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.

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. 

NO NEW MANDATE NEEDED - JUST GET ON WITH BREXIT.

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

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

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

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

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

TIME TO VOTE FOR THERESA.

Those who want the United Kingdom to remain within the European Union or, at the very least, to stay so closely tied to it as to make no difference, have yet to explain what are the over-riding benefits of taking this course of action.

When I voted to leave the EU, I did so in order to restore freedom of action to our country. I saw us gaining the freedom to make and apply our own laws and regulations and I saw us being freed from the arbitrary decisions of the European Court of Justice. I saw us gaining the freedom to control our own borders, the freedom to decide our own alliances, the freedom to control our own economy and to make our own trade deals. I saw us being freed of the need to make large financial contributions to an unaccountable organisation, the administration of which is mind-bogglingly bureaucratic and obscure as well as being self-serving and riddled with corruption. I saw us being freed from the grindingly slow processes of this elephantine and mismatched group of nations.

I voted in favour of all of this. Those who are now shouting their opposition from the rooftops have yet to say what they are actually in favour of, other than a continuation of the status quo. They want us to stay tied to the dead weight of a union which was conceived in the aftermath of World War 2 but which has no place in the world of today. Those who are working to prevent any form of meaningful Brexit are either frightened of change and scared to venture out of their Euro-bunker or are those who benefit directly from the coffers of the EU. They can point to nothing positive to keep us in, only to the imagined difficulties which they claim will arise from leaving.

This week, the House of Commons will vote on assorted Brexit-related issues and may well bring the country to a point of total confusion. They will vote against everything and for nothing; as a result, Brexit may well be threatened, delayed or, even, prevented altogether. The government may fall, leading to a general election and a Jeremy Corbyn led coalition of Labour, SNP and Liberals; anyone who thinks that a 'No-Deal' Brexit would be catastrophic should give thought to just what that scenario would mean for us all.

Theresa May's deal is far from perfect, but if it's a choice between that and no Brexit, or between her in Downing Street and Jeremy Corbyn preening himself at the door, there's no choice. 

ANY BREXIT RATHER THAN CORBYN.

As the rhetoric over a proposed Brexit deal hots up, the Labour party is continuing to look for ways of causing enough mayhem to warrant a general election. What a resulting Corbyn-led government would mean for the country hardly bears thinking about, but the prospect of the current largely invisible members of the shadow cabinet moving into Downing Street is frightening.

Corbyn himself and his right hand man, John McDonnell, are a pretty frightening pair on their own, with their hard line Marxist philosophy , but of the rest, how many of us can name more than 2 or 3 ? Former Director of Public Prosecutions turned politician, Keir Starmer, appears regularly as does the almost unbelievably arrogant Lady Nugee, otherwise known as Emily Thornberry; the softly spoken and often condescending Barry Gardiner and Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow Business Secretary whose invented double barrelled name says much about her pretentiousness, are 2 more, but here the well begins to run dry. Deputy party leader Tom Watson has almost disappeared from view over the last couple of years while even the normally pretentious Diane Abbot has been unusually absent. Of the rest, who can name even one ?

Could this bunch of nonentities really be put in charge of our country ? Wealthy and privileged, self serving and willing to do anything in pursuit of power, they profess one thing and do another. Even Corbyn and McDonnell would insulate themselves from the terrifying effects of their own policies, presiding in Stalinesque grandeur over the proletariat. This mob have hidden behind their highly subjective 'Six Tests' as a way of clearing the decks for a vote against almost any Brexit agreement that is cobbled together, irrespective of its content and simply in pursuit of office. The interests of the nation matter not a jot to them.

Whatever Mrs May comes up with, the one thing we cannot risk is a Corbyn-led dictatorship.

POPULISM RULES, BUT ONLY WHEN IT SUITS !

Many of those who campaigned against the UK leaving the European Union accused the 'Leave' campaign of pursuing 'populist' ideas. 'Populism' was identified with some sort of evil and underhand way of appealing to the people through the promotion of policies which, while popular, were fundamentally unfair and wrong. Similar criticism was levelled at the campaign of Marine Le Pen in the French Presidential election.

However, as we get into the nitty-gritty of our General Election campaigns, popularity seems to be what it's all about. Theresa May seems to be popular while Jeremy Corbyn is not and, consequently, the Conservatives are miles ahead in the opinion polls. The Labour Party Manifesto, due to be published next week but leaked yesterday, appears to be utterly populist, full of policies designed to appeal to particular groups in society. Both the Conservatives and  Liberal Democrats have been putting forward their own 'populist' policies, be they on energy prices, public service investment, welfare, paternity leave or whatever else they can dream up.

Obviously, political parties need to have a degree of popularity in order to win elections and they all appeal to voters with a range of relevant policies designed to appeal to their own supporters and, hopefully, some others as well. Why then was 'populism' so derided by the likes of Nick Clegg, an arch-Europhile, when his side lost the EU referendum ? Might it have been nothing more than a case of sour grapes ?

Surely not !

WHO ARE CORBYN'S 'RICH' ?

Jeremy Corbyn continues to tell us that, if elected, Labour will go after 'the rich' and make sure that they pay their 'fair share' towards the state. He's also talked about some plan to limit the pay of the highest paid to a multiple of the pay of the lowest, perhaps no more than 20 times as much.

In pursuing this course, one wonders if Corbyn intends confining his assault on 'the rich' to senior managers of corporations or will be going after doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on. One also wonders what he might be planning to do about the truly highest paid in our society, the grotesquely overvalued sports 'stars'.

It's been reported that Manchester United's Zlatan Ibrahimovich is being paid something in the region of £370,000 per week, while we know that there are numerous other footballers who are paid well in excess of £100,000 per week. Some others, notably those in the Formula 1 racing sphere are paid similarly ludicrous sums, Lewis Hamilton being reportedly on some £600,000 per week.

The average worker might expect to earn, at current rates, around £1,250,000 in his or her entire working life, before tax, while these insanely overpaid footballers and others are paid that in little more than a few months or, even, weeks. These people often have special arrangements which reduce or remove any liability to UK tax, meaning that the disparity is all the greater. They can afford to live in places of which the rest of us can only dream and to have life styles which we can barely imagine. They are vastly more wealthy and privileged than virtually any others in society, matched only by a handful of the most senior directors of the largest international companies who are responsible for huge numbers of staff and enormous resources.

If Corbyn was to attack lawyers and accountants, he'd have many on his side, ignorant and ill-advised though they'd be. If he attacked doctors, he'd be roundly condemned, though he'd undoubtedly try to aim his attack at those in private practice. However, if he attacked our beloved sports stars, he'd have very few supporters; for some reason, no one seems to mind the profligacy of major sports' institutions even though the money paid to their stars comes from the pockets of those who pay ridiculously inflated prices for the privilege of watching their heroes perform.

If there are 'rich' who need to be targeted, it is those who are paid very large sums, often without being taxed, for doing nothing of real importance. Sadly, the broad sweep of the 'entertainment industry' seems to be immune to such things.

FOR LABOUR, READ 'DISASTER' !

As a major plank in its manifesto, Labour is now promising higher pay for NHS staff, no tuition fees for student nurses and midwives, as well as an assortment of other pledges regarding increased public spending, more public holidays and so on. They have also said that they will maintain the so-called 'triple lock' on state pensions, regardless of cost.

None of this has been costed and the best that they've said about funding for all of the additional spending is that it will come from reversing changes to corporation tax and increasing taxes on 'the rich', whomever they are. Basically, everyone who has anything would be poorer while loungers and scroungers will be molly-coddled.

Additionally, Jeremy Corbyn has been less than coherent about Labour's position in regard to terrorism, defence and the nuclear deterrent, the European Union, immigration and much more. He is in favour of banning all grammar schools and would undoubtedly like to destroy our excellent fee paying schools.

The latest opinion polls suggest that Mr Corbyn's policies are not very appealing and Labour is on course for one of its worst electoral performances in modern times. However, polls can be wrong and one never knows what's just round the corner, so we all need to beware; It's the Conservatives or total disaster.

CORBYN OR MAY : I KNOW WHERE MY 'X' IS GOING.

As the General Election campaigns get underway, an assortment of disinformation and downright lies is already being disseminated. Media reporting, particularly by elements of the BBC, is subtly skewed against the evil right wingers and in favour of anything vaguely left wing. However, voters should ignore all of this and remember a few basic facts.

The principal difference between the 2 major parties, Labour and Conservative, is very basic; Labour believes in state control while the Conservatives favour more private enterprise. What this means in practice is that Labour favours higher taxes, more state hand-outs, more state controlled services and industries and, generally, more state interference in the lives of ordinary people. The Conservatives favour lower taxes, less in the way of state hand-outs, less state controlled services and industries and, generally, less interference in the lives of ordinary people. It must be said that, in recent years, these differences have been minimised as both parties have sought the much lauded 'centre ground', whatever that is, and, at times, it has been difficult to tell the parties apart.

However, under Jeremy Corbyn the Labour Party has taken a huge lurch to the left and there are now significant differences between Labour and the Tories. Corbyn has raised the long dead spectre of Keir Hardy, the effective founder of the Labour Party and a man whose principles were forged well over a century ago, in an attempt to reignite a class war that has no place in the modern world. As Prime Minister, Corbyn would reduce the United Kingdom to utter poverty through vast increases in taxation, a massive increase in the size of the state and a huge program of nationalisation that would result in a disastrous collapse in industrial productivity. He would ensure that educational choices are virtually abolished and would destroy innovation; there would be little incentive for anyone to work hard or achieve anything as the state would provide all, until it goes bankrupt. Corbyn lives in an idealised socialist world that doesn't, and never has, existed, though he would make every effort to impose it on us.

In contrast, the Conservatives are more realistic. They know that we still have some way to go to fully recover from the financial crisis of 2008 but they are getting there. They are reducing government borrowing and the UK's economy is in far better shape than most; indeed, only the United States is performing better at present. The Conservatives will continue to support business and will tend to minimize the size of the state. They will provide opportunities for children to achieve their potential through a range of educational routes and they will encourage entrepreneurship. They will allow individuals to keep more of their own money and make their own decisions as to how to spend it. Above all, they will take us out of the European Union and allow the UK to trade freely with the rest of the world.

Forget the headlines and the hype. These are the real differences and this is what voters' choices should be based on. I know where my 'X' is going.

CORBYN : A MAN TRAPPED IN THE PAST.

Hearing Jeremy Corbyn speak this morning was like listening into a broadcast from the past. This silly man is still intent on fighting a class war from the 1930s and doesn't seem to have any understanding that the world has actually moved on.

Corbyn's views and policy aims are not just socialist or 'left wing' they border on out-and-out Communism; Marx and Lenin would have been proud of him, but they've both been dead for a very long time. That Corbyn has been deserted by almost all of the senior figures in the Labour party does not worry him as he steams ahead. He merrily talks of vast increases in tax and vast new borrowings. He promises huge increases in public sector pay and general expenditure and threatens to clobber those that he considers to be 'the rich'. Perversely, he has defined 'the rich' as those earning £70 - £80,000 per annum or more, but seems to have forgotten that the basic pay of Members of Parliament puts them in this bracket, while the additional pay of cabinet ministers places them well above it. Are these really 'the rich' ?

Corbyn lives in a dream world in which government knows best about everything and can run everything. Businessmen and parents know nothing and must surrender their organisations and families to the care and direction of the state. Prime Minister Corbyn would do away with nuclear power and our nuclear deterrent; he would ban all manor of things that he considers 'bad' but that most people find essential and there would be 'Green' policies that would cripple the nation. Industrial (and public sector) productivity would collapse, inflation would soar and the national deficit would rise to monumental proportions. The UK would be back to the mid-1970s when the Labour government of the day was forced to go cap-in-hand to the IMF in order to avoid bankruptcy.

When Corbyn speaks of a 'fairer society' what he really means is robbing those who have anything to support the indigent; he means taking away all incentives from entrepreneurs and micro-managing the economy. Corbyn's approach to the world would destroy us so completely that we would never recover. Compared with any possible downside from 'Brexit', a Corbyn Premiership would be truly and frighteningly catastrophic.

No one in their right mind can possibly vote for Corbyn.

LET'S ALL GO TO THE POLLS --- AGAIN !

Following months of argy bargy over the 'type' of Brexit that Theresa May's government is going to negotiate, Mrs May has made the decision to dissolve parliament and to hold a General Election. Good for her.

Ever since the referendum in June of last year those who didn't like the outcome have made it clear that they will do anything they can to frustrate the process of leaving the European Union. Ghoulish figures from the past, such as Tony Blair, Paddy Ashdown, Nick Clegg and others, have popped up to try to create mayhem; Nicola Sturgeon has used the situation to demand yet another Scottish independence referendum and there have been calls for a reappraisal of the division of Ireland. An utterly spurious notion of there being options of 'hard Brexit' or 'soft Brexit' has been invented, a notion which is nothing more than a political mechanism contrived to create confusion and division.

When Mrs May said "Brexit means Brexit" she was stating the obvious and trying to make clear that there was no 'hard' or 'soft' option; when one leaves a club, one leaves and that's that. What happens thereafter is a matter for negotiation and, again, Mrs May has made it abundantly clear that she wants to seek the best possible post-Brexit arrangement for both the UK and EU. Unfortunately, Mrs May's clarity has failed to halt the march of those determined to try to prevent the UK from leaving the club and she has been left with only one option, that of attempting to strengthen her position in Parliament by seeking a new mandate from the British people.

Mrs May has said that she did not plan or want to take this course of action but, after careful consideration, she decided that it was the only real option open to her. Some are saying that she has made a 'u-turn' and shown that she is dishonest, untrustworthy and simply taking advantage of the disarray of other parties. While there can be no doubt about the shambles in which the Labour Party finds  itself, I don't believe that Mrs May has been anything other than honest in her words and actions. In as far as any politician can be trusted, I believe that Mrs May is one of the better ones; compared with the self-serving, arrogant, deceitful and downright slimy behaviour of some of her predecessors, she is undoubtedly one of the 'good guys'.

When the election results are known on 9th June, we will hopefully have banished the powers of darkness once and for all, and Mrs May will be able to carry out the Will of the people, as expressed in last year's referendum, without further manufactured confusion, interference and delay.

ELECTION HORRORS AHEAD.

Thank God the election will soon be here though what it will bring us is another matter.

For weeks now we've been subjected to the lies, prevarication and disingenuous drivel of a vast horde of political figures, and others, all telling us what they think we want to hear and none of them telling us the truth. Questions put by interviewers have been ignored, avoided or answered in such a way that an impression is given without actually making any hard and fast commitments; even Miliband's recent statements about the SNP and possible deals with them still leave more than enough 'wriggle room' for Labour to do whatever they like in the event of a hung Parliament.

The opinion polls have remained stubbornly stuck, with no party seemingly making any significant progress in convincing the people that they are the ones to vote for. We have the likelihood, at the moment, of Labour probably having most seats and entering into an effective agreement, formal or not, with the SNP, a party which is desperate for the UK to be broken up. The SNP, for their part, have made it very clear that they will not support any Conservative led administration under any circumstances, confirming their position as a party of the extreme left. Likewise, Plaid Cymru have made a similar statement, though both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP have left open the question of whom they might be prepared to support.

In the end, what we are left with is the real prospect of a minority Labour government propped up by a mish-mash of extreme left wing parties including the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens. With the mantra of all 4 relying hugely on 'an end to austerity' we will find ourselves plunged into another financial abyss, with government borrowing rising again to unsustainable levels. Of course, there will also be vast increases in taxation, especially for anyone who has anything; I can see further assaults on the so-called 'well off', more raids on pension funds, huge increases in council tax and so on. Eventually, the bulk of the population will be much worse off.

What to do about it all. Sadly, voting for my preferred option, UKIP may well lead to my constituency electing a typically oily Liberal Democrat, though the best candidate I've seen by far is actually the Labour chap. Nationally, votes for UKIP may well help Labour to pick up Tory seats and make the horror of a Labour-SNP axis a reality. I doubt that I will make a final decision until election day.

ELECTION BLUES - PROMISES, LIES AND DECEIT

With the General Election campaign now in full swing, we are getting all the usual promises, lies and deceit from all of the main parties.

Labour, the party which was largely responsible, in this country, for the banking deregulation which led to the financial disaster of 2008, now says that it will manage the economy far better than those nasty Tories and will create a 'fairer society'. Of course, what they really mean is that they'll introduce even more laws to force people to do things their way, will dramatically increase taxes and reduce benefits for anyone who actually still has anything, and will borrow to the hilt. The result would be an even bigger mess than they created before and , no doubt, would be worsened still further by an almost certain pact of some type with the ultra left wing Scottish and Welsh nationalists, plus the egregious Greens.

The Liberals, a party which is likely to lose a good many of its current 60 or so seats, has, as usual, tried to be 'all things to all men' while also being simply another left of centre shambles. In my own constituency, the hopeful Liberal is standing on a platform of bringing greatly enhanced NHS services to the area, something which he knows full-well can never happen but of which potential voters have no understanding; it is a straightforward deception designed to con people into voting in a particular way. This is actually what the Liberals tend to do everywhere and yet they still seem to get away with it.

As for the Conservatives, their campaign seems to be all about 'steady as she goes' while promising to pump yet more money into the failed NHS. Thus far, they have made no real progress in the campaign and have, instead, slipped on one or two banana skins. Their problem is that their leader is an uninspiring rich boy, as are so many of their other leading lights, and they seem to be as out of touch with reality as it's possible to be. They make wild promises about the economy, the NHS, education, immigration and so on, as of course do all of the other parties, but they have no coherent strategy. They claim to be a right of centre party but are, in fact, wallowing around in the centre trying to sound tough while doing as little as possible.

For someone whose first General Election experience was in 1974, this is all too familiar and depressing. Only during the reign of Margaret Thatcher did we have a government which ever did more than pay lip service to its principals and, even then, it was not all plain sailing. Almost every government over the years has failed while claiming huge success; the population are beset with more and more ludicrous laws, less justice and vast increases in taxation to feed the ever hungry State. Our education system is shot to pieces, our NHS so long passed its 'sell by' date that it belongs in a museum. Immigration is completely out of control and our society is more divided than ever before in our history; our industrial base has all but been destroyed and vast numbers of people rely on the State for hand outs of ever increasing range and complexity.

This is the legacy of decades of government by people whose principal interest is themselves. Our politicians rarely have any interest in anything but getting elected and climbing the greasy pole; election promises have no meaning to them and voters are an irrelevance except at election time, when the same old promises, deceits and lies are trotted out, and most of the population dutifully goes out and votes the way they did last time and the time before that and the way that their parents did. Politicians know this and know that only a small number of seats usually change hands at an election. Therefore, they know that, whatever they say or do, their jobs are safe.

It's time to shake them up a bit by voting for one of the smaller parties. I say Vote UKIP, the only one of the smaller parties which doesn't want to bankrupt us or break up the Union, but does want to save us from the European nightmare. They may not be 'whiter than white' on everything but they are the only real alternative to what's gone before.