WHAT ARE THE CONSERVATIVES FOR ?

Watching and listening to various politicians, political discussions and political commentators, I find things all very depressing.

 

Everyone knows, or should know, that 13 years of a Labour government left our country in a terrible mess. Of course, the problems were exacerbated by the banking crisis of 2008 but this was also a consequence of the actions, and inactions, of governments including our own so Labour can hardly claim to have been innocent. Given the appalling financial position that we are in, I find it almost shocking that recent opinion polls are suggesting that Labour are the clear favourites to win the next general election outright.

 

It's obvious that the memories of most people are very short and there's always a new generation coming along who have no real knowledge of what happened yesterday, even if they're interested in it. However, how it can be that the Conservatives not only failed to win the last election but have also made themselves so unpopular as to be rank outsiders to win the next is the question that has to be answered.

 

To my mind, the answer is two-fold. Firstly, Labour very deliberatly created a huge 'client state', committing enormous amounts of money that we did not have to all manner of benefits and other state hand-outs; so many people are now dependent on financial support from the state that it's almost impossible for any government to bring control back to state spending without upsetting millions of voters. Secondly, the Conservatives, in trying to make everyone believe that they're a lovely bunch of fellows, have mired themselves in a horrible mish-mash of pseudo-socialist policies that have alienated many of their natural supporters; add the two issues together and they'll be lucky to get 25% of the vote in 2015.

 

The Conservatives under David Cameron have completely lost their focus. Admittedly they have to accommodate at least some of the madness of their Liberal Democrat partners but they no longer seem to have any real conservative policies of their own either. Every pronouncement from Cameron adn his senior colleagues is hedges around with all manor of hand-wringing platitudes aimed at telling the unwashed masses how important they are or how much they will benefit from being screwed to the floor. Instead of telling the truth, that the country is in a potentially terminal condition, they prefer to pour forth a pile of condescending waffle, usually meaningless, always disingenuous.

 

The Conseravtives have stuck to the outdated and totally wrong notion that we have 'world class' public services when the truth is that the NHS is falling apart, our education system is wrecked and our transport system is hopeless; our border controls are non-existent, immigration is out of control and most of our laws are determined by a foreign conglomeration of countries whose disparate aims have little to do with British wants and desires. All of this while we have historically high levels of  overall taxation, vast government borrowing and horrendous levels of both government and private debt. Basically, the country is on its knees and the people are gearing up to bring back the government which caused most of the problems, mainly because the Conservative-led coalition has been utterly inept in setting out the truth and has no clear policies beyond what has been dubbed 'austerity'.

 

Labour have it easy in all of this. They have stuck to their own outworn mantra that brands the Conservatives as the party of the rich while they are the party of the 'working man', the 'man in the street', the 'ordinary man', and so on and so on. They ignore the fact that investment bankers, despite their high salaries, are actually workers, that they walk the streets with the rest of us and probably work twice as hard as most; they ignore the fact that it is the current government which has made substantial increases in the basic personal allowance for income tax, benefiting millions of lower paid workers while recouping the difference from those who are better off. The trouble is that most people don't think for themselves, they only hear the sound bites and adhere to the outdated ideas of their forebears.

 

In the midst of all of this, Cameron has chosen to forsake his own natural constituency and, instead, try to win over those who will never see the light. His mad stampede over 'gay marriage' has no logic while his sycophancy towards the NHS education and the rest shows a total lack of understanding about the realities of our situation. His failure to make any meaningful statements about the European Union have alienated the right wing of his own party, while his failure to be truthful about financial matters has alienated everyone with the slightest leftish lean. All in all, Cameron's chances of being Prime Minister beyond May 2015 are remote and his chances of being Conservative leader beyond October of that year are virtually non-existent. How he can't see all of this is one of the greatest mysteries of the modern world and one that even Sherlock Holmes would have trouble explaining.

 

I'm left wondering what the Conservatives actually do stand for. It would seem they believe in the sanctity of the NHS but not of marriage; they believe in selling off our roads and ending so-called universal benefits. They believe in giving vast sums to foreign despots while cutting spending on our own defences. In fact, they believe in most of the things that a Labour government would do, so why bother with them ? The answer is that you shouldn't. The Conservatives have become so attached to the nebulous 'centre ground' that they are now almost indistinguishable, at least at the top, from the Liberals or Labour. My view is that, without a substantial repositioning, they're dead in the water.

 

Only 4 or 5 years ago it appeared that Labour was dead and yet they're still with us and likely to be the next government. Now it actually looks as though the Conservatives are the dead ducks and I can see no way back for them unless they really return to their roots. Labour have survived on the back of the impossibility of reversing the disastrous socialist policies of the previous 13 years and the consequence may well be total financial meltdown of the country and the ultimate demise of the Labour party, but not before they've had at least another 5 years in which to torture us. The Conservatives on the other hand will almost certainly suffer their own meltdown after the 2015 election and may well find themselves reduced to a 'rump' in parliament; all true Tories will, by then, have defected to UKIP, the only remaining mainstream party of the right.

 

Cameron may well go down in history as the last Conservative Prime Minister and, possibly, as the worst, Alec Douglas Home included, while the Conservative Party will become the new Liberals, a former party of government reduced to a handful of MPs. The 2020 General Election will be won by UKIP but, by then, it will be far too late to revive the patient and all any of us will be able to do is reminisce about the glorious days when Britain was a power in the world and we all had a decent standard of living. In the end, perhaps this is the ultimate perverse purpose of the Conservative Party, to destroy the nation that they once made mighty, in pursuit of some crazy 'one-nation' ideal.

PORTRAIT OF A DUCHESS IS WRONG.

The portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge unveiled yesterday seems to have found approval only from the royal couple themselves. Critics whose views have been expressed on television and radio appear to be mostly critical and I have to say that I tend to agree with them

 

At first sight, there is no doubt that the picture is of the Duchess but on closer imnspection it simply looks wrong. I'm no art expert so my view is entirely personal but there is clearly something about the picture which is odd. One critic I heard said that there was an inconsistency between the top half of the subject's face and the lower portion and this may be the problem.

 

The Duchess's eyes appear to be less than fully open, giving the impression of a slight frown, while the mouth has a slight upturn suggesting a smile,although the lips are tightly closed which also seems wrong; in between, the cheek bones seem to be ever so slightly over-emphasised

 

There can be no doubt that the Duchess is a very attractive woman, but this portrait simply doesn't do her justice. It is "wrong", and that's all there is to  it.

WANT AN HONOUR ? WIN A MEDAL !

Inevitably, a tranche of 'honours' have been handed out to a bunch of assorted athletes. Why escapes me.

 

There was a time when to be awarded an OBE was a mark of great distinction; being made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire was something of which to be very proud as it signified that you had made a genuinely important contribution to socirty, the nation or mankind in general. Not any longer. Honours are tossed out like confetti to whomever is currently in the news plus, of course, to a raft of time-serving civil servants.

 

Bradley Wiggins, whose exploits perched atop a bicycle have been very laudable, is to be made a Knight of the Realm as is David Brailsford who's credited with coaching Wiggins and his chums to their recent run of success. Someone of whom I've never heard, Sarah Storey, is to be made a Dame of the British Empire for doing something in a wheelchair, while the likes of Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton are all to be given CBE's, an award just one rung below knighthood or damehood. Possibly due to his previous comments about being Scottish rather than British, Andy Murray is to receive only the lower honour of an OBE; that'll teach you to think before you gob-off, young man !

 

The real point in all of this, though, is that the recipients of these awards together with 70 or more of their compatriots, have mostly done nothing whatsoever that will ever enhance the lot of anyone other than themselves. Leading sportsmen are, by the very nature of what they do, utterly self-centred; they are focused on their own achievements to the exclusion of all else. These days, they are also funded very generously by the state and some even become very wealthy due to the large prize money available at many meetings and events. Given all of this, to further reward them with national honours when they succeed in doing what they love doing is ludicrous.

 

Wiggins was a worthy 'Sports Personality of the Year' and, in 20 or 30 years time when he's passed on his experience to generations of younger cyclists, he might well deserve an award; today, he does not, any more than do any of the other sporting recipients of these wholly devalued gongs. Sadly, we have reached a stage in which real contributions to our society go unnoticed while pointless celebrities and others in the media are showered with plaudits and honours. Is this really the way it should be ?

 

 

YOBS SHOW US UP FOR WHAT WE ARE.

Walking to and from my local town this morning I became more convinced than ever that the majority of human beings are no more than a hair's breadth removed from the apes of the jungle.

 

While we pride ourselves on our intelligence and common decency, I watched as numerous motorists drove at silly speeds, failed to signal manoeuvres, cur corners and generally behaved like morons. In town, a young yob was apprehended by security staff after apparently having assaulted an elderly woman, presumably with the intention of stealing from her. In the shops, the lack of common courtesy was everywhere with very few people, other than myself, standing back to allow others to pass through doors or other small spaces. All-in-all, it was a depressing experience.

 

We are a society which considers itself to be educated and distinctly better than the animals from which we have evolved, while the truth is that most of us are still in the jungle. The yobs who attack old ladies in the street, steal from shops, burgle our homes, and drive like maniacs are everywhere; the appalling drunk and drugged creatures who inhabit too many of our town centres at the weekends make many peoples' lives a misery. Frequently, these sub-humans masquerade as 'normal' people, living in decent houses in decent areas but when the surface is scratched ever so slightly they show their true colours; their first reaction to any stress is usually physical violence and they have no thoughts that any other reaction is possible.

 

None of this is aimed at any part of our society in particular as the offenders appear to be of both sexes and of all ages, races, colours and creeds. The animalistic behaviour of football crowds and the audiences at 'rock concerts', the the yobs on our streets and the general violence in our society is the true image of natural human behaviour rather than the one we like to believe of nuclear families living wonderful lives and being concerned about everyone around them.

 

There are times when the truth hurts.

ROYAL SUCCESSION DILEMMAS

The proposed change to the laws regarding succession to the throne of the United Kingdom have, of course, been welcomed by all of those who claim to despise discrimination wherever it occurs. However, one wonders to what extent these people have considered the possible negative implications of this current proposal.

 

For one thing, if the rule of male primogeniture had not existed, the Quenn would not now be Queen. In fact, on the death of Queen Victoria, the crown would have passed to the warmongering German Kaiser, Wilhelm II; where we would now be is anyone's guess.  Another consequence could be a constantly changing royal 'House' name, something which normally remains static through male lines and only usually changes after a female heir or monarch marries, or when there is a revolution. In the most recent times, this wouldn't have been an issue, however, following King James II, we could have had a House of Orange, followed by a House of Oldenburg, had either of his daughters produced surviving children.

 

It's also the case that James II may never have become King anyway as he would have been outranked by his elder sister Mary; Mary married William II, Prince of Orange, and died before her elder brother Charles II, so her son William III, Prince of Orange, would have succeeded to the throne in his own right in 1685, rather than being invited here in 1688 on the expulsion of James II. Such an apparently minor change could, however, have had major implications as we would never have experienced the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, probably never had the Bill of Rights of 1689 and on William II's death in 1702, the destination of the crown may have been disputed. William and Mary had no children and William was an only child, so the heir would have been found through an earlier generation; whether this would have been on his father's or mother's side is open to debate. 

 

This is, of course, all just fantasy as any change to history would almost certainly have caused many more and the history which we currently recall simply wouldn't have happened. However, pondering on this matter, one hopes that the government has actually done some 'in depth' thinking around the issue in order to try to prevent such complications happening in the future.

 

One hopes !

DUCHESS 'PHONE HOAX GETTING BORING.

The nonsense about the Duchess of Cambridge and a hoax telephone call really is taking up far too much space and time in our media.

 

Hearing repeats of the radio broadcast, it's pretty clear that the impression of the Queen was awful; I haven't heard that of Prince Charles, but I suspect it was just as bad. It was a silly prank that really shouldn't have worked and the only reason it hit the headlines initially was that hospital staff were so easily taken in by it. The tragic consequences have, of course, made the story even more newsworthy.

 

While the apparent suicide of the nurse who took the call is sad, her action was horribly out of proportion when considered in the light of what she actually seems to have done; as far as I understand it, all she did was to answer the telephone and pass the callers on to another member of the hospital's staff. That she felt sufficiently upset that she committed suicide suggests deeper problems in her life.

 

The second nurse who, according to the press, then happily discussed the condition of the Duchess in some detail was much more at fault. However, the major part of the blame for the success of the hoax rests fairly and squarely with the hospital management who had obviously failed to ensure that there were adequate procedures in place to safeguard the confidentiality of their patients. Most hospitals have such procedures that make it almost impossible to gain any information about hospital patients regardless of the identity of the inquirer; the King Edward VII hospital clearly failed miserably in this respect and has serious questions to answer.

 

The television interviews given by the 2 Australian radio presenters who perpetrated the hoax were excrutiatingly dreadful. Their tearful apologies and expressions of regret surely were more intended to try to salvage their own careers than anything; why their careers should be at risk is a question that perhaps needs to be answered. They did nothing terrible, it was simply a childish prank; the only people in their organisation who should be in real trouble are the managers who agreed to broadcast the telephonic conversation.

 

No doubt this story will rumble on for a few days yet, hopefully not very many. Behind the scenes, one or two heads might well, and probably should, roll, but let's not get this out of proportion. It was a silly stunt and nothing more; the sad outcome for one individual was of her own design and we should not be looking to lay the blame at the door of anyone else.

SIR PATRICK MOORE.

The death of Sir Patrick Moore which was announced yesterday made it a sad day indeed. Sir Patrick was one of those most unusual people, a man who seemed to have nothing but enthusiasm for life and wished to do nothing more than enthuse and encourage others.

 

His fame as the outstanding presenter of 'The Sky at Night' belied his true importance in the world of science, and astronomy in particular. Many of today's best known scientists have identified him as the one person who inspired them to pursue their careers and he, himself, was so revered as to be made a Fellow of the Royal Society even though he was 'only' an amateur.

 

Sir Patrick had looked increasingly frail in recent years and seemed even more so on his last appearance on 'The Sky at Night' last week  Nonetheless, and with typical élan, the grand old man of television looked forward to the next programme when he promised to provide advice and guidance to those who might be lucky enough to receive a telescope in their Christmas stockings. Sadly, he will not now be able to fulfill his pledge, though we must hope that others will pick up his baton and continue the wonderful work that he started so many years ago. He will be missed very much.