BORIS IS DONE FOR

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear.

Boris Johnson's enemies have been gunning for him at every opportunity almost ever since he became leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister. Many supposed infractions have been laid at the door of Mr Johnson quite wrongly although he clearly bears responsibility for some. However, the latest revelations, concerning the former Deputy Chief Whip, surely are the final nail in his coffin.

For months, assorted members of the Government have been sent out to defend a range of claimed offences, usually of a minor nature although sometimes suggesting a degree of duplicity or impropriety on the part of the Prime Minister. The latest scandal revolves not around whether Christopher Pincher behaved badly, which he clearly did, but around what Mr Johnson previously knew about the errant MP, and the extent to which he ignored prior knowledge and even lied about what he knew.

Frankly, the evidence seems clear. Mr Johnson has known for several years that Mr Pincher was a problematic Member of Parliament but still appointed him to a government position. The immediate response from Mr Johnson's office when asked about Mr Pincher's previous history was to deny that he knew anything; within hours, that position has been turned on its head and it's now been shown that there was detailed prior knowledge. Voices from various government sources have done their best to explian all this away, but it is surely nothing but a vain attempt to paper over canyon sized cracks in the Prime Minister's remaining credibility.

As always, it's not the offence which causes problems it's the lies and cover ups. It's often been said that everyone knew of Mr Johnson's difficulties with openness, truth and honesty before he was elected but such an argument can only be trotted out so many times. This occasion is one time too many.

For me, Boris Johnson's time is now up. He has to go as soon as possible, for the good of the Government, Party and Country. 

WHY IS THE WEST SO ARROGANT ?

Many countries around the world have cultures and behaviours which we, of the 'civilized' West disapprove. Such countries are frequently critiicized for their 'barbaric' treatment of an assortment of miscreants, as well as of people whose views, attitudes, behaviours or cultures they simply dislike or disapprove of.

There is logic in this but also a degree of arrogance. How can anyone define terms such as 'civilized' or 'barbaric' ? Indeed, not many centuries ago, the very things which we now find unbelievably awful were common practice in our own country, in fact we did even worse. While the Saudis cut off hands, feet or heads, we habitually burnt people at the stake or sentenced them to be 'hanged, drawn and quartered', a fate which involved partial hanging, castration, disembowelment and finally cutting into 4 pieces. Has anyone ever invented a more barbaric means of execution ? No doubt there are other contenders for the most abominable method of  execution but I think this serves to demonstrate that we 'civilized' people are not far removed from similar atrocities.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has recently visited Saudi Arabia in pursuit of an improved arrangement for the supply of oil and gas from a kingdom which is overflowing with these necessities of modern life. Given that an increase in supplies from the Saudi kingdom would be matched by a reduction on reliance on the abomination which is Russia under Putin, this seems to be a perfectly sensible approach. However, Saudi Arabia does not share the West's attitudes to many things. As a Muslim nation, it takes it's direction from its reading of the Muslim bible, the Koran. Of this, many in the West, do not approve and yet ......... .

Why is the 'West' so dogmatic in its view ? Why is it so certain of its rectitude ? Of course, much of this arrogance is based on its belief that Christianity is, effectively, the one and only true religion, which is quite obviously the most appalling example of arrogance ever visited upon any human population anywhere. However, there are also other factors such as belief in individual freedom and to what extent this should be over-riding, listened to, or even tolerated. On this subject, the West has generally worked on the basis that countries are governed according to the supposed 'will of the people' as exercised through 'free and fair' elections.

More poppycock. Elections in the 'West' are as fixed as they are in supposedly less democratic countries, they're just fixed in a different way. The rich and powerful still gain dominance, whether they espouse politics of the left or right, and they still impose their will on a largely docile population. In the West, governments do not resort to terror in order to control their people, instead they are rather more subtle - they use the media to spread stories, however true, debatable or entirely fictitious, which tend to push a largely ignorant and suggestible populace in the desired direction.

That this has nothing to do with democracy is obvious; that it is devious, likewise. In the United Kingdom, a democratic vote of the entire population which produced a majority in favour of leaving the European Union was met with massive and still ongoing opposition from the defeated elitist  minority, who continue to look for ways of overturning the will of the democratic majority. Have this minority not heard about democracy or do they simply have an arrogant belief that 'they know better' ?  While a democratic majority would almost certainly vote for the restoration of the death penalty for certain heinous crimes, those in power will never allow a vote on such a subject, as they themselves disapprove. Where is the democracy in this ? The goal of 'net zero', a highly nebulous concept which relies mostly on exporting our production of carbon dioxide to third world countries, is implemented with very little public consultation and even less consideration of its consequences; the costs are entirely unknown but we, the people, will pay for it. The rich and powerful who decided to pursue this ludicrous cause and, of course, run the country, will find the costs of no concern, the rest of us will have to choose between heating and eating.

To be clear. I have no more time for the appalling and barbaric behaviour of countries such as Saudi Arabia than I do for the Russian bombing of helpless civilians in Ukraine. At the same time, I deplore the appalling activities of 'militias', 'freedom fighters', 'guerrillas' or any other pseudo-military groups which have reigned terror around the world in recent years and yet largely avoided any significant attention. Far too often the West has seemed reluctant to take sides against such groups, for fear of 'picking the wrong side' or supporting the 'wrong cause'. 'Wrong' of course, meaning whatever didn't sit comfortably with western ideals or economic ambitions, rather than any more fundamental definition of right and wrong. The West set itself against the likes of Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and the leaders of the Taliban and determined to remove them from power by force; only partial success has left behind little more than chaos, with several countries decimated. Now that Vladimir Putin has taken a similar approach towards achieving his goal of bringing Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence, he is vilified. Of course invading a sovereign nation is wrong, destroying its towns and cities, ruining its economy and killing thousands of its citizens is wrong, but why was it apparently acceptable when the West was doing the same to numerous middle eastern nations ?

The Soviet Union, under Stalin and then Khrushchev, perpetrated a tyranny over their own nation as well as over all of eastern Europe. Yet we, the civilized peoples of the West, backed away and allowed these tyrants to rule, for fear of the consequences of confronting them. Instead we launched our assaults against easier targets, and continued to do so as the Soviet tyranny was replaced by a Russian one. At the same time, we said little about the 'barbarity' of many other regimes around the world, with which we continued to trade and count as 'friends'. 

Today, we are reaping the rewards of this ambivalent and basically selfish attitude towards life, one which has been practiced by Western political leaders for decades, in pursuit of popularity, electoral success and power.

TIME TO FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANT THINGS.

While Boris Johnson has busied himself rearranging the deckchairs, the 'drip,drip' of allegations of misdeeds has continued. The clearly coordinated assault on Johnson's character, equally clearly with the egregious Dominic Cummings hand on the tiller, has produced claims and pictures of the Prime Minister supposedly breaking all sorts of rules during the national lockdowns related to the late unlamented COVID epidemic; rather shockingly, much of the media has ignored it's own responsibility to be truthful and has painted every tasty morsel in the worst possible light, effectively prejudging the outcome of a police investigation which, itself, is an enormous over-reaction.

One of the worst examples of this emerged yesterday when it was reported that Johnson had been pictured surrounded by bottles of fizz and people adorned with tinsel. The photograph in question actually appears to show the Prime Minister standing at some distance from either people or fizz, which raises serious questions about the reliability of press reports and the media in general. How many of the other multitude of allegations, made by a coterie of anti-Boris zealots, have been similarly hyped up and  misreported ? 

Boris Johnson may well have broken rules, but he didn't murder anyone, nor did he actually injure anyone in any way. In fact he stands accused of what are little more than social contraventions, albeit that some of these had been enshrined in law due to the panic over COVID. However, the current obsession with pursuing 'crimes' which are no more than causing offence has led to Johnson's misdeeds being accorded a far higher level of scrutiny and far greater approbation than they deserve. 

It does appear that Johnson has, at least, been unwise at times and may well have infringed some of his own COVID rules; he may even have tried to cover up his indiscretions, though whether such behaviour is worthy of the character assassination currently being practised is debatable. Many previous Prime Ministers had their shortcomings too, though they were lucky that the internet, social media, instant photography and the paparazzi either didn't exist in their time or were less active.

It really is time to move on from what has now become a rather boring story. Cummings may be a very clever schemer but the continued drip of allegations, while it still attracts the attention of the media and Westminster Bubble in particular, for most of the population I suspect the story has now run its course. We have other things to worry about, such as potential war in Ukraine, dealing with the aftermath of Brexit, rising inflation, sky-high energy prices and issues of energy supply, a 'Green' agenda no one voted for, uncontrolled illegal immigration, illiterate children, drug gangs controlling multitudes of children, street violence, increasing restrictions on freedom of speech, police vigorously pursuing 'non-crime hate incidents' in preference to real crimes, and so much more.

Do I care about the honesty and integrity of our political leaders ? Of course I do, but today's mob are almost certainly no different to those of the past and the attention on the minutiae of their behaviour is hugely excessive. We all know that Tony Blair lied about Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction', John Major had an affair with Edwina Currie while both were MPs and Major was a government Whip, Ted Heath misled the nation about the EEC, Harold Wilson had friends who were later implicated in cases of fraud and corruption and, of course, to go back to an earlier generation, William Gladstone was well known to have an interest in 'fallen women'. All of these, and others, were far from perfect. 

Today, there are far more important things to focus on than whether or not Boris Johnson failed to maintain a 2-metre distance between himself and others in his offices, or whether he partook of a glass of bubbly at a colleague's leaving do.

CUMMINGS' PARANOID VENDETTA

Dominic Cummings may well be a very clever man but he's also showing serious signs of being an obsessive psychopath.

It seems quite clear that, ever since his dismissal from his role as Boris Johnson's principal advisor, he's been working on a plan to gain revenge on his former boss. Completely ignoring his own highly questionable trip from London to Durham and Barnard's Castle during 'lockdown', he's spent the last 14 months accruing whatever dirt he can find to use against the Prime Minister in his crazed effort to have him removed from office. Even today, he's issued what he's described as a 'warning' that there are more damaging revelations to come and they'll continue to be drip fed to the media until Boris is ousted - if that's not a vendetta and action of a man with severe psychological, or even psychiatric, problems, I don't know what is. If there is so much more to come out, why not let it see the light of day now ? The only answers are either that doing so would not suit Cummings' purpose or that there are no such revelations and that this is merely rhetoric designed to create an atmosphere of fear and ramp up the pressure on the Prime Minister. 

Cummings has also refused to be interviewed in person by Sue Gray, the civil servant conducting the review into the 'Partygate' allegations against the Prime Minister and others. While Ms Gray has interviewed other witnesses, apparently including the Prime Minister himself, Cummings has agreed only to provide written responses to specific questions, claiming that this is to protect both himself and Ms Gray from lies and distortions which the Prime Minister would otherwise invent. How this actually makes sense is beyond me. What avoiding a face to face interview actually achieves is the avoidance of any deeper questioning that such an event might allow, the avoidance of being asked tangential questions and the potential exposure of Cummings own failings and motivations. It also speaks volumes about the paranoia from which Cummings appears to be suffering.

Dominic Cummings is giving every impression of a man who is paranoid, bitter and twisted. He hates Boris Johnson and will do anything he can to destroy him. Everything he does and says should be seen in this light. 

BORIS MUST STAY FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY.

While Dominic Cummings seems determined to continue his personal, and vindictive, vendetta against Boris Johnson, at least some of those who have been screaming for Boris's head may need to be careful what they wish for.

Despite his acknowledged deficiencies, of which there are many, under Prime Minister Johnson the United Kingdom has escaped the clutches of the European Union, to the most part at least, and is undoubtedly in the best position of any European nation when it comes to tackling the COVID-19 epidemic. While others continue to thrash around and impose yet more Draconian measures, England has just about reached the end of restrictions and will soon be followed by Wales and Scotland, while even EU member Ireland is following suit, separated as she is from her fellow European states by ocean and the UK.

The outlook for the United Kingdom looks good on many fronts, even if there are major hurdles to be overcome - piles of debt, rising inflation, soaring immigration, problems in the NHS, social care, schools and universities, logjams in our justice system and more - but many of these are a result of government action, or inaction, over decades and cannot be laid at the door of the current incumbent of 10 Downing Street. In truth, now free of the shackles of the European Union and probably the first major Western economy to emerge from the epidemic, the United Kingdom is in pole position to steal a march on its rivals. If only it were that simple.

Standing in the way of real progress are numerous obstacles, foremost amongst them being the ongoing saga about the Prime Minister's own future. If his detractors win the day and he is ousted, who will replace him ? What policies will then be pursued ? Will Brexit and its benefits be preserved, or will we slide back into the European maw ? Too many questions and too few answers, even long before we get to the little matter of who amongst the potential rivals for the leadership might be able to stir the electorate sufficiently for the Conservatives to win another general election.

Boris Johnson needs to survive if the benefits of his overwhelming success at the polls in 2019 are to have any real chance of being fully realised, and those who are plotting against him need to understand this. Yes, he is flawed, but who is not ? What we need is a leader who will take charge and make high level decisions, others can implement policy. We need genuine controls on immigration, lower, not higher, taxes, less state involvement in all things, the clearing away of ludicrous, entirely subjective crimes and the freeing of police to catch criminals rather than those who commit social offences, true reform of the NHS and social care, a complete rethink about our hopeless education system - I could go on.

Which of the potential successors to Boris Johnson is likely to promote any of these vital policies ? Rishi Sunak - not a chance; Michael Gove - not in a month of Sundays; Liz Truss - who knows ? These are all politicians, pure and simple, with nothing but an eye on the polls and trying to ensure they rise to the top. Boris is different and that is why he should stay as he is the only one who just might make some inroads into at least one or two of the major issues now facing our country.

DOWNING STREET PARTIES v REALITY.

It seems that while the rest of the population was meant to be in seclusion, hiding from each other for fear of catching the dreaded COVID-19 virus, a mish-mash of civil servants working in various government offices held parties. It's even suggested that the Prime Minister himself attended at least one or two of these and the media is utterly obsessed with the whole story.

Forgive me for thinking this is somewhat ridiculous. At a time when our country is faced with an energy crisis, inflation at levels not seen in decades and threatening to rise further, NHS waiting list soaring to previously unimagined heights, a manic and hugely expensive charge towards the unobtainable goal of "net zero", 'woke' ideology running riot through our schools, universities and many major organisations, and illegal immigrants pouring across the English Channel in their tens of thousands, the media is obsessed with whether or not there were parties that 'broke COVID rules'. 

Add in the threats posed by thousands of Russian troops massing on the  Ukrainian border and increasing Chinese belligerence towards Taiwan, a general concern about China's growing economic power over the rest of the world as well as its attempts to subvert our own democracy by placing a spy at the heart of our parliamentary system, and the general weakness of the current US leadership, is the holding of parties really of any significance other than in the minds of the media and political opponents of the present government ?

One wonders how many of those now making the loudest protests about government parties are all that squeaky clean when it comes to their own conduct during the times in question. Was Dominic Cummings, whom one has to believe is a prime instigator of the 'Partygate' assault, alone in inventing a suitable story to justify 'breaking the rules' ? Who else might have got involved in the odd gathering or two ? I'm fairly sure that many of the rest of us did, regardless of the ever-changing rules. Yes, some people were more put upon than others, but let's have a sense of proportion.

It's high time that our representatives and the media started dealing with things that really matter, instead of prattling on about the rubbish which makes short term headlines.

WILD EYED CUMMINGS THREATENS MAYHEM - AGAIN.

 As the government and country gets on with dealing with the COVID epidemic, Dominic Cummings continues to believe that he is the real centre of everyone's world.

Whatever the truth about his dramatic departure from Downing Street last year, Cummings' behaviour in the last few months has been nothing but self-centred. His latest attacks on the government, and especially his former boss and close colleague Boris Johnson, are bordering on the manic. Erratic tweets, blog-o-sphere diatribes and a general wild-eyed manner all contribute to the appearance of a man on the edge of sanity. 

Cummings is threatening to wreak all sorts of havoc when he appears before a House of Commons' committee in a few days time but one wonders what effect he will have in the real world, the one outside of the "Westminster Bubble". Surely the more fanatical he appears, the more fantastical any claims he makes will seem. After all, he has clearly declared war on the Prime Minister which must throw doubt on the veracity of any claims or accusations that he makes.

Cummings was obviously badly hurt by his Downing Street departure but his actions since are those of a man purely out for revenge, which is hardly the behaviour of a supposedly highly intelligent political mastermind. Perhaps he was badly treated, perhaps his advice was ignored but does he consider himself to be such a genius that he is always right ? 

Maybe that's the way a man with an ego the size of Mount Everest actually thinks but it's hard to believe that others will see things the same way, other than those who have their own political agendas for doing so.

WILL TONY BLAIR NEVER GO AWAY ?

Will Tony Blair never realise that no one cares what he thinks and bugger off ?

In the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic, Blair has had nothing helpful or useful to say but, nonetheless, insisted on sharing his egotistical wisdom with the rest of we poor mortals. Today, he's emerged from his political grave to tell us that the UK government must up its game and deliver 5 million vaccinations a week in order to avoid another national lockdown; apparently the current plan for 1 million, rising to 2 million isn't adequate and "if he was Prime Minister" today, he'd be doing things very differently.

How easy it is to sit on the sidelines, criticise and suggest alternative strategies when he has no power and no responsibility, when he has no control over the actual production of the vaccine doses. In like manner, I could no doubt claim that if I was Prime Minister, we'd be vaccinating the whole population of the UK by the end of January, indeed, why stop there ? Let's make it the total population of the world - easy if I was Prime Minister. Not so easy in a real world in which vaccine production is limited, and will remain limited, by factors such as the availability of suitable laboratories, appropriate staff, relevant testing facilities, sterile media and packaging, adequate distribution, appropriate vaccination facilities and staff, to mention but a few. Then, of course, we have to remember that the laboratories currently engaged on vaccine production have orders from much of the world and not just the UK. Blair happily ignores all such matters when he shares his wisdom with us today, as he did in the past.

The fact is that Blair is NOT prime Minister and hasn't been for 12 years. When he was Prime Minister he supported Gordon Brown's creation of a client state, with millions dependant on ever more generous government hand-outs and with banks encouraged to offer loans with little evidence that the security offered was adequate; the result from such a world-wide and utterly misguided approach was the financial crisis of 2008 from which the world had barely recovered before COVID struck. Despite this monumental failure of his own policy, Blair now expects us to believe that he has it right on this occasion.

Well, for this member of the general public, Blair always was a man far stronger in style than substance. He's a man who climbed over all comers in his pursuit of the top job, while actually having none of the necessary attributes other than a winning smile. His behaviour over the Iraq war and his laughable strutting beside then US President George W Bush, showed him up for what he was. His ambition to continue to influence British, European and even World affairs continues unabated - thankfully, no one really seems to be listening to this jumped up little twerp any more.

Let's hope it stays that way.

Postscript :

And now Blair's latest wild eyed successor, SIR Keir Starmer, is demanding that we suffer a National Lockdown, to be imposed within the next 24 hours.

Starmer can't lose on this one. If the government ignores him, as it should, and COVID numbers continue to rise, he can claim that he was right and that victims of the virus have the government to blame, regardless of any carefree and selfish actions of their own. If numbers don't rise any further and even begin to fall, he can claim that he was simply taking the cautious and sensible approach. Given that the chances are that excessive mixing over Christmas and the New Year has yet to be picked up by the latest statistics, Starmer will probably be shown to be on the right side of the numbers in the next 3 or 4 weeks, though for purely political reasons. The latest restrictions will almost certainly mean that numbers are falling rapidly by the beginning of February, National Lockdown or not.

What is needed is consistency, not political point scoring. Where Boris Johnson's government have so far failed is in consistency; their messages have often been less than clear and, while trying to adopt a positive bent, they have often been overly optimistic. Consequently, they have found themselves under pressure to change tack on numerous occasions, pressure to which they have ultimately had no alternative but to yield.

The latest issue, prior to Starmer's demands of today, have involved the opening, or otherwise, of schools after the Christmas break. Gavin Williamson, surely a dead man walking in his role as Secretary of State for Education, has been a disaster in his presentation of government policy on all matters to do with schools and is now under attack from councils and unions. For Johnson to resolve the current crisis and regain some control, he has no choice but to replace Williamson; if he does not, he will find himself under yet more pressure that may prove terminal.

Johnson must regain control and be seen to have done so. Williamson must go and the question of an immediate National Lockdown be dealt with. Otherwise, we are more than likely to have a new Prime Minister by the autumn, and quite possibly not a Conservative one.

UNINSPRIING LEADERSHIP IS ALARMING.

 Has there ever been a less inspiring bunch of MPs in our parliament ?

While Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a 'larger than life' personality and clearly has a degree of charisma, there are increasing question marks over his leadership of the country at this most difficult of times. A successor to Winston Churchill he most certainly is not. However, in a parliament full of mostly grey non-entities, he still stands out.

Indeed, I find myself having trouble trying to name many of our other representatives on either side of the house. Apart from the few who've been seen on our screens in recent news conferences, who on earth is in the Cabinet ? Rishi Sunak has undoubtedly none himself no harm and has stood out as a confident chancellor of the exchequer, even if his actual competence has yet to be proven; Matt Hancock, Robert Jenrick and Oliver Dowden have appeared on occasion and none has exactly set the world alight with their charisma; in fact they could all 'bore for Britain' given the chance. I've just recalled that Dominic Raab is Foreign Secretary but who are the 15 or so who make up the most powerful body in the country ?

Worse is the situation on the other side of the parliamentary divide. Keir Starmer as leader of the Opposition is as grey as grey can be, a man utterly lacking any charisma or inspiration. As a lawyer, he seems to believe that presenting every argument as a court room speech, resulting in the dullest of dull deliveries. It's notable that even the new incarnation of "Spitting Image" has found him so dull as to be almost impossible to lampoon.

Astonishingly, Starmer's front bench colleagues are even more dull than he is, and are mostly anonymous. Who can name the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, foreign secretary or home secretary ? The only opposition figure I've seen much of in recent times is the egregious John Ashworth, shadow secretary of state for health, whose capacity for saying nothing of note at great length is amazing.

In these most difficult of times, only one politician seems to have enhanced their status and that is Nicola Sturgeon, who doesn't even have a seat at Westminster. However, as leader of the Scottish Nationalists, and someone whose political views I am wholly opposed to, she has been a stand-out performer. She has kept her people informed, has not been afraid to be be controversial when needed and, above all, has given a clear impression of being in control. In comparison, neither Johnson nor Starmer has seemed to be doing anything but thrashing around in the dark or looking for political advantage.

Of course, we are in unprecedented times and government has different factors to consider when making decisions. To some extent, Nicola Sturgeon has an easier task in that she does not have total economic control over her region and so can concentrate more on the health issues, while looking to Westminster for financial support. Keir Starmer also has an easier task in that it is always far easier to criticise than it is to lead; while attempting to locate holes in the government's strategy or even suggesting alternatives, he knows that his words will never be tested in reality. Boris Johnson, as the man in the hot seat, not only has to weigh the options but also has to make decisions that have real effect.

What is most worrying is that there seem to be so few people of note or standing involved in any of the decision making and it all seems very haphazard. One can only hope that out of this quagmire will eventually emerge a solution that works, has the support of all parties and does not attract the usual volley of pointless and mindless political rhetoric.

RULE BRITANNIA !!

Boris Johnson is absolutely right when he says that the British should stop being embarrassed about our past. The truth is that we should actually embrace it and laud it, for if it was not for the British much of the world would still be largely uninhabited jungle and the majority of its people would still be heathens, savages, headhunters and cannibals.

Perhaps that's a bit extreme, but then the constant stream of anti-British vitriol which has been spewing from the media and assorted left wing sources in recent times demands a response. Did the British take Christianity and education to much of the world ? Certainly. Was it the British, admittedly along with others, who 'discovered' the Americas, Africa and Australasia and introduced the inhabitants of these lands to new ways that have led to vastly improved lives ? Of course. 

I do not say that this has been achieved without some negatives along the way. There was the slave trade, near annihilation of indigenous peoples, brutality, war and much more, but this is all part of the same historical story. Without the negatives there would have been no positives. Should modern sensitivities now preclude celebration of our nation's past, as those who have tried to remove much loved items from the "Last Night of The Proms" would wish ? 

History cannot and must not be rewritten; that way is the way of the dictatorships of countries such as the Soviet Union and China, not to mention NAZI Germany. Tearing down statues and changing the names of buildings and streets because some 'take offence', is itself, offensive. Cecil Rhodes may not have been a very nice man, to some modern eyes, but his vast wealth has been used to achieve great good. Do those who want his statue removed from Oriel College in Oxford also propose returning the legacy that he left ?

Our nation's history is a chequered one, with both highs and lows, good and bad, but it is our history and, warts and all, it should be celebrated as such. There may be lessons to learn and explanations to be offered but to attempt to ban elements of it or to limit discussion to one narrow point of view cannot be allowed. Yes, we must admit that it was not all perfect, far from it in fact, but neither was it all bad. 

Remember the bad and learn from it, but celebrate the good, loudly and from the roof tops. Britain is a "Land of Hope and Glory", Jerusalem has been built in "England's Green and Pleasant Land" and Britons certainly "Never, Never, Never Shall Be Slaves" !

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.

IS THIS BREXIT OR JUST ANOTHER FALSE DAWN ?

So we have a Brexit deal - again.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised he would get a new deal with the European Union and would get rid of the hated 'Irish Backstop'; he seems to have achieved both ambitions. However, following the assorted shenanigans of the House of Commons, he now has to get this deal approved by Members of Parliament, which seems problematic at best.

Unsurprisingly, the Labour Party has now moved to a 100% 'remain' position and will not support the new deal, pretty much whatever it actually includes, although a few Labour MPs may still support it. The Scottish Nationalists have always opposed Brexit anyway and will also vote against any deal, as will the Liberal un-Democrats. Prime Minister Johnson has previously expelled some 21 of his own MPs from the Conservative Party following their opposition in previous votes and there are an assortment of others who have left one party or another during the last year or so. As something of a body-blow to the government, the Democratic Unionists of Northern Ireland have also said that they will not support the deal, having previously indicated that they would support a deal.

Parliament will sit on Saturday, a very rare occurrence, and Prime Minister Johnson will be hoping that he can persuade enough of his fellow parliamentarians to vote with him although his chances of success appear to be slim. If Parliament votes against the deal, the Prime Minister will have to obey the law passed a couple of weeks ago and ask the EU for more time although he's repeatedly said that the UK will leave the European Union on 31st October come what may. 

What is going to happen ? European Union representatives have been clear that they want this deal to be approved but less than clear about what they would do if it is not. While they may allow a further extension beyond the end of October, that is far from certain and any further delay would almost certainly be dependent on the UK holding a second referendum or a general election as soon as possible, neither of which is likely to provide any real resolution to the deep rooted problems of the UK's democratic process.

No one wants to see this issue drag on any longer, but the opposing factions seem to be utterly intransigent. The loss of its parliamentary majority has rendered the UK government impotent in the face of the vested interests of opposition parties. Labour want power but are terrified of a general election while Jeremy Corbyn is their leader; they are also terrified that  Boris Johnson would be unbeatable anyway if he finally gets a deal approved by parliament, and so they oppose everything while proposing nothing. The Scottish Nationalists link everything to another referendum on their own pet project, independence for Scotland, and the Liberal un-Democrats can see a chance of getting a share of power by being seen as the "Party of Remain". The Democratic Unionists see everything through the prism of their own insular and sectarian interests and will not vote for anything which they think will weaken their current hold over Northern Ireland.

Prime Minister Johnson has a problem, in fact he has several. Will he achieve a feat that would even have challenged the great Harry Houdini ? Come Saturday afternoon, we'll know, one way or the other.

HYPOCRISY AND FANATICISM - THE REALMS OF REMAINERS.

Today's news contains some stories that truly belong to the 'silly season'.

Firstly, news from Eire indicates that the Irish government is not at all happy about the prospect of Northern Ireland politicians having the final say in matters to do with the border question, post-Brexit. Hang on, when the final say rests with the EU and Eire, courtesy of the "Backstop" it's OK but they won't allow the reverse situation. Hypocritical or what !?

Then there's news from Scotland that a judge is to be asked to consider an entirely hypothetical issue regarding the potential imprisonment of the Prime Minister. It seems that fanatical Remainers now want a judgement regarding whether the PM could be forced to delay Brexit if a deal cannot be agreed and want to know what would happen if he did not. 

It stands to reason that a further delay to Brexit could be enforced if Parliament so determines by the enactment of appropriate legislation; otherwise it cannot. Can a court really say anything else ? As for the matter of consequences in the event of an exit from the EU without a deal, that is a hypothetical question incapable of answer until after such an event and, even then, only with full knowledge of all the prevailing circumstances. 

What sort of world is it when courts are asked to pass judgement on hypotheticals ? Why has this nonsense even been allowed to occupy court time ? It seems it's still desperation time for fanatical Remainers.

JOHNSON RESOLUTE DESPITE THE OPPOSITION.

While Prime Minister Boris Johnson continues to exude positivity on all fronts, those opposed to Brexit seem to have allied themselves with anyone who has anything bad to say about him or his approach to "Life, the Universe and Everything".

Not long ago, the BBC assembled an appalling gaggle of establishment flunkies who were asked their opinions of Mr Johnson's actions and future. Unsurprisingly, they were hostile and proceeded to deride him, indicating that the sooner he was gone from office, the better. These people, among them a former Black Rod, derided Johnson as a 'populist' first and foremost and appeared to ignore the fact that ALL modern political leaders are exactly that, Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Silvio Berlusconi foremost amongst them, though not forgetting that Jeremy Corbyn has a substantial 'populist' following and has made appearances at pop concerts and festivals. Exactly what is meant by 'populist' is also rather unclear, although it is clearly intended as a term of abuse towards right wing political figures.

Since then, while Mr Johnson has concentrated on politics and, in particular, getting Brexit implemented, the media seems to have been far more interested in digging up and publicising whatever dirt it can find to throw at him, however ancient and however debateable. Former Prime Minister David Cameron has aided this process through the publication of his memoirs in which he throws dollops of mud at Johnson, Gove and other Brexiteers, and there have also been allegations of sexual impropriety from women who suddenly seem to have remembered events from anything up to 20 years ago. The rule seems to be that anything goes when it comes to trying to prevent Brexit and destroy Boris Johnson.

At the same time, MPs appear unable to agree on what they should be doing. Reassembled now that the prorogation has been deemed illegal by the Supreme Court (God knows how they arrived at this judgement) some are wittering about votes of no confidence and forming a government of national unity with a remit of effectively preventing Brexit; how any such government could bear the soubriquet 'national unity' is a mystery, given that it's main function would be to ride roughshod over the expressed view of the 52% of the electorate who voted to leave the European Union. Fortunately, such a move seems unlikely to come to fruition as Jeremy Corbyn is both reluctant to risk a general election and determined to be the next Prime Minister, which none of the other opposition parties appear to accept as an option. And so we trundle on.

While the forces of 'Remain' continue to be destructive at home, the European Union appears to be content to throw cold water on almost every suggestion of a way forward that emanates from the UK government. The Irish leadership, principally represented by the lugubrious Simon Coveney, rejects every alternative to the dreaded "Backstop" out of hand and almost before the details are known, while the rest of the EU supremoes simply utter banalities. It is clear that, as far as the European Union and Irish government are concerned, there is no alternative to the "Backstop" and they are relying on this to ensure that Brexit is ultimately prevented, 'No Deal' having been effectively outlawed by the UK parliament. 

Where, and when will it all end ? Will the UK leave the EU on 31st October as Prime Minister Johnson continues to insist will happen, will there be yet another extension to the Article 50 arrangement, or will Brexit never happen at all ? All I know is that British democracy is all but dead and the European dictatorship remains determined to have its way.

BRITISH DEMOCRACY IN ITS DEATH THROES,.

Now that the Supreme Court has determined that it can pass judgement on matters of parliamentary procedure and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, who actually governs our country ?

Under the British Constitution, the elected government determines most of what is discussed in parliament. It puts forward the matters set out in its election manifesto as Bills for parliament to consider, propose amendments or even reject, although in most circumstances the government's proposed legislation is passed into law. Sadly, Brexit legislation has, with the connivance of a biased House of Commons Speaker, been subverted and taken over by parliament; the government has been rendered impotent and can no longer even negotiate effectively with the European Union.

Parliament has already had well over 3 years to make its views on Brexit known and to amend proposed legislation. In that time, it has failed to agree to anything which satisfies either the government or the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU. The Prime Minister's attempt to bring matters to a conclusion by ending the already excessively long parliamentary session may have been an unorthodox measure but it was undoubtedly a necessary and long overdue one. That the Court has now ruled his action illegal is ludicrous.

The Court's has effectively made a judgement about things of which it knows nothing. The conversations between the Prime Minister and the Queen which led to prorogation are entirely private, and yet the court has effectively determined that Boris Johnson must have lied to, and misled, the monarch. The court has opened up the door to future legal challenges whenever any government does anything which is unpopular with powerful interests. In essence, the court has appointed itself as the ultimate governmental authority, far exceeding its justifiable remit.

Those who have brought the appeals to the Supreme Court have argued that they are only interested in ensuring that the government acts in a legal manner, although we all know that their true purpose is to prevent Brexit from ever happening. If the government is now compelled to seek a further extension of Article 50, where will that lead ? Further negotiations with the EU are largely pointless as the government has been hogtied; it has no cards to play and would be forced to accept whatever the EU proposes. A further extension without further negotiations would also be pointless, simply postponing matters while resolving nothing. It seems that the Remoaners' have won and British Democracy, as exercised through the 2016 referendum and 2017 general election, has been finally set aside in favour of an arrogant liberal elite who have never accepted that the people 'got it right'.

For myself, if the UK does not leave the EU on 31st October, I have cast my last vote for any of the major parties and will now only ever vote for a party committed to a proper Brexit, one which properly restores British sovereignty. I will never again vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour for what is the point ? These organisations that claim to represent us, the electorate, do nothing of the sort - they represent themselves, their friends and their own self interests. I urge other likeminded voters to do the same.

Democracy in the United Kingdom is about to breath its last, unless Prime Minister Johnson can perform some sort of miracle.

WHAT WILL HAMSTRUNG PM DO NEXT ?

After more than 3 years of debating, arguing and procrastinating, twisting, turning and prevaricating, Members of Parliament have been sent to the sin bin. Not before time, some may well say, but it's not before they've hamstrung the Prime Minister. 

Our so-called representatives, having promised to abide by the referendum result and voted to implement it, have then worked tirelessly to frustrate it. They have now departed for a few weeks after voting 'for' nothing, but against everything. They rejected Theresa May's withdrawal agreement 3 times, voted against 'No Deal' and against holding a general election. Their votes have left the Prime Minister compelled to try to negotiate a deal with the European Union by 19th October or otherwise to ask for a further extension of the UK's Article 50 notice; given that he is committed to leaving the EU by 31st October, that is unacceptable. The actions of the House of Commons, aided in no small way by the behaviour of the departing Speaker, John Bercow, have effectively forced the Prime Minister to accept whatever the EU offers, having taken away his only real negotiating tool, that of leaving without a deal.

With parliament now prorogued until 14th October, MPs will be wondering what will await them when they return. A Queen's speech, followed by the Prime Minister reporting on his 'negotiations' with the EU will take centre stage. The first is fairly predictable as all parties ready themselves for a general election before too long; the second couldn't be less so. Will there be a deal of some sort ? Will we be confronted by a Prime Ministerial resignation ? Will there be a further extension of Article 50 ? Is another referendum to be called ? Are we to have a November, or December, general election ?

Whatever the outcome, our 'representatives' have successfully thrown more spanners in the works in their efforts to prevent the United Kingdom from leaving the European Union, and further damaged the democracy we're supposed to live in. 

Shame on them.

JOHNSON DECLARES WAR ON REMAINERS.

At long last there's been real activity on the Brexit front although Prime Minister Johnson's move to prorogue Parliament in the week commencing 9th September has caused much gnashing of teeth amongst the forces of 'Remain'.

To be clear, what Johnson has done is perfectly normal, it's just the timing which has upset his opponents. Under normal circumstances, prorogation at this time would be seen as long overdue, the current parliamentary session having been the longest in many decades. Johnson has acted to end this session and introduce a new raft of proposed legislation, of his own design, through a Queen's speech on 14th October, that will then signal the start of a new session. However, as a by product of this action, parliament will be denied some time that it might otherwise have had to continue its interminable, convoluted and entirely anti-democratic pursuit of a reversal of the result of the 206 Brexit referendum.

Various accusations have been hurled at Johnson by all and sundry. Unsurprisingly, the leaders of the opposition, and pro-EU parties, have thrown their hands up in horror, shouting, "Foul !" in various ways. Speaker Bercow, notwithstanding his own highly contentious approach, has accused Johnson of perpetrating a 'constitutional outrage' and others are attempting to challenge the move in the courts. Given that the prorogation has been granted by the Queen, who must surely have been given the best possible legal advice before assenting to the request, it seems unlikely that such a move will be successful. Remainers are therefore left with little real time in which to prevent Mr Johnson from carrying out his pledge to leave separate the United Kingdom from the European Union on 31st October.

Hold on. Remainers are complaining that they will now have no time to debate and parliament will have no time to let its views be known ? Really ? Since the referendum in June 2016, more than 3 years has passed during which time Remainers have surely had more than enough time to let the rest of us have the benefit of their wisdom; parliament has held endless debates and held many votes on many proposals, ideas, options and possibilities, to very little end. Now, 166 weeks after the referendum and with just 9 weeks to go to the latest deadline, they still want more time - to do what ?

The answer to that particular question is obvious - they simply want to prevent Brexit from ever happening.

If time was such a problem, parliamentarians could have voted to shorten, or cancel, their summer recess which began on 25th July and doesn't end until 3rd September, but they did not. They could have voted to cancel their planned recess for the conference season, another 3 or 4 weeks of wasted time, but they did not. Instead, they waited and debated, procrastinated and waffled, took their holidays as normal and hoped that Brexit would just go away. It has not and now its opponents, having previously used every trick in the book unsuccessfully, have worked themselves up into a phony rage like spoilt children denied yet another go on the merry-go-round. They refuse to accept that time is up.

Next Tuesday, 3rd September, parliament will reassemble. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid Javid, will present his spending statement which will then be debated. At some point on Wednesday or Thursday, opponents of Brexit may try to introduce some wrecking measures, a bill to prevent Brexit or a vote of no confidence in the government; on Friday afternoon, members will wander off for the weekend. On the 9th they'll all come back from their constituencies for a couple of days before prorogation takes effect, possibly on 10th or 11th, but certainly by 13th, unless legal action prevents it, which seems highly unlikely. Any vote of no confidence will have little immediate effect as the Prime Minister has 2 weeks in which to have it reversed by a second such vote and, with parliament prorogued, that will not be possible. Any such vote would have to be postponed until after the opening of the new session and Queen's speech on 14th October.

Between the Queen's speech and 31st October there will be a maximum of 14 days for debate and action. Several days will be taken up with debate on the speech itself and the time available for Remainers to do anything will be very limited. A vote of no confidence could simply see the government resign and call a general election, which would not take place until well into November, by when Brexit would be have happened. The introduction of preventative legislation would be possible but would there be time ? Might there be, as some have suggested, more urgency in Brussels and a greater realisation that their needs to be some movement if 'No Deal' is to be avoided ? 

Deal or No Deal, that is the question. The cards have been dealt, but who has the trump hand ? How the game finally plays out has still to be seen.

WILL BREXIT EVER HAPPEN ?

I find it amazing that those who want to keep the United Kingdom tied to the European Union consider ignoring the result of the 2016 referendum, ignoring the manifesto pledges of both major parties at the time of the 2017 general election and ignoring that they voted heavily in favour of implementing 'Article 50' all to be perfectly constitutional and democratic, while a Prime Minister attempting to enforce all of these is the opposite.

The general rumpus issuing from the anti-Brexit brigade is becoming almost surreal. The de facto leader of the Labour opposition is now clearly John McDonnell, with Jeremy Corbyn nowhere to be seen or heard. It is McDonnell who is fronting all of the major Labour Party anti-Brexit headlines while Corbyn remains in the shadows, emerging only rarely to show that he's still around; his dislike for the policy now being pursued by his party is palpable. 

Boris Johnson is pressing on with his plan for achieving Brexit by 31st October come what may, whatever that plan actually is. His opponents are chattering about stopping him, at all costs, even at the cost of bringing down the government, though Johnson appears to be indicating that even this won't stop him. Talk of a constitutional crisis abounds and the role of the Queen is being openly discussed. 

For the moment, Parliament is enjoying its summer recess and won't reassemble until 3rd September which, incidenatlly, is the day the UK declared war on Germany in 1939 - might we be in for something similar albeit 80 years on ? It is expected that there will be only a very short period of activity before MPs head off again, this time for their conferences which will see them away from Parliament until around 7th October, unless the conference season is postponed which has been suggested as a possibility by some anti-Brexiteers. However, assuming that things go ahead as already planned, MPs have about 8 or 9 sitting days in September in which to do anything meaningful before Brexit becomes a virtual inevitability. Leaving things until after the conference season is simply too late as, even if a no confidence motion was to be passed, Prime Minister Johnson would have 2 weeks in which to try to overturn it which would take us to about 21st October (another military date, being Trafalgar Day) A general election being called then would see Parliament prorogued and 31st October would come and go with the law as it stands meaning that the UK would leave the EU on that date; the election in mid-November would be an irrelevance as well as probably being a cold and wet one.

It looks to me as though the brief session in September might well be tempestuous and there must be a chance that the conference recess will be postponed. Then again, if Prime Minister Johnson can survive that period and conferences go ahead as planned, November 1st might well be a day of national celebration and even, as Michael Gove has suggested, a special Bank Holiday !

EIGHTY SIX DAYS TO BREXIT.

Summer is here and politicians around the western world have gone on their holidays, regardless of the supposedly major issues that confront them. That said, President Trump has still found time to upset the world's financial markets with an escalation of his trade war with China, and Prime Minister Johnson is working hard on what seems to be more of an election campaign than preparations for Brexit. 

Although things have gone a bit quiet, Brexit remains a key issue and those want to prevent it are continuing to make occasional forays into the media with their forecasts of gloom and doom. Prime Minister Johnson appears to be set on sticking to his deadline of 31st October although the Brexit Party has been telling its members that he is less than determined about this; their line is that Johnson is backsliding at a rate of knots and that Brexit at the end of October is far from certain. With less than 3 months to go, we'll find out the truth soon enough.

European politicians are continuing to insist that the deal on the table is the only one possible and it's reported that the European Union has all but accepted that the UK will leave without an agreed deal. However, it's also been suggested that the Irish Prime Minister may be starting to get a little concerned about the effects of a 'no deal' Brexit on his economy and could be beginning to consider alternatives for resolving the Irish border problem. Given that it is this one issue which is at the heart of the UK's dispute with the EU, providing a resolution would be a major step forward.

Where will it all end ? Will the UK leave the moribund straitjacket of the European Union on 31st October or will Parliament and the naysayers find a way to prevent it ? Are we heading for a very early general election and the prospect that Johnson will soon be an ex-Prime Minister ? Will there be a second referendum ? Will we soon have a Marxist government in power, headed by the Corbyn-McDonnell double act ? 

The referendum was held one thousand, one hundred and thirty nine days ago; since then politicians, and others, have hummed and ha'ed, far too many spending their time on looking for ways of frustrating the referendum result rather than ways of putting it into action. Now, in just another eighty six days, all should come to a conclusion.

Or will it ?

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.