Monday 30 December 2019

VAR IS A DISASTER !

The VAR system being used in Premier League football matches is clearly failing, in fact, it's failed and quite miserably.

I thought that it was to be used to help referees in situations in which there were clear and obvious errors; obvious handballs, fouls or offsides that had been missed, or obvious examples of such offences being adjudged to have occurred which were erroneous.

In the event, VAR has become the arbiter of the most marginal decisions, overruling goals, awarding penalties and more, frequently after minutes of consideration and in situations that are nowhere near "clear and obvious". Offsides determined by a matter of fractions of millimetres and goals disallowed as a result. Penalties awarded, or not, by similarly tiny margins.

These decisions are not being taken by the referee and other officials at the matches but by someone sitting in front of a television screen miles, even hundreds of miles, away. It's ridiculous and, as has been said by many respected pundits, the system must be changed.

One hopes that the elephantine bureaucracies of the FA and Premier League will react and that things will improve quickly. One equally doubts that such hopes will be fulfilled any time soon.

Sunday 29 December 2019

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ENGLISH CRICKET ?

To start, I don't mean the one day knockabout stuff, I mean real cricket, the game played over 3, 4 or 5 days and the one that needs a bit of genuine ability and application.

Following defeat by New Zealand in the recent 2 match 'series', England have now lost to South Africa in the first of a 4 match series. Captain Joe Root has put the defeat down to a batting collapse in England's first innings, but surely the problem is much more than that.

England started by winning the toss, something usually considered to be a benefit and one that usually results in the winners of the toss batting first, unless there are strong reasons not to. There were no such strong reasons but Root, nonetheless, decided to allow first use of the pitch to his opponents. His bowlers didn't do badly and managed to restrict the South Africans to only 284 runs, a relatively poor score. 

Surely England were now on top, and so it seemed when they reached 142 for the loss of only 3 wickets; whoops, 7 wickets then fell for the addition of only 39 runs and the South Africans had a lead of 103. The gamble of putting South Africa in to bat had failed and England's only chance was to run through South Africa's batting quickly at the second time of asking; this they also failed to do, hampered by having an attack comprised only of seam bowlers and poor strategy.  

The outcome was that England's batsmen were left with the task of scoring 376 runs to win the match, a very substantial target for a 4th innings and many more than anyone had ever managed at the same ground in the past. Unsurprisingly, they failed and lost the match by 107 runs; this time, the score reached 204 for 3 before the last 7 wickets went down for just 64 runs. So much for the first innings collapse being pivotal.

The decision to bowl first was wrong. The bowling strategy was wrong, Not including a recognized spin bowler was wrong. The batting, apart from the first 5 in the order, failed in both innings. However, above all, England lacked leadership. Joe Root may be a good batsman, less so in recent times, but as a captain he lacks the dynamism, vitality and positivity that is needed for such a role. His demeanour on the pitch and in after match interviews is that of a man tortured by his responsibilities; on the pitch he exudes no aura of authority and rarely gives any impression that he's in charge. There is no sign that he's a natural leader and he provides no on-field impetus.

If England are to sort their problems out, they must start with the captaincy. Joe Root is well worth his place in the side as a batsman but he cannot be the captain. Playing a raft of all-rounders is also a poor approach; Stokes, Butler, Bairstow, Curran, Pope - how many more ? They need 5 quality batsmen, a quality 'keeper, one all rounder and 4 main bowlers, exactly as was the case in the past. Quite simply, if 4 front line bowlers can't do the job, why would 5 be any better ? 

Troublingly, the national county championship has been cut to the bone and finding players of the right skills and quality is now far from easy. Given that Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad are both at the ends of their careers, it is time to leave them out in favour of the next generation, whoever they may be. For the spin bowling department, Jack Leach, Dom Bess or young Parkinson may be the best available but there must be an effort to change the championship in order to encourage the development of more spinners. 

As for the batsmen, are there no Boycotts or Barringtons out there ? perhaps a Graveney or a Steel, a Thorpe or Gatting, a Gooch maybe ? Our modern bunch simply don't begin to compare even with Strauss, Atherton and Gower, let alone the truly great players of passed years, those who played on uncovered wickets without a vast range of body protection and still managed to far exceed the achievements of today's molly-coddled crowd.

English cricket has lost its way and it needs serious attention. What chance that such attention will be forthcoming while all attention is on the money-spinning knockabout variety of the game ?

Wednesday 25 December 2019

A CHRISTMAS PUDDING FOR THE GODS !

I suppose most people today buy their Christmas pudding from one or other of the all-encompassing supermarkets; they all get the same bland offering and have no idea of what a real Christmas pudding tastes like, the one enjoyed by the family of Bob Cratchitt, for instance.

My mum always made her own Christmas puddings and I've followed suit. I make them a batch at a time and keep them for years; the older they get, the better they become. This year, my pudding was 12 years old - really, it was made in March 2007. Almost religiously, I've kept it in storage, opening it up every year to add a little bit more brandy before putting it back into the dark recesses of a kitchen cupboard to rest and mature. 12 years of love and attention, 12 years of ageing, it's no different to the ageing of a valued whisky or brandy; it produces wonderful results.

My pudding was exceptional. Black as the Ace of Spades, rich, mouth wateringly beautiful and yet so light that I could have eaten bowlfuls more. It was the stuff of dreams, a nectar for the Gods themselves to enjoy. 

Oh, how I feel for you poor people who have to endure the feebleness of a Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, Morrison's or even a Marks and Spencers' pudding; even those who may have partaken of a pudding from Harrods or Fortnums can have no idea of the glory of MY pudding. It was extraordinary, stupendous even. 

My mum would be so proud !




CAUSING OFFENCE OR MURDER - WHICH IS WORSE ?

I am increasingly disturbed by the way in which incidents of so-called racism are being handled, in particular in the sporting arena. Claims are made and instantly reported as if undoubtedly true; 'offenders' not only find themselves banned but subjected to the most strenuous vilification and even criminal action. Is it all either justified or sensible ?

In the first instance, I wonder why such a fuss is made at all, as what this does is to give publicity to the moronic perpetrators; surely this is what they desire above all else. Secondly, words and even actions such as making 'monkey noises', can be open to interpretation and the notion that an offence is committed if the supposed victim feels offended is contrary to common justice or even common sense. I may well feel offended by many things, the BBC and its incessant outpouring of politically correct, left wing propaganda for instance, but I doubt anyone would consider this to be worth taking action over.

Reference to me as being a limey, honky or 'white trash' would draw no condemnation, although even referring to a black man as being a negro might well, and referring to him as being a nigger or wog most certainly would. That mere words have assumed such ludicrous prominence in the minds of our lawmakers says much about our society which now seems more interested in tackling offence than real crime. While stabbings and other murders run riot, our police chase their tails pursuing social misdemeanours, assorted crimes involving 'offence' and a vast range of other 'thought crimes'.

While the police chase people who make 'monkey noises' or say offensive things, there have been 142 murders this year in London alone, the latest today, Christmas Day. People stabbed and shot, in the street, on trains and, today, on their own doorstep. Even in my own fairly quiet midlands area, a teenager was stabbed to death less than a mile from my own front door only a few weeks ago.

While this goes on, the media appears to be full of reports of supposed 'racist' activities at football matches and the police are looking for people who make 'monkey noises'.

Am I alone in believing that our society has its priorities wrong ? Which is worse - being offensive or murder ?

Saturday 21 December 2019

SHERROCK PROVES SHE'S GOT WHAT IT TAKES !

When Fallon Sherrock won her first round match at the PDC world championships it was, to say the least, historic and a fairly major surprise. It may also have been seen as being a one-off flash in the pan and, ultimately, of little real significance.

However, a few days later she's repeated her feat and won a place in the third round of the tournament by defeating the world's 11th ranked male player. No longer can her performance be written off as luck, a fluke, a flash in the pan or in any other way. Miss Sherrock has confirmed that she is up there with the best darts players, male or female, in the world.

The one question that remains is to discover if she is alone in this achievement or whether other women can compete at the same level. That is something that will only be revealed if more women are given the opportunity to play in major events in what remains a male dominated sport. 

Time will tell.

Thursday 19 December 2019

STURGEON - JUST ANOTHER FANATIC.

Nicola Sturgeon is a fanatic. She has one idea in her head and that is to separate Scotland from England, followed by tying her newly 'free' country to the European Union's restrictive and stifling bureaucracy.

Sturgeon claims that she has an arguable case and a mandate from the electorate although this claim is, to say the least, dubious. In 2014, the Scottish people voted against leaving the United Kingdom by a significant majority, even though in the general election of the following year the Scottish National Party won all but 3 of Scotland's 59 parliamentary seats. This time round, while the SNP did make gains, it won only 48 seats and yet Sturgeon claims that this gives her a clear mandate to demand another referendum on the issue of Scottish independence. However, it seems fairly obvious that a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence and, even if it is, the supposed mandate given to Sturgeon is actually less strong than she had in 2015, the year after she'd lost the original referendum.

It's also the case that while the Conservatives did lose seats in Scotland in the recent election, this was mostly to do with a collapse in the Labour vote with former Labour voters switching to the SNP in epic numbers, while the Conservative vote held up fairly well in most of the country. Sturgeon's claims that the SNP's success was a vote against the Conservatives and Brexit, and in favour of a second independence referendum simply don't stand up to scrutiny. 

When David Cameron agreed to allow the referendum in 2014 it was on the basis that it was a once in a generation opportunity; the Scottish people rejected that opportunity in favour of maintaining the status quo. Sturgeon now claims that the UK's exit from the European Union is a matter of such import that a second referendum must be held, irrespective of the 'once in a generation' status given to the first. One wonders what arguments she would advance for the third, fourth and later referendums that would be deemed necessary after her second one also fails to produce the desired result.

Sturgeon ignores the fact that Scotland has not been an independent country since the Act of Union of 1707, a rather longer time than the 46 years that the UK has been in the EU. Disentangling Scotland from the UK would be a far more complicated matter although Sturgeon glosses over even the obvious difficulties of the position of the monarchy, the currency to be used and border issues, particularly given that it's also her intention to take an independent Scotland back into the European Union. The problems of the Northern Ireland border would pale into insignificance alongside those of resolving the little matter of a direct and open EU border with a major economic power.

But, of course, when it's a matter of fanaticism nothing but the goal matters. Sturgeon hates England and the very idea of the United Kingdom. She will deride the Conservatives as being wedded to a right wing nationalistic philosophy and yet seems oblivious to the contradiction of her stance. She hates Scotland being a small cog in the wheel of the larger United Kingdom and yet is determined to make it an even smaller cog in the much larger, and far more dictatorial, wheel of the European Union. 

Fanatics use the arguments that support their purpose and ignore those that don't. Anything that they can twist to their own use will be so twisted. Facts will be distorted and used selectively, lies will abound. Thankfully for the people of the United Kingdom, Sturgeon's fanaticism is unlikely to yield results in the foreseeable future.

JEREMY CORBYN - A SPOILT CHILD IN ACTION.

Well, today we've seen the real Jeremy Corbyn in action. Forget the friendly and avuncular disposition shown during the election campaign, this morning his behaviour has been rude and obnoxious.

As shown on the BBC, on leaving his home in Islington he scowled at a reporter who was seeking a comment and then slammed his car door in a most aggressive fashion. Later, when members of the House of Commons processed through to the House of Lords for the State Opening of Parliament, Corbyn resolutely ignored Prime Minister Boris Johnson, staring ahead and refusing to engage in any conversation with his opposite number; in fact, his demeanour was one that was about as rude as I've ever seen in many years of watching such occasions.

Anyone who may have been swayed by Corbyn's electioneering must surely have been dismayed by his manner today. This is a man who doesn't take defeat kindly, who is bigoted and unwilling to engage in even the most minor of normal social pleasantries; he is a man who, today, behaved like a spoilt child who's been denied his favourite toys. Should he have become Prime Minister of his desired Marxist government, it is clear that he would have ridden roughshod over all opposition and ignored all opposing views in similar style.

This is not a man who should ever have become leader of a major political party, let alone a serious contender for the highest office in the land.

Wednesday 18 December 2019

WHAT NEXT FOR LABOUR ?

Recriminations and back-biting are now the name of the game in the Labour Party. Following their historic defeat in last week's general election, all hell has broken loose as members of that mob hunt for those to blame and those to replace them.

The Corbyn-McDonnell axis has already put it's weight behind the abominable Rebecca Long-Bailey to be the party's next leader, she being a dyed in the wool believer in the Marxist doctrine pursued by the 2 old men though of a younger generation and presumably seen as a more attractive personality. Not to me, she ain't.

The alternatives who have been touted include the even more repulsive Emily Thornberry, a woman whose snobbery knows no bounds. Entitled to call herself "Lady Nugee" owing to her husband's knighthood, she is well known for her attitude towards those who drive white vans and, most recently, has been accused of calling the electorate in a neighbouring constituency "stupid" for not agreeing with her. This last accusation has resulted in her threatening to sue a former parliamentary colleague, Caroline Flint, although whether that's just Thornberry's ego talking is yet to be revealed.

Then there's Keir Starmer, a man whose political views seem to be wholly pliable. Having voted to implement the now infamous "Article 50", he then migrated to be an ardent supporter of remaining in the European Union; having sat alongside Corbyn and McDonnell on Labour's front bench in the House of Commons and supported their Marxist policies, he now eschews such extremism and wants people to believe that he's really a staunch centrist. In truth, he's just an oily lawyer, trying to climb the slippery pole any way he can. 

One who is rather less associated with the Corbyn debacle is Yvette Cooper although it seems unlikely that she would gain much support from the party's current membership which is still wedded to Corbyn's ludicrous agenda. Another in a similar vein is Lisa Nandy, although she may be seen as more acceptable than Cooper. Cooper has previously stood for the leadership and failed, while Nandy is younger and almost certainly more appealing to many Labour voters, not having the same attachment to the old regime of the Blair / Brown years. However, without the backing of some big names, her chances of success must be slim.

One thing that is probably unarguable is that anyone proposed or supported by Tony Blair has no chance. Despite stepping down from office some 12 years ago, Blair refuses to go away, still yearning for a role in politics which he's never been able to find. He had hopes of becoming President of Europe and worked tirelessly to convince fellow Europhiles that he was the right man for the job; when Brexit came on the agenda, he worked tirelessly to thwart it and today he's in the news again rabbiting on about the future of the Labour Party. Sadly for him his day is long gone and no one's listening to him anymore, not least in his old parliamentary seat of Sedgefield which turned to the Conservatives last week; a seat which Blair had won in 2005 with a majority of more than 18,000 now has a Tory representative with a majority of some 4,500. If that isn't rejection, I don't know what is.

Blair may be right that if Labour doesn't turn away from its current Marxist agenda it has no chance of gaining office ever again, but with a party membership fully in support of that same lunacy and almost equally opposed to everything that Blair has ever said or done, there is little chance that his will be anything other than a voice in the Labour wilderness. 

Which all leaves the Conservatives in a very happy place, as long as they really follow through with the various promises and commitments they've given over the last few weeks. If Boris Johnson's government can truly be a government for the people, it will become an almost unbeatable force for the foreseeable future, as Labour vanishes into a Marxist black hole, the Liberal un-Democrats navel gaze and the Scottish Nationalists fade away as soon as prosperity returns. If all goes well, Johnson could find himself with an even bigger majority come 2024 and might look forward to being Prime Minister even into the 2030s.

Then again, if a week is a long time in politics, 5 years is an eternity. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, a very apt metaphor at this time of year and one which Boris Johnson would do well to heed.

Sunday 15 December 2019

TIME FOR BORIS TO PROVE HIS WORTH !

Well, at last we have an end to the uncertainty. The general election has been held and the result is an unequivocal victory for Boris Johnson's Conservative Party; a House of Commons majority of 80 is the largest they've had since 1987 and gives them a mandate to get on with governing the country, something that they've been largely prevented from doing ever since the days of Margaret Thatcher. The people ignored the scaremongering of Tony Blair, Michael Heseltine, John Major and others, the bias of the BBC and other media, the assaults on the character of Boris Johnson and his private life, and the fanatical cries of the "Peoples' Vote" lobby. The people ignored the noise, saw the way through and voted accordingly. 

The electorate had had enough of Brexit and wanted it finished. A majority, probably a very significant majority, accepted the result of the 2016 referendum, which ever way they'd voted, and expected that result to be honoured. That a majority of their representatives in parliament did not do so roused them to feelings of anger; when the Labour party refused to come up with a clear policy on the subject and reneged on previous promises, it was too much for traditional supporters and they turned their backs. That the Corbyn - McDonnell leadership, supported by Keir Starmer, Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbot, Rebecca Long-Bailey and many more, proposed an approach that would have ensured the country never really left the EU and made a raft of promises that would have been financially and economically disastrous, if even possible, was laughed at. Corbyn himself was simply not liked or believed.

Jeremy Corbyn's Marxists have been utterly trounced, rejected not only by the electorate but also by a good few Labour candidates and other supporters. The brand of politics promoted by Corbyn and his puppeteer, John McDonnell, has brought the Labour party their worst result since the 1930's, even worse than that handed out to Michael Foot in 1983. Traditional Labour voters turned to the Liberal un-Democrats, in Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists, to the Brexit Party and even to the Conservatives themselves. Seats which had not returned a Conservative Member of Parliament for 70, 80, even 100 years turned Blue; one or 2 that had never been represented by a Conservative are now.

Shockingly, Corbyn has not yet resigned and appears to be determined to carry on as leader of his party for several more months while he and his cabal look for ways of ensuring that his eventual successor will also be wedded to an insane Marxist approach. This can only be good news for the Conservatives who would almost certainly retain power, not only in 2024, but for many years to come

Inevitably, Corbyn and his supporters are looking to blame anything but themselves for their disastrous performance. It was Brexit, it was the media, it was a highly personal campaign against Corbyn, anything but their manifesto policies and promises. John McDonnell proposed Rebecca Long-Bailey, Jess Phillips, Angela Rayner and others as potential future leaders of the party - really ? If these really are the future of the Labour party, the Conservatives will be in clover for many years to come. 

The Liberal un-Democrats have made no progress and their leader, the girlish Jo Swinson, has lost her own seat to the rampaging Scottish Nationalists. In an election in which they were surely the main alternative for socialist voters, they lost seats although they did gain more votes than in 2017. Those votes were largely at the cost of Labour candidates in Tory strongholds, so were of little worth and will probably revert to their previous owners in the future. The Liberals are now into collective navel-gazing, wondering what to do next; in truth, they are a mish-mash of non-entities and are unlikely to be a force in British politics for some time to come.

In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalists benefited from a collapse in the Labour vote, something which allowed them to take seats from the Conservatives as well. Inevitably, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Nationalists who actually has no seat in the United Kingdom parliament, has used the result for her own purposes and has ignored the underlying issues. She says that she has "won" the election in Scotland and that this is a vote for a second independence referendum, claiming that the issue in Scotland was simply whether or not this should happen; all other considerations are set aside. The result of the "once in a generation" referendum in 2014 is ignored, even though 55% then voted against independence. Sturgeon also glosses over the fact that she does not even have a majority in the Scottish parliament and faces elections for that body by the Spring of 2021, when a failure to gain a majority would seriously hamper her objective. However, the fanatical Sturgeon has no interest other than to bring about an independent Scotland and says whatever she believes will convince people to vote for it. Thus far, Boris Johnson has made it very clear that he will not sanction any new moves towards holding another referendum, so a political clash seems inevitable.

In the end, we can now be thankful that we have a new government with a strong majority. We will leave the European Union by the end of January 2020 and the government has the platform for taking a firm stand on discussions over future trade and other arrangements. We have a government that will not bankrupt our country but which will promote enterprise, lower taxes, and higher spending financed principally from higher growth rather than unsustainable borrowing. With any luck, we have now entered a period of political stability, free from the egotism of John Bercow, the ineptitude of Theresa May and the lunacy of Corbyn's Marxists. We will no longer have to listen to the shrill voices of Ann Soubry and her ilk, nor to the oily tones of Chukka Umunna and his. 

This is not to say it will all be plain sailing. There will be bad days but hopefully not many. Whatever happens, the next 5 years will almost certainly be far better than the last 10, 20 or even 30. Bring it on !

Wednesday 11 December 2019

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO COMMON SENSE AND JUSTICE ?

I do not hate foreigners, Jews, Muslims or even Christians. I hate no one. But I am horribly disturbed by the way in which our recent masters have kowtowed to every brand of foreigner of whatever character, religion or belief.

The most recent "terrorist" assault near London Bridge has shown just how stupid our masters are. A man who had been sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for his previous activities was released, 'in the normal way' after serving half of his sentence and promptly set about attacking, and murdering, others of him he disapproved. How on earth, how in any sensible society, could this have happened ?

We have, rightly or wrongly, done away with capital punishment but we have also introduced a regime in which offenders are looked upon as people to be rehabilitated rather than punished or separated from the rest of society. This ignores that some offenders have no interest in being rehabilitated and are simply enemies of our society.

The man who ran amok in London a few days ago, Usman Khan, was never going to be integrated into British life and yet he was deemed suitable for release from prison; why ? He was a wholly committed Islamic fanatic whose life was ended by the police on London Bridge; it should have been ended at the end of a rope or in a genuinely life long prison sentence.

But Usman Khan was only a tiny tip of one iceberg threatening our Titanic. Murder and mayhem on our streets, drugs gangs, children carrying knives to school, violent attitudes towards women, often imported from various other parts of the world, people trafficking and so-called modern slavery; all of this must be tackled far more aggressively and it is well passed time that our government acted with real effectiveness. We need a much stronger line on terrorism offences but also on these other areas of serious criminality and an end to the risible pursuit of those who cause supposed offence through misplaced words or actions, the stupidly named "hate crimes" that are largely a matter of subjective interpretation. 

Let's have our police pursuing real criminals for real offences, not imagined ones. Let's also make sure that our laws are enforceable, not largely cosmetic like the regularly ignored laws aimed at the likes of motorists and litter louts. And let's ensure that punishments fit the crimes, rather than being influenced by some misplaced liberal minded sense of moral responsibility towards the criminals. When a judge pronounces a sentence of life imprisonment, that is what it should be, not release after 8, 10, 15 or even 20 years; life should mean life. 

The victims of Joseph McCann have been given a life sentence. McCann himself has 33 life sentences imposed on him  and yet could be released from prison in 30 years, when he'll be 64, not even old enough to draw his pension. Is that justice ? Usman Khan was shot dead by police - that was justice, swift and final. We need more of it.

CONSERVATIVES OR MARXISTS ?

With the general election campaigns drawing to a close today, the choice for voters is as clear as crystal.

The Conservatives propose enforcing the result of the 2016 referendum and taking the UK out of the European Union without more delay. They promise to invest in public services but without huge increases in taxation, in fact they suggest that they will aim to reduce taxes. They will introduce stronger controls over immigration and will take steps to tackle the increasing violence in our society. In short, they will be a Conservative government.

On the other side of the aisle, Labour are no longer socialists but Marxists. They propose a regime of vast tax increases and unbelievable borrowing in order to finance a state take over of a range of industries and services. They say they will do this while also taking steps to keep the UK inside the European Union's bureaucratic and highly restrictive straitjacket. The populace would find itself under almost Stalinist supervision and democracy would become a thing of the past.

As for the minor parties, the Liberal un-Democrats are not really that far from Labour in their ludicrous taxing, borrowing and spending policies and would also not even bother about the result of the 2016 referendum - they'd simply ignore it and carry on as if it had never happened. Such undemocratic action has never before been seen in modern Britain but it is the Liberal's policy. The Greens are another bunch of socialists who promise to spend billions of pounds that they don't have on everything from climate change to washing my socks, and the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists aren't much different, except they both want to leave the United Kingdom and amalgamate themselves with the European Union. The Scots' claims about keeping the Queen as head of state and the pound as their currency are pie in the sky nonsense, as are their claims about the brilliance of Scotland under their leadership. 

The Brexit Party's policies are really of little importance as all that matters is their galvanising effect on the Conservatives and the chance that they may help to attract votes away from labour in some key marginals where there was a strong vote for leaving the EU. 

So the choice is a Conservative government that will deliver Brexit and other policies in a fairly controlled way or a Marxist-Socialist coalition that would bankrupt the country and quite possibly connive in its break up. There really can be only one choice.

Monday 9 December 2019

IT HAS TO BE A VOTE FOR BORIS.

During the election campaigns, it's often been suggested that the Conservatives have been in power for 9 years and yet have failed to accomplish things which they now say are priorities. Of course, this is misleading.

For 5 of those 9 years they were in coalition with the Liberal un-Democrats and had their hands tied on many issues. In 2015 they did gain a majority but promptly through it away in 2017, by when they'd also become horribly bogged down in Brexit and had an intransigent parliament doing all that it could to frustrate their every move. In reality, the Conservatives have only really been 'in power' from 7th May 2015 until 8th June 2017, and even then only with a small majority of 12. The rest of the time they've effectively been hogtied, either by coalition partners or parliamentary shenanigans.

Electing a Conservative government under Boris Johnson, with a decent parliamentary majority and without the pompous and outrageously intrusive figure of John Bercow in the Speaker's chair, will see a very different situation. Johnson is a Conservative who will implement the result of the 2016 referendum, thus honouring the democratic role of parliament, unlike his predecessor, while the leaders of the other main parties all continue to be opposed to Brexit in any form whatsoever. Johnson will also bring in tighter controls on immigration which are long overdue and will seek to agree trade deals all around the world, unencumbered by the elephantine processes of the European Union. Under a Johnson led government, our economy will prosper and expand, we will be a richer nation and the investment in both public and private services and industries that are needed will be forthcoming without the need for huge tax rises and increased borrowing.

Johnson may also review major projects such as the horribly costly 'HS2', a scheme which may well be nothing but an enormous white elephant, as well as the proposals for a third runway at Heathrow airport, another massive project which has aroused strong feelings on both sides of the argument. Johnson seems to me to be a man of much greater vision than he is usually given credit for and his approach to other serious issues, such as the state of the NHS and climate change, may well produce surprises. He will take steps to tackle the increasing criminality on our streets, fuelled as it is by drug trafficking, terrorism, cultural issues and a liberal-left approach to punishment and the criminal justice system. With luck, he may even get around to freeing up police time by removing some of the ludicrously subjective and largely unenforceable offences that they are now required to investigate.

Whatever Johnson does as Prime Minister after 12th December 2019, it will be far preferable to what Jeremy Corbyn's Marxists would implement. Don't fall for the bribery of Labour, accept that the best option this time around is a Boris Johnson led Conservative government with a decent majority and vote to bring it about.

Sunday 8 December 2019

4 DAYS TO GO AND A DECISION TO MAKE.

Finally the UK Parliament accepted that the only way out of it's recent malaise was to agree to hold a general election. Now we are just a few days from the date which was set, 12th December 2019.

The choice before the people is the usual one of Conservatives against the rest, the rest being a mish-mash of left wing parties masquerading as Labour, Liberal, Green and Nationalist; the only slight change from recent history is the presence of the Brexit Party, a successor to UKIP which itself was a modern invention. However, on this occasion there is also the little matter of the UK's relationship with the European Union to consider, something that is rather muddying the water.

The Conservatives are standing on a manifesto that includes a guarantee of bringing about Brexit by the end of January. The Liberal un-Democrats propose ignoring the outcome of the 2016 referendum while Labour's policy is one of not being quite sure what to do. Quite frankly there is only one option available to any voter who believes in democracy and that is to vote for the Conservatives and against both Liberal and Labour candidates; in some seats there is the option of voting for a Brexit Party candidate as such a vote may give the Conservatives a greater chance of success, but that is somewhat problematic.

From both sides, some dyed in the wool supporters have suggested supporting their political opponents. From the left, the likes of the independent minded Kate Hoey, an MP who has been hugely respected by all for many years, has said that she can no longer support her own party due to the extreme left leanings of its current leadership. On the right, the likes of the centrist Tories, Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve and David Gauke have variously indicated their support for any party which will prevent Brexit. While there can be no doubt that the Labour Party has, indeed, made a dramatic swing to the left under Jeremy Corbyn, the accusations that the Conservatives have made an equally dramatic move to the right under Boris Johnson simply do not hold any water. The truth is that while Kate Hoey and other Labour moderates have been abandoned by the Marxists in their party, Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine and others have simply been exposed as the rather wishy-washy liberal centrists that they really are, with no truly right wing bones in their bodies.

The election campaigns have trundled on amidst the Brexit furore and with all sorts of lies, damned lies and statistics being bandied around. Labour has promised to spend billions, hundreds of billions, even trillions, on nationalising assorted industries, handing out vast sums to all and sundry while paying for it all by 'only' attacking the rich and companies. The Liberal un-Democrats have largely gone along with this nonsense and only the Conservatives have resisted the urge to commit to spend huge amounts of our money on rubbish, although they've still committed significant sums. The choice here is between loads of jam today or an increasing amount of jam each year in the future; the first option leads to economic disaster, as in the 1970s, while the second suggests the increasing prosperity enjoyed through the 1980s. It's a simple choice.

If elected, Jeremy Corbyn says he would renegotiate Brexit and then hold a second referendum. That this is nothing but political nonsense should be obvious. Any renegotiated deal would be a recipe for the UK staying in the EU in all but name, and the suggested referendum would be a smokescreen for offering the electorate a choice between staying in and staying in. Additionally, Corbyn would soon be supplanted by some young Turk more ready to be moulded by the real power in the Labour party, John McDonnell, a man whose Marxist leanings are far more developed and acute than are those of his current puppet.

The Liberal un-Democrats plan to ignore the 2016 referendum is probably the most undemocratic proposal ever put forward by any supposedly democratic party in living memory. The party leader, Jo Swinson, comes across as being so naïve as to be unbelievable. When grilled by Andrew Neil, her lack of knowledge was palpable; her naivety clear. She is like an earnest schoolgirl debating in the sixth form, certainly not someone who has pretentions to be Prime Minister. Her party would, in common with Corbyn's Marxists, spend billions of pounds that they don't have on services and industries that need reform rather than simple investment, as well as bribing the electorate with supposed higher wages and more 'free' services. For the avoidance of doubt, 'free' means you still don't pay but you just don't realise your pockets are being picked. 

As someone who worked in the NHS for many years, I'm well aware of the pressures that it experiences but I'm also aware of the bureaucratic waste. This isn't about hospital management, it's about the targets and reporting imposed from above, it's about the appalling waste that goes unnoticed through clerical incompetence and the shocking lack of oversight of clinical services which far too frequently leads to serious consequences for patients that are denied by a culture of self-protection. Money won't solve this, reform might but, of course, Labour and the Liberal un-Democrats promise vast extra resources and so do the Conservatives, regardless of the real issues. 

The offers being made to us are attractive. Higher wages, higher pensions. More 'free' childcare, 'free' dentistry, billions of pounds towards preventing the climate change that's already completely out of our control. Anyone who can remember the catastrophic days of the 1960s and 1970s when the state owned our car making, ship building steel making, telephony and railways will know that a return to state ownership is a frightening prospect. those industries were subject to strike action over and over again, until they were driven to bankruptcy. Some were saved by privatisation, others simply collapsed under the weight of union action. Labour under Corbyn and McDonnell would return us to those dark days and at enormous cost to each and every one of us.

Where do we go from here ? The 2016 referendum gave the government a clear mandate to take our country out of the European Union; it said nothing about 'types' of Brexit, it just said that a majority wanted to leave. Any future government that believes in democratic principles must surely take this at face value and get us out at the earliest opportunity.

Other than Brexit, the choice is an economic one. Do we believe in the government owning vast swathes of industry and providing a huge range of 'free' services, paid for by hugely increased taxes and borrowing, or do we believe in less government, private enterprise, lower taxes and lower borrowing. A Corbyn government would almost certainly need the support of the Scottish Nationalists who would demand yet another referendum about their desire for Scottish independence, a demand that Corbyn would almost certainly grant whatever he might say today; the breakup of the United Kingdom could then happen and that would be far more traumatic and difficult that the UK leaving the EU, for both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Additionally, who would actually be prepared to lend a Corbyn-led government the money they want ? It would either mean absurdly high rates of interest in order to attract vaguely sensible investors or it would be China, which would end up effectively owning our country and making all of the rules. Or perhaps the US would step in and try to keep the Chinese out with military force. Whatever the outcome, it would be bad.

No other choice is realistic. Whatever she may say, no one in their right mind sees Jo Swinson as a future Prime Minister and the rest of the parties are just also-rans. Yes, the Irish lot could end up having a say in a coalition, again, but it's unlikely. The Greens and Plaid Cymru are just socialists dressed up in different clothes but have no real hope of having much influence on anything.

Dyed in the wool remainers really should vote for the Liberal un-democrats as a vote for anyone else would be a step in the dark. Those who either favour leaving the European Union or simply believe in democracy have nowhere to go but the Conservatives, as a vote for the Brexit Party, except in a few specific seats, is likely to do more harm than good. Those who aren't sure about what to do should either stay at home or vote for the safe choice, which is, without doubt, the Conservatives. A vote for Labour risks Armageddon while a vote for the Liberal un-Democrats risks civil unrest at the very least.

The choice is clear and Thursday is the day on which to make it. 

Friday 6 December 2019

CORBYN AND MCDONNELL - A PAIRING MADE IN HELL.

Oh God. The avuncular Jeremy and John sound so reasonable and endearing. The sad fact is that they're really more like Count Dracula than Santa Claus.

Jeremy Corbyn is a sad mouthpiece for the ultra-Marxist John McDonnell, as has been stated by a former Labour stalwart and a genuinely representative member of parliament, Kate Hoey. Of course, Hoey has fallen out of favour with her party, although she remains committed to its basic principles.

In support of the Marxist agenda of tax, tax and more tax, state ownership of everything that moves and "free" services of all sorts which actually means ever-poorer provision and an economy fit for nothing, we are offered the likes of Rebecca Long-Bailey, Emily Thornberry and Diane Abbot. If ever there was an unholy trinity, surely these three witches are contenders.

Labour's election approach is to try to buy votes with our own money. Promises of free services of all sorts, billions pumped into the NHS and other public services with no thought of looking at how money is already been wasted in many areas, higher wages and pensions for everyone except, of course, those deemed to already have too much and who will be expected to pay for the largesse spread around to the indigent. Trillions, yes TRILLIONS of pounds would be spent under a Jeremy and John government, although where all this money would come from is an unanswered question. There's actually only 2 real places it can come from - much higher taxes on all of us and vast borrowings, mostly from China which would then be pulling all of the strings and could bankrupt our nation whenever they liked.

Add to this their love of a nasty assortment of ultra-left wing leaders - Cuba, Venezuela, China, various African nations - supporting terrorist organisations such as the IRA and Hamas, and the general nastiness of the party's attitude towards Jews and anyone else of whom they disapprove, especially the hated "Tories", a word usually spat out with such venom as to make it sound more offensive than almost any other, and you have a picture that should cause even the most stout hearted to shudder.

God help us if Jeremy and John, Rebecca, Emily, Diane and the rest of this rabble ever gain power.