Why do we put up with it all ? 

NETBALL WORLD CUP ? HONESTLY ?

My God !

The Netball World Cup ? 

Women's football; women's rugby; women's cricket - all represented as if they are equivalent to the real games as played by men.

What is going on ? This has nothing to do with equality but is all to do with a lunatic charge to pretend that men and women are, actually, equal, rather than being fundamentally different. Anyone who actually watches the women's attempts at these sports will immediately see that they are dumbed down versions of the real thing. Women simply cannot match the sheer physicality of men in these sports.

Women and men are different. Women and men have different interests. Women and men are suited to different pursuits. To try to pretend that whatever men do, women will do as well and in a way that is equally attractive to viewers is laughable. Women's tennis is great, but nowhere near as dramatic or powerful as the men's version. As for rugby, it is incredible that any woman would actually want to play such a masculine game; those that do play a tenderized version that is unrecognizable to any real rugby fan. Female footballers may be skilful but their game is like that of 11 year old schoolboys. 

I have to admit that some bits of women's cricket that I've seen have been impressive, particularly the fielding, but the totality of the game still falls far short of the skill, ability and drama of the men's game. And yet we are presented with women's cricket, football, rugby and the rest, hyped up as if they're at least as good as the men's games.

Now it's netball, a schoolgirls' pastime, that is being shoved down our throats. Yes, perhaps there will be an audience, one composed of elderly men drooling over the nubile young women prancing around the court, and with bottoms and busts bouncing everywhere. Is that what it's really all about 

What on earth is going on ?

LEE EVANS IS NO NORMAN WISDOM.

I have seen a number of promotional advertisements relating to a supposed comedian named Lee Evans. Comedian ? Really ?

Evans act is a simple, with emphasis on the 'simple', copy of the earlier generation's star, Norman Wisdom. While Wisdom was a true genius of comedy, Evans is a pathetic example of the modern mania for attempting to make money out of 'remakes'. Every old film of any note is recreated with the use, of course, of cgi rather than acting; the results have been almost universally hopeless. Now we have Evans trying to pretend that he is Norman - worse than hopeless.

Trying to copy genius is always going to be impossible and stupid. Sadly, there is always an audience that didn't actually experience the original genius and that will be tricked into believing that the modern parody with which they are presented is real. This audience simply misses the point that the likes of Lee Evans is not, and can never be, anything remotely like the original, nor anything like as good.

Evans seems to  believe that falling around the stage and being moronic is, itself, funny; how wrong he is. While his audiences, mostly as moronic as himself, might laugh uncontrollably at his cretinous antics, Norman Wisdom must be crying into his heavenly nectar as he sees the pathetic depths to which his successors have now sunk in pursuit of a few laughs.

THERE WAS NEVER A CHOICE - DARROCH HAD TO GO

The rather unedifying spat over comments made by the British ambassador in New York was only ever going to end one way. While some have attempted to use the issue as something over which to criticise Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, the truth is that the ambassador, Kim Darroch, made a huge diplomatic blunder and those who subsequently supported him got it horribly wrong.

For an ambassador to provide honest analysis of the country to which he is posted, and its leaders and other senior figures, is perfectly right and proper, but to make derogatory comments in an insecure medium such as email is stupid and unforgiveable. It shows a lack of basic intelligence and a breath taking degree of arrogance; presumably Darroch was so sure of himself that it never occurred to him that his highly critical remarks about the most powerful politician in the world, the President of the United States, and the administration of that country, might be leaked and would be considered diplomatically unacceptable. Once the comments became public, Darroch's position was immediately untenable, with there being no chance that his continued presence would be acceptable to the government of the United States.

Jeremy Hunt has said that it is up to the United Kingdom to decide who its ambassadors are and not the countries of their postings; of course, he is basically correct but he failed to mention that ambassadors do also have to be acceptable to their hosts. Boris Johnson is less dogmatic and has commented that the overall international relationship with a principal ally has to be considered - in this he is absolutely correct. While Hunt offered total support to Darroch, Johnson did not; it seems that Theresa May has also sided with Hunt on this point, both being utterly wrong.

Fortunately, Darroch has chosen to see the impossibility of his position and has now resigned; it appears that he has shown the diplomatic understanding which Hunt and May clearly lack. The choice between Hunt and Johnson as to which will be the next leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister suddenly becomes much more clear. Should it be someone who blindly supports a foolish ambassador against our most important ally, or someone who sees the alliance as being more important ?

The answer seems obvious. 

JOHNSON TO FIGHT THE NANNY STATE !

As both candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party, and country, trot around throwing out promises and cash, Boris Johnson has finally come up with a genuinely Conservative policy. He says that he will initiate a review of the so-called 'sin taxes' and launch an assault on the 'nanny state'.

Under successive governments, the state has taken an ever-increasing stranglehold on everyday life. Driven by the fanatics of the health lobby, itself led by the likes of Chief Medical Officer Sally Davies, vacillating Member of Parliament Sarah Wollaston and celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, government has been pressured to increase existing taxes and increase existing ones on a variety of supposedly unhealthy foodstuffs in an effort to 'encourage' us all to change our naughty ways. This is, of course, intended to 'help' us to live better, healthier and longer lives, whether we want to or not.

Undoubtedly, some foods are unhealthy and eating too much of them is bad for us, but is taxation the right way to 'encourage' us to avoid some tid-bits ? The cynics among us might well, and rightly, imagine that a state looking to raise as much money as it can to fritter away on its pet projects will happily tax anything if it can find a reasonable excuse so to do. Dressing such taxation up as being a good thing is simply being deceitful. To me, the whole notion of the state trying to influence my personal choices and behaviour through taxation is wrong.

Of course things that are clearly bad or dangerous should be discouraged, but through education, peer pressure and the instilling of sound values, not by the blunt and frankly disingenuous method of taxation. Things that are seriously bad should either be restricted or banned altogether - personally, I'd have no problem if every KFC, McDonalds, Subway and the rest disappeared overnight; what they produce is unhealthy rubbish that should never have been allowed to infiltrate our shores in the first place. 

Where there is too much salt or sugar in food items, the level should be reduced, not allowed IF a suitable level of tax can be levied. How long will it be before the health fanatics decide that 'unhealthy' white bread should be taxed more than 'healthy' brown bread ? How long before sausages are taxed on the basis of the amount of fat they contain ? How long before the culinary delights of pork belly or lamb shoulder are denied to us simply because some official in Whitehall considers them to be 'unhealthy' ?

Where is the justice in this ? There is none, it is simply one small group of fascists telling the rest of us what we can and cannot do because, Nanny-like, they know best, but we must never forget that Nanny has not always been right in the past. There have been many occasions when people have been encouraged to follow guidance issued by experts, only to find that the guidance wasn't so good after all - thalidomide, Librium and Valium, steroids of all sorts, cigarettes (believe it or not !), saccharin and aspartame, artificial sweeteners with chequered histories, and many more.

Even now, there seem to be differing opinions about the efficacy, or otherwise of some alcohol products, particularly red wine. Generally, 'experts' are like economists - you'll get as many opinions from them as there are bodies present. 

As a final thought, there is the question of what is better - a long, boring, 'healthy' and ultimately pathetic life, doubly incontinent and receiving constant care, but living to 120, or a shorter, happier one, enjoying some of the naughty pleasures and popping your clogs at 80 ? I know which I choose.