HANCOCK OUT, JAVID IN

So Matt Hancock has gone, and rightly so. Now every opposition voice, including that of the equally discredited Dominic Cummings, is complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed to resign but should have been sacked and Boris Johnson is being accused of being weak.

None of this should really be any surprise. The Labour Party, effectively leaderless and with no identifiable policies other than of opposing the nasty Tories, uses every opportunity to throw mud at the Prime Minister while the Liberals and Scottish Nationalists make every effort to twist any negative story in a direction that supports their own agenda.

Hancock may have been a fool and may have been incompetent; he may even have been bordering on corrupt but the only firm evidence against him were the pictures leaked to the Sun newspaper. Yes, he has been embroiled in a variety of apparently dodgy dealings but who in the political sphere hasn't ? On the positive side, as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care he has presided over the most extraordinary period in our nation's history and has overseen an astonishingly successful vaccination programme. He certainly had to go but let's not forget that his legacy isn't entirely a bad one.

Replacing Hancock is the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as previous occupant of numerous other senior government jobs, Sajid Javid. His appointment has been welcomed by his fellow MPs although Cummings, who it seems was instrumental in getting him sacked from No 11, has posted a vitriolic diatribe against him. It seems that once this self-proclaimed genius has got his knives out, he carries on sticking them in whenever he can. He seems oblivious to the simple fact that such behaviour reduces his credibility to vanishing point.

And so we go on. COVID-19 cases are continuing to rise although hospitalisations and deaths remain low. July 19th is only 3 weeks away and Sajid Javid has the chance to be a hero by releasing us all from what has seemed like interminable misery. Let's hope he takes it.

MATT HANCOCK - DEAD MAN WALKING.

There have been many criticisms of the performance of Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care over the last year or so and yet he has held on to his job throughout. Now things may be changing.

Hancock has now been caught on film having a rather intimate 'clinch' with one of his aides, a woman whom he has known for many years and whom he seems to have employed within his department last year. While the simple matter of him possibly having an affaire (he is married with 3 children) may not be considered a critical offence in these supposedly enlightened days, the ramifications are significant.

Firstly, he has spent much of the last 18 months telling us all that we "must" follow the rules relating to COVID-19 restrictions, including those around social distancing; he clearly believed that these rules did not apply to himself.

Secondly, how can the people of this country believe whatever he tells us when he is obviously very ready to lie to and deceive his wife of 15 years in this way ? A man who will happily deceive his closest family would surely find it a far less difficult matter to deceive people with whom he has no close relationship. To put it mildly, his credibility is shot to pieces.

Thirdly, it seems that the woman involved has a brother who is a senior figure in a company which has been awarded major NHS in recent times, while questions have been raised about the process which saw her appointed to her non-executive role in Mr Hancock's Department. There have been other questions raised about similar issues over the last year, Hancock and his sister owning some 40% of another company that was awarded NHS contracts though Hancock did not fully declare this family connection. 

Fourthly, how on earth was he caught on film, apparently in his private departmental office ? Are ministers now routinely subject to CCTV monitoring ? If so, why and by whom ? If not, then how was the incriminating film obtained ? The implications for the security of government buildings is massive.

I have no idea whether Matt Hancock has been a good, bad or indifferent Secretary of State but this littany of failings, added to the comments of Dominic Cummings and elleged remarks of Boris Johnson, should surely be enough to see him booted out of office. However, for the moment at least, Boris is standing by his man though for how long remains to be seen. As the pressure mounts and public opinion swings against him, Hancock's tenure must be approaching its end.

Whether it's a couple of days, a few weeks or a couple of months, he's a dead man walking.

BERCOW : TRUE COLOURS FINALLY EMERGE.

It comes as no surprise that John Bercow, previously a member of the Conservative Party, has decided to formalise his true allegiance and join the Labour Party. No 'half-way' house with a move to the Liberal Democrats for him, but a full 'about face'.

Throughout his time as Speaker of the House of Commons, Bercow supported all manner of anti-Conservative movements, most notably over the vexed issue of Brexit. His clear oppositon to his notional party was obvious and his dislike of Prime Minister Boris Johnson almost palpable. No doubt for Bercow, the final straw was Johnson's refusal to put his name forward for the usual ennobling given to retired Speakers and now he has issued a vitriolic statement associated with his change of Party.

Of course, he is married to an active socialist and Labour supporter and is an ardent opponent of Brexit. That he is also a little man, in every sense of the word, who appears to have the sort of complex common to other little men, Napoleon being one example, which results in them being overly keen to emphasise their self-importance. Seeing Bercow march through the House of Commons on his way to the Chamber, this little puffed up man surrounded by his entourage, was almost laughable and encouraged the us of the song "Big John" by some television cbhannels.

Bercow's appearances in the House frequently saw him attempting to take centre stage with pompous pronouncements and unnecessary interventions. After his retirement, he made capital out of his previous behaviour by appearances in the media, something undertaken by no other Speaker and which has undoubtedly demeaned one of the highest offices in the land. It seems that Bercow was, and still is, more interested in his own self-aggrandissement than in upholding the honour of the position he once held. Indeed, it may be that he has hopes that by joining the Labour opposition, he may finally gain the one thing that he craves, a Life Peerage, for it must be certain that the Conservatives will never offer him one. 

Will Keir Starmer or a future Labour leader oblige ? Maybe, maybe not, but Bercow will surely have his fingers crossed. 

GB NEWS - TERRIFYING THE WOKE !

The reaction of the liberal and left wing media to the first few days of the "GB News" television channel has been an amazing indicator of how terrified they are of the advent of a new outlet that prefers discussion to indoctrination, thought to knee-jerk and an approach which avoids the appalling wokeness of so many newspapers, websites and other channels. The bile pouring from the pages of 'The Mirror', The Guardian', the laughably named 'Independent' and even 'The Times' is astounding. Added to this, it seems that there's been a concerted effort by some broadcasters, including the ultra-woke BBC, to interfere with the normal arrangements for sharing of news between channels while a number of companies have either suspended or withdrawn their adverts from the new channel (HOORAH !!)

Incredibly, "GB News" actually seems to be ticking many of the boxes that the hordes of Islington wokies must surely feel are essential - an array of female presenters and commentators, often outnumbering their male colleagues; several coloured women, a gay or two. Reports are regularly presented from all parts of the country, not just the few miles around Westminster, and issues are discussed rather than simply being reported as undeniable facts. 

Presumably what the Woke don't like is that subjects such as the various aspects of racism are being treated as rather more than one-dimensional statements of fact. The highly political actions of the National Trust have been questioned and, today, there has been discussion about yet another piece of nonsense, put out by English Heritage, regarding the supposed racist and xenophobic nature of the works of Enid Blyton. Sadly for the woke brigade, rather than being horrified at these revelations about the much loved children's author, presenters, including two coloured women, expressed their childhood delight at the books and one even told of her favourite doll being a 'Golly'. The simple fact, as indicated by several of those on screen, is that trying to apply the transitory morality of today to the transitory actions of yesterday is ridiculous nonsense.

By all means draw attention to the failings of society in bygone days but do not tar those who lived in those times with a brush dipped in today's paint pot. Pulling down statues and banning writers, speakers or television programmes is censorship, regardless of the supposed reasons. History is history; what was done yesterday was done, don't hide it and don't try to view it through some wokeish lens of today. Simply be open about it and admit that it might not gel with today's morality - end of.

"GB News" is a new channel and has had its teething troubles, but why should it be lambasted for being what it is ? With Andrew Neil, it has probably the best political broadcaster of his day, and he's assembled a bright and lively band of helpers to support him. Even within the first week, we've seen the first question at a Prime Ministerial press conference handed to the "GB News" reporter; an interview with former Chancellor Sajid Javed and another with his successor, Rishi Sunak. Michael Portillo has made a welcome return to the politcial debate and the now reviled-by-the-left Laurence Fox has shared his thoughts with viewers. Of course, some will say that these are all right wing figures and there's a lack of balance, but perhaps left wingers are frightened by the prospect of being subjected to propoerly critical interviews rather than the soft-left approaches of the BBC and others. That said, one of the presenters is former Labour MP, Gloria De Piero, and one can only wonder how long it will be before current left wing politicos find themselves unable to resist the opportunity to appear on our screens.

None of this is to say that "GB News" is yet the answer to anyone's prayers but it's started pretty well. Over the coming months there will undoubtedly be changes to formats, sets, even presenters and programming, but so far, so good. 10 out of 10 for effort, 8 out of 10 for delivery, looking to make that a 9 before very long.

YOU CANNOT CHANGE SEX, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY.

The case of Maya Forstater demonstrates just how far down the insane road to extreme wokeishness our nation has travelled.

Forstater holds, and has expressed, the view that the matter of biological sex is immuntable, that is, no matter what surgery or other measures an individual mau undergo, they can never actually 'change sex'. She is particularly concerned that there is now a vociferous lobby which is demanding ever greater recognition for so-called 'trans-people', nearly all of whom are males who apparently prefer to behave as and be seen as being female. These 'trans-females' expect to be treated as women, allowed to use facilities generally reserved for women and to compete in sports as women, despited having very obvious male attributes. Forstater believes that all of this is wrong, as does her supporter JK Rowling, but when she said so, her employer dismissed her on for expressing views which it found unacceptable. Rowling has also been vilified for providing support. 

Forstater then took her case to a tribunal which astonishingly took her employer's side, stating that "her views were not worthy of respect in a democratic society". It went on to say that Forstater was "absolutist" in her view and said she was not entitled to ignore the rights of a transgender person and the "enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering". 

What ? In effect the tribunal was saying that the expression of views which are not popular in modern society should not be allowed - where on earth are we living? Communist China ? 

The tribunal appears to have failed to notice that biological sex and the apparent gender that a person wishes to exhibit are quite different. Any male can, if he wishes, disport himself as a woman, wearing female attire and using make-up, growing his hair in a female fashion and so on; such things do not and never can make him a woman. To many this must be blindingly obvious though to a shockingly noisy but very tiny minority it is a mark of the most appalling harrassment and discrimination to say so. Equally shocking is that there are now many organisations and even judicial bodies which appear so terrified of offending this, and other, tiny minorities that they have decided to remove the right of the vast majority to voice an opinion on such matters.

Thankfully, a judge in the High Court yesterday determined that the tribunal in Forstater's case ahd been wrong in law and ordered that the case be reheard. Effectively, he ruled that holding and even expressing a view contrary or offensive to that held by some others was not of itself criminal; Forstater had not done anything to directly harm, or even try to harm, anyone.

That such a case ever arose in the first place is frightening but demostrates how far down the road to totalitarianism we have gone. There are now so many forbidden topics, things we cannt say for fear of causing offence to someone who may then take legal action against the 'offender'. We are being monitored in all quarters in case we say something out of turn, usually something that would have passed unnoticed 50 years ago but now brings the full weight of the law crashing down on our heads.

How on earth did we get into such a mess ?

WHERE IS JIM HACKER WHEN HE'S NEEDED ?

It's tempting to say that you couldn't make it up but, of course, someone did !

The reported 'sausage war' currently raging between the UK and EU seems like a surreal piece of nonsense that couldn' possibly be happening. That it was foreshadowed by an episode of the still quite brilliant "Yes, Minister", way back in 1984, demonstrates that fiction is not always stranger than fact.

In the final episode of "Yes Minister", the Minister for Administrative Affairs, Jim Hacker, looks for a way of raising his profile as he pursues promotion to No. 10. Hilariously, an opportunity is presented to him as the European Union is about to introduce new regulations regarding the definition of sausages; Hacker leaps on this move to claim that the nasty foreigners are threatening to outlaw the 'British Sausage', and his manoeuvering pays off as the final scenes of the episode see him achieving his goal.

Now no one is claiming that the EU is planning to ban British Sausages (yet) but it does seem that there are problems over the movement of goods of all sorts, sausages being used as a suitably ridiculous example, from the island of Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This is apparently a consequence of the "Northern Ireland Protocol", a cobbled together piece of the treaty that saw the United Kingdom, as a whole and including Norther Ireland, leave the European Union. 

This protocol was never going to be workable as it a) effectively partitioned the United Kingdom and b) kept Northern Ireland border arrangements under the control of the European Union. It seems highly likely that the protocol was as much about the ambitions of the Irish Republic as anything else, their hope being that it would help to pave the way for the eventual reunification of the 2 parts of the island of Ireland. However, others have also jumped on the opportunity to throw mud and threats at the UK, particularly the French and those at the highest levels of the EU itself who have still not forgiven the British for daring to leave their dictatorial and protectionist club. As for the French, they've always hated us and recent events over fishing rights around Jersey have probably inflamed this hatred still further; additionally, President Macron is in all sorts of trouble and faces an election next year, so any opportunity to bash the British will be grabbed with both hands as a potential vote-winning ploy.

And so we now have the "Sausage War". Residents of Northern Ireland are, reportedly, in danger of being deprived of supplies of the good old 'British Banger' as imports into the territory face so much red tape that companies are deciding not to bother. The UK is telling the EU to be realistic and flexible, the EU is telling the UK to be realistic and accept the rules they agreed to in the protocol. Failing an agreement, the EU is threatening to take legal action against the UK, all notionally because of the movement of sausages across the Irish Sea.

You couldn't make it up, except that Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn effectively did just that, more than 35 years ago. What we need now is a Jim Hacker, backed by his Humphrey Appleby, to win the day and save the "British Banger" !

IT'S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD !

More than half a century ago, there was a film titled "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World !" It was a comedy about a group of people racing each other to find a pile of loot. While the case of cricketer Ollie Robinson is rather different, it's an indicator that we now inhabit a world that's at least as mad and it would be comical if it wasn't so absurd.

As a teenager, Robinson made some comments that are now considered to have been 'unacceptable' due, apparently, to them being deemed sexist and racist. Now, nearly 10 years later and after he's just enjoyed a highly successful test match debut, Robinson has been banned from all international cricket while a disciplinary investigation is undertaken.

I have no problem with murderers or rapists being pursued, caught and penalised years after their crimes are committed but Robinson's offences are hardly in that league. Indeed, they're more akin to a bit of minor shop-lifting or speeding, neither of which would attract the attention of anyone for more than a few days after the event. For Robinson to be dragged up in front of the court of wokeish opinion and to potentially lose his career over what amounts to stupid, childish remarks made years ago is bordering on the obscene.

Robinson did not hurt anyone by his actions. He did not steal anything. He did not even disadvantage anyone. He did what most of us do at some time as a result of being young and, possibly, a bit foolish, but to splash his supposed misdemeanour across the media and pursue him as if he was a major criminal is itself a crime. How many of us would be found guilty in the court of current public opinion for acts we committed decades ago if only Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the egregious social media had been around then ? 

Making remarks about niggers or poofs, wolf whistling at pretty girls - are these really crimes ? When I was a child such things were commonplace, offensive though some may have found them, but criminal they weren't. However, in today's "Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World", being offensive seems to have become the Number One crime and the offender has become Public Enemy Number One. At the same time, convicted and often deceased offenders from decades ago are pardoned because their crimes would not be considered crimes in today's world. What lunacy !

It is insane. In the words of the old saw "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words shall never hurt me". It's time we took note. 

PS.

How good to read that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Oliver Dowden, appears to agree with me. He's recently suggested that suspending Robinson is 'over the top' and that the England and Wales Cricket Board should reconsider it's action. Good for him !