VAR IS A DISASTER !

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ENGLISH CRICKET ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A CHRISTMAS PUDDING FOR THE GODS !

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

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

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

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

My mum would be so proud !

CAUSING OFFENCE OR MURDER - WHICH IS WORSE ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHERROCK PROVES SHE'S GOT WHAT IT TAKES !

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

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

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

Time will tell.

STURGEON - JUST ANOTHER FANATIC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JEREMY CORBYN - A SPOILT CHILD IN ACTION.

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

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

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

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

WHAT NEXT FOR LABOUR ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TIME FOR BORIS TO PROVE HIS WORTH !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO COMMON SENSE AND JUSTICE ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSERVATIVES OR MARXISTS ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

CORBYN AND MCDONNELL - A PAIRING MADE IN HELL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

HILLSBOROUGH : TIME TO MOVE ON.

 A jury in Preston seems to have shown a degree of common sense in deciding that David Duckinfield was not guilty of negligent manslaughter over the sad deaths at Hillsborough 30 years ago. Sadly, it seems that at least some of the relatives of those who died don't want to accept the verdict and are still looking for someone to blame for the incident.

As the man in charge of crowd control on the day, Mr Duckinfield was required to try to control tens of thousands of football supporters, some of whom certainly didn't much like being controlled. Duckinfield had to make decisions on the spur of the moment and at least one of those decisions, with benefit of hindsight, may have been misguided. However, how that amounts to such a serious mistake as to lead to 95 charges of "negligent manslaughter", and a witch hunt, escapes me. 

The inquests held in 2014-16 resulted in a jury deciding that the 96 people who died were "unlawfully killed". Ever since, those who have been determined to lay the blame on an individual have used these verdicts to demand "justice". Today, they got justice but still aren't happy because their target hasn't been found guilty. They seem to have forgotten that justice is about assembling evidence, laying charges and placing the case before a jury - what the jury then decides is justice, like it or not.

To my mind, the problem lies with the original inquest verdicts which were arrived at in a highly fevered and sensationalist environment. The unfortunate supporters who died were just that, unfortunate, and to claim that they were "unlawfully killed" is nonsense. No one set out to commit murder, no one made decisions negligently and no one was individually responsible. Yes, it was a terrible event; yes, things went wrong, but to try to lay the blame on any individual was also wrong. No one person was responsible; responsibility rests with those who managed the stadium, perhaps with those who managed the crowds, but probably also with some of those fans who forced their way into the ground through an exit gate. In truth, no one person was responsible, it was a terrible accident resulting from a concatenation of situations and actions.

The sooner the still-aggrieved relatives come to this realisation and move on, the better.

POCHETTINO SACKING A SAD EVENT.

As a decades-long supporter of Tottenham Hotspur, I have to say that the departure of Mauricio Pochettino saddens me. Over the last 5 or 6 years Pochettino has transformed the club into one challenging for the highest honours year after year, something which hasn't happened since the heady days of Bill Nicholson's long reign, which ended some 45 years ago. 

For the last 12 months or so, something has clearly gone wrong and results, the Champions' League apart, have been disappointing; the team has failed to perform. Whether this decline was down to the manager, the players or the managerial hierarchy we may never know, but something had to be done. In the end, the manager, Pochettino, has been sacrificed despite his incredible achievements. 

It is obvious that a replacement had already been lined up and that replacement is the self-styled "special one", Jose Mourinho. Mourinho's approach could hardly be any more different from Pochettino's and whether he's the right man for Tottenham we will have to wait to see; personally, I very much doubt it and I'll be very surprised if he's still around in 18 months time. Mourinho spends vast amounts of money wherever he goes and Tottenham don't do that; Mourinho likes to buy expensive, experienced players, Tottenham like to develop their own. Simply put, the philosophies are like chalk and cheese.

Pochettino may have reached the end of the road at Tottenham for reasons of which we are unaware but he will always be considered one of the club's greatest managers. Daniel Levy has done his own standing little good with the club's vast army of supporters by his action and should Mourinho prove to be a failure, his own position may well be called into question.

The next 6 months will be pivotal.

PRINCE ANDREW ON TRIAL BY MEDIA.

Prince Andrew, the Duke Of York, is most unlikely to ever inherit the throne. Other than his marriage to Sarah Ferguson, he has rarely done little that has had any lasting impact on the public consciousness. Until now.

Connecting him to the ongoing and highly questionable furore about the abuse of women, children and, for all I know, sheep, goats, dogs, and all other mammalian species, is a wonderful piece of journalistic bollocks. If the Prince did have dodgy friends, does it really matter ? If he did have a "relationship" with some nubile Californian (or Texan or whatever she was) does anyone really care ? There doesn't seem to have been any damage done to either party although one, the nubile one, is now looking to make her fortune by claiming  that there was, the best part of 20 years later.

The "Me Too" campaign has brought allsorts out of the woodwork claiming all manner of abuse, mostly from individuals of whom no one has ever heard - it's basically become a route to easy publicity and a potential gravy train. The attack on Prince Andrew may have merit or it may not - either way the first question is to ask why it's taken so long for such accusations to be made. Years after the supposed events, people are gaining publicity by claiming to have been abused. I don't defend the abusers, if indeed that's what they were, but I do not like the general atmosphere of victimhood that's been created and the suggestion that anyone who is accused is automatically guilty. This has horrible echoes of the claims of the jailed paedophile, Carl Beech.

The published photograph of Prince Andrew with the claimed "victim" does not suggest she was unhappy to be where she was. Beyond that, what evidence is there that she and the Prince had any further contact ? Yes, the Prince did have ill-advised contacts but is that evidence of guilt or just the actions of a man who has been largely ostracized by his family ? 

If this isn't trial by media, and a gold digging exercise, what else is it ?

ANTIBIOTICS WILL KILL OUR CHILDREN.

I think I must be hallucinating.

On television I think I've just seen an advertisement aimed at preventing people from demanding antibiotics from their GP whenever they have a sniffle. If I wasn't actually hallucinating, it was an abomination.

This advertisement was presented in such a childish fashion as be insulting to anyone with half a brain cell. Clearly it was aimed at those who lack even that little evidence of intelligence. 

Is the NHS hierarchy simply addressing those who have been failed by the education system or those whom its own prior advertising has failed to convince ? If the latter, is there not a better approach than adverts that treat the recipients as morons. Or do they think that most of the population are, indeed, morons ?

What is wrong with some genuinely intelligent and educational public service advertisements, leaflets and proper information ? Targeting the lowest common denominator suggests a shocking attitude towards the general population and betrays an utter contempt for their overall level of education and understanding

Or is that what our masters really want ? A general population that is poorly educated to such a degree that they'll accept whatever crap they're fed ? Antibiotics have their place and are dangerous if misused - is that such a hard message to convey ?

Sadly. I believe we're already well beyond this point and that the current approach to dealing with bacterial infections will not work for much longer, whatever we do. A new approach is required, which excludes simply using yet more and newer antibiotics. The bugs may not have brains but they do evolve and much more rapidly than do people. 

It's past time that governments came clean and told their people the whole, unvarnished truth. Unless they stop using antibiotics for colds and sneezes and as a general stop gap for all else, their children and grandchildren will die from all manner of other infections - the simplest scratch could lead to untreatable tetanus, a streptococcal  throat infection will be fatal. Post-operative infections will become commonplace and also frequently fatal, as they used to be before the advent of modern antibiotics.

We need honesty from our leaders. Will we ever get it ?

HILARY CLINTON STICKS HER NOSE IN.

The good old BBC has been at it again.

Hilary Clinton, an egregious American who is no fan of anyone or anything that might be considered vaguely 'right wing', has been feted by the corporation this morning. Apparently, together with her daughter, she's co-authored a book which the BBC is only too happy to promote. As a bonus to the Beeb, Mrs Clinton has also had something negative to say about Boris Johnson's government.

Harking back to her own claimed experience in the US Presidential election of 2016, Clinton has said that it's "inexplicable and shameful" that the UK government has not yet published a report on alleged Russian interference in British politics. She's added that "Every person who votes in this country deserves to see that report before your election happens". Those who've interviewed her today have done nothing to challenge her statements, but have accepted them at face value. 

What our general election has to do with this awful woman is a mystery. Given that openness and honesty are sadly lacking in her own country, not to mention her own family - we all recall her husband's "honesty" over the Lewinsky affair for which he was all-but impeached - and that her failure to win the Presidency was more to do with her own failings than with the Russians, her arrogance in pontificating about our government is breathtaking.

Why on earth does the BBC publicise such a harridan ? The answer, of course, is obvious. Clinton is a leftie who doesn't like Boris Johnson and his "right wing" government, but does love the European Union and is a promoter of all things to do with so-called equality and "social justice". Consequently, she fits in well with the BBC's own left wing management, agenda and overall presentation.

Will we be hearing from a right wing author anytime soon ? Would such a person escape unchallenged, as Mrs Clinton has ? Not a chance.

SPRINGBOKS SPOIL THE PARTY.

It was not to be.

After the excitement of England's brilliant performance against the All Blacks, they were firm favourites to lift the Rugby World Cup but, for reasons unknown, they simply didn't perform to the same standard in the final. Instead, they were outplayed from start to finish by a South African side that had actually lost to New Zealand in the group stage of the competition.

Nothing went right for England. They lost one of their key players, Kyle Sinckler, to injury in the first couple of minutes and never seemed to get going. The passing and movement that had been such a characteristic of the victory over the All Blacks was completely lacking, with many passes dropping short or going astray altogether, while the Springboks hit peak form exactly when it mattered. England always seemed to be on the back foot and never looked like winning.

This is not to say that they had a bad tournament nor that finishing as runners-up was a failure, but it was a disappointment. They will now start building a new team to challenge for the ultimate prize in 2023 - I can't wait !

BULGARIA PUNISHED - TIME TO MOVE ON.

A handful of mindless idiots, out of a crowd of tens of thousands, made offensive remarks and gestures during a football match. Under any normal circumstances this would be seen as what it was - the stupid action of a tiny group.

But No.

Because this was "racist" activity, it's been at the top of the news and now that the Bulgarian footballing authorities have been given a punishment that is deemed to be too light, it's back in the news as a major item. For goodness sake, what is this lunacy ?

The world has many people and not all of those people are intelligent, reasonable or even vey nice. Some are downright nasty, others are simply too stupid and moronic to be taken seriously, but in a world in which "equality" and "racism" are key buzz words, and some "take offence" at every opportunity, things that used to be shrugged off are now placed centre stage.

Seeing a tiny section of the crowd at  the England - Bulgaria match behaving moronically wasn't the most pleasant spectacle but they appeared to all be expelled from the stadium fairly quickly and with little fuss. The fuss all came from the England bench and players "taking offence", even though one, Tyrone Mings, even indicated later that he was not particularly disturbed by the moronic behaviour. Subsequently the European football authorities have decided that Bulgaria must be punished, although I have to ask "why ?" What could they have done differently in order to prevent the incident ?

Worse, the "anti-racist" brigade are now up in arms claiming that the punishment handed down is inadequate, a joke. What is wrong with these people ?

Being nasty, cruel or rude about others is not new and it won't go away. People are people and will continue to behave with a variety of views and attitudes until they are all turned into some sort of clones, turned out sausage-like from their schools and colleges of indoctrination. Venues such as football stadiums quite simply can't control the behaviour of everyone in their often vast crowds; all they can do is see it and act there and then, as the Bulgarian authorities did.

Additionally, why do we give the morons the oxygen of publicity on which they thrive ? By all means catch them and punish them for any real offences they've committed, but do not publicise their activities on every front page and every television and radio news broadcast; do not spend inordinate time debating the rights and wrongs of their actions or those of the authorities that are claimed to have failed to control them. If their activities were largely ignored by the media, they'd soon become bored and move on to some other puerile nonsense.

That said, aren't there also far more important things for us all to worry about ? Climate change, the continuing extinction of species, the clearance of rain forests; this is what we should worry about, not the moronic behaviour of tiny groups of louts. For God's sake, get real.

LORRY DEAD KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

Perhaps I'm just a miserable uncaring old sod, but I'm fed up with all the grotesquely sentimentalised way that our news is presented.

The discovery of a lorry load of dead illegal immigrants has been presented as if the dead were the unwilling, or unknowing, victims of some nasty, money grabbing organisation; in truth, they were simply people attempting to enter our country illegally. Whether they had paid to be smuggled in or were being 'trafficked' for the purposes of so-called modern slavery, they and their families expected to profit from the arrangement.  

That the adventure ended with their deaths is their own fault. If they had genuine and substantial reasons for coming to our country, there are established procedures to follow but they chose not to follow these, suggesting that their reasons were not strong enough. If they were refugees from dangerous or oppressive situations, their first port of call should have been the nearest place of safety or relief, which is never the United Kingdom. The only conclusion to be drawn is that they were knowingly breaking the law by attempting to enter our country illegally.

I have degree of sympathy for the families of those who have died, but no more than I have for the families of the thousands who depart this earth every day. For those who died in the lorry at Purfleet, I have no sympathy whatsoever; they knew what they were doing and knew the risks they were running.

Call me heartless, uncaring, unfeeling, callous or inhuman but it's time that we stopped the insanely over-emotional response to such events and started prioritising what is in the best interests of our own country, it's people and heritage. That means much stronger control of our borders and much harsher treatment for both smugglers and smuggled. 

Let's get on with it.

BRILLIANT ENGLAND TAME ALL BLACKS !!

Who'd have thought it ?

England's rugby union team went into the current World Cup tournament as one of the top teams but New Zealand were thought by most to be all but unbeatable. Winners of the last 2 tournaments, the all-powerful All Blacks have dominated rugby union for decades and, despite the, very, occasional defeat, have been the "team to beat" for as long as I can remember. Today, they were not only beaten, they were outplayed in a manner I've never previously seen.

A World Cup semi-final is a game that no one wants to lose, least of all a team that hadn't lost a match at the World Cup since 2007. New Zealand came into the game today as favourites and yet it was England who took control from the very start and never let up. They played like a team possessed, never allowing the champions time or space; they dominated their opponents in every aspect of the game, every corner of the field. Quite simply, they were brilliant.

If England can repeat such a performance in next Saturday's final, they will almost certainly be lifting the trophy at its end. Whether they play Wales or South Africa, whose semi-final takes place tomorrow, it will make no difference. The England that turned up today were at a level no England team has previously reached; repeat that performance and they will be unbeatable. The only question is whether they can do it again. 

Around 11 o'clock next Saturday morning, we'll know the answer.

EXTINCTION REBELLION - YOBS, HOOLIGANS & SOCIALIST AGITATORS.

The so-called Extinction Rebellion has continued to disrupt the lives of law abiding citizens by blocking roads and interfering with London's transport systems. They claim that this is all in pursuit of the great cause of preventing climate change from destroying our planet but is it ?

Who are the people behind Extinction Rebellion now, it seems, given a new and somewhat exalted status by the BBC whose reporter yesterday took to referring to them as "E.R.", an appellation previously reserved for the Queen; apparently, it should be "X.R." anyway. It is apparent that those who have been causing turmoil in London are largely the usual crowd of agitators who turn out to protest against anything that they consider to be vaguely 'right wing', 'corporate' or 'capitalist', or in favour of the latest left wing faddish cause célèbre. 

Many politicians have fêted the silly child from Sweden so as to be seen to be, in the latest fashion, "woke", whatever that means. In truth, Greta Thunberg has simply been an unknowing tool in the hands of those who want only to destroy western society and replace it with some supposed socialist utopia of their own design. Climate change, and other threats, may well be real, but the people making the most noise about such things have only this one aim in mind and they'll use anything, any argument, to achieve it.

Peaceful and lawful protest is one thing, but blocking streets, disrupting travel and rendering the lives of those who are simply going about their daily business difficult or impossible, is quite another and should not be tolerated. Our police spend much time on pursuing those who may, or may not, have committed "hate crimes", crimes more in the mind than anywhere else, but seem to be somewhat reluctant to tackle real crimes that affect large numbers of people. Obstruction is a crime and I'm fairly sure that there are laws that cover disrupting transport networks too, and yet the police have largely stood by and watched. Yes a good few protestors have been arrested but how many of these will be charged and how many others should have been arrested ? 

The moral of the story seems to be that those protesting against nasty capitalist or corporate ventures are to be tolerated, while those who want to protect their own culture by opposing the ever increasing influx of immigrants, the promotion of multiculturalism, laws and activities that discriminate against white, Anglo-Saxon men or who simply dislike the left wing bias of the media and others in positions of power, are vilified and even criminalized.

Our society is fragmenting and crumbling and no one seems to care or even notice. God help the coming generations.  

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.

KIPCHOGE'S MANUFACTURED MARATHON 'RECORD'.

Eliud Kipchoge has he marathon distance in under 2 hours, the first time this has been achieved. However, to say that he has run "a marathon" in this time is rather misleading.

This event was not a race and was highly organised. Kipchoge had pacemakers running in relays, the course had been specially prepared and was unusually flat, and there was constant timing information being supplied to those involved through a system of lights, both on the road and on a vehicle preceding the runners. Kipchoge was also assisted by the pacemakers forming an aerodynamically shaped barrier in front of him to provide both protection from any wind and also an aerodynamically beneficial tunnel for him to run into. For me, this whole event was not dissimilar to seeing a cricketer hit a rapid century from a succession of deliberate full tosses; it is not the real sport.

The achievement is undoubtedly significant and will go down in history as such; Kipchoge's place in that history is secured. However, we are still waiting for the first marathon race to be run in under 2 hours and we may have to wait some time for that to happen. 

RUGBY WORLD CUP IN TYPHOON TURMOIL.

For 4 years, the elite of world rugby union have been gearing up for the 2019 World Cup in Japan. The organisers have had those years, and more, to make appropriate and adequate arrangements for the competition and to ensure that all relevant contingency plans were in place. Now it transpires that those in charge couldn't organise the proverbial "piss up in a brewery".

World Rugby, the governing body of Rugby Union, knowingly organised a world cup in a country where, and at a time when, typhoons are a regular intruder into everyday life. They claimed to have contingency plans in place for the possibility of disruption to the tournament by such visitors but now it is clear that they did not. In response to the arrival of a powerful typhoon over the coming weekend is simply to cancel the affected games; some contingency.

This action itself disrupts players and teams, spectators and television viewers, as well as making the whole tournament something of a laughing stock. Some of the participating countries have seen their chances adversely affected, in the first instance, Italy are to be denied their opportunity, admittedly not a great one, of advancing to the quarter finals at the expense of New Zealand. France will be denied the chance of beating England and finishing top of Group C and facing Australia rather than Wales in the knock out stage.

Worst of all, although a final decision is yet to be made, Scotland may well find themselves exiting the competition due to their match with the hosts, Japan, also being called off. Group A is the closest Group and any combination of 2 from 3 - Scotland, Ireland and Japan - could progress, but not if Scotland are denied the chance to play. In that event, Japan will reach the quarter finals along with Ireland and Scotland will simply be left to stew.

In what other arena would such a situation arise ? Surely it would not have been beyond the wit of the mega-minds of World Rugby to have come up with a suitable plan, other than cancelling games ? They knew typhoons were a possibility and yet they did nothing; their answer is the simplest possible - cancellation.

If I were in charge of rugby union in France and Italy, I'd already be consulting my legal team. If I was running Scottish rugby, I'd already be asking serious questions of mine, too, as a contingency against my team suffering at the hands of the bunch of incompetents at the top of World Rugby. Get it ? Contingency !

THANK GOD SHE'S GONE.

Professor Dame Sally Davies, DBE FRS & Chief Medical Officer of the United Kingdom - sounds highly impressive doesn't it ?

In truth the almost septuagenarian Sally Davies is a meddling, control freak, a woman whose aim in life is, apparently, to save the ignorant masses from themselves. No doubt her background, had an influence - her father was a priest and theologian and she was privileged enough to be sent to a private school after she failed the 11-plus exam. Although she qualified as a doctor, she appears to have disliked mixing with patients, leaving the profession for a period before coming back to spend most of her time in laboratories. Admittedly, she seems to have become an expert in her field, but it was a limited one and largely kept her away from the real lives of real people. Unlike most of her predecessors, Doctor Davies has no background in public health medicine although this has not deterred her from pontificating on every aspect of public life.

During her time as CMO, she has campaigned against the consumption of alcohol, sugar, calorie-rich foods and anything else that she deemed to be injurious to the health of the nation. Now she wants to ban what she considers 'snacks', saying that eating or drinking on our public transport should be banned. Is this crazed medic for real ?

Do some people have poor diets ? Yes. Do I dislike seeing people wandering our streets while eating or drinking in the most disgusting manner, seeing others on our buses or trains doing likewise ? Yes. But I also believe in personal responsibility and action, which Doctor Davies clearly does not. Rather than working to educate and encourage, she prefers to use the blunt weapons of taxation and the law, taxing some foods out of the reach of most of us and banning whatever she can't easily tax. Then she wants to place a limit on the calories we can be allowed to consume when we visit restaurants. Can such measures ever be right ?

Doctor Davies' latest, and thankfully final, tirade, against 'snacking' on public transport is utter lunacy. Eating and drinking on buses and trains may be unsavoury and unsightly, it may even be unhealthy, but how on earth would a ban be enforced ? Would we have to recruit yet more wardens and other publicly funded snoopers to monitor our behaviour, empowered to issue fines whenever we contravene yet more newly created laws ? What would count as a 'snack' ? Individual sweets ? Chocolate Bars ? A handful of peanuts, perhaps ? Or would it have to be something more substantial such as a sandwich or steak dinner ? Would supposedly healthy 'snacks', such as oat bars, be exempted ? 

How would those on long distance journeys be treated ? Would they have to starve for the 5 or 6 hour journey from London to Edinburgh ? What about those who habitually forego breakfast at home, preferring to buy something for the journey ? Would the ban also encompass time spent waiting at stations or sitting on delayed and motionless trains ? And what about those who MUST eat regularly, diabetics in particular ? Would they have to be registered as exempt travellers ?

Doctor Davies may have a fancy title and a string of letters after her name but, in reality, she's a proponent of an extreme 'Nanny State', one in which personal responsibility has no part and in which every aspect of the everyday lives of its citizens is monitored and approved, or disapproved of, by the all-knowing and all-seeing State.

Thank God her time is up and she's gone from a job for which she was remarkably poorly suited.

IRELAND STILL THE STICKING POINT.

With Brexit negotiations increasingly rancorous and divisive, it seems clear that the one and only real issue is that of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, an issue which is being used by the Republic's government as a lever to try to force reunification of their divided island.

As a proportion of the EU's trade, what crosses the border in Ireland is minute, likewise for the UK's trade. Neither the UK nor the EU wants to introduce a massive border infrastructure and the UK has proposed various measures to ensure that border checks are minimal. However, neither the government in Dublin nor the bureaucrats of Brussels have shown any willingness to discuss such proposals, persisting in their demands that the "Irish Backstop" is the only way forward, something they know would severely weaken the connection between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and which they know is unacceptable to the government of the UK.

Ireland has been a problem for centuries, ever since King Henry VIII effectively annexed it. Religious differences have exacerbated the historic mistreatment of many of its citizens and the eventual separation of the predominantly Catholic south from the predominantly Protestant north did little but bring a temporary halt to the troubles of the early 20th century. The resurgence of violence in the 1960s was nothing but a resurfacing of centuries old hatreds and, again, the solution of the "Good Friday Agreement" did nothing but bring about a temporary cessation of hostilities. The Republic and the still extant and active IRA continue to aim for reunification while the Protestants of the North still hate such a prospect. The two sides are irreconcilable.

There seems to be little chance of the Republic's government agreeing to anything that would weaken their position and no UK government could agree to anything that effectively breaks up its country. Unless the Irish and the EU are prepared to agree to a compromise which safeguards the total integrity of the United Kingdom, surely no Brexit deal is currently possible and the options for a future resolution are limited.

A further delay to the date of Brexit, beyond 31st October, will serve little purpose given the attitudes of the Irish Republic and the EU and a second Brexit referendum would be a betrayal of the democratic process in the UK. The remaining options are "No Deal", to which the current UK parliament appears implacably opposed, a general election, which the Labour Party refuses to countenance, or the formulation of a laughably entitled "government of national unity", created solely for the purpose of preventing Brexit altogether.

Or can Prime Minister Johnson come up with something else ?

BORIS CLEARS OUT TORY DROSS.

Heidi Allen, Sam Gymah, Sarah Wollaston and Philip Lee, these former luminaries of the Conservative Party have now all joined the Liberal Democrats. Does this not tell us something about them ?

How can anyone change direction quite so dramatically ? Forget the Liberals own publicity which places them in the centre, in truth they are where the Labour Party stood under Tony Blair and are neither liberal nor democratic. The Liberals have moved to occupy the ground now vacated by the Labour Party's dramatic shift to the far left, a position it last occupied under the fanatical Michael Foot in the early 1980s.

Allen, Gymah, Wollaston and Lee can never have been Conservatives in the first place. They may claim that they can't support Brexit or that the Conservatives have moved too far to the right for their liking, but the Liberals haven't suddenly become an alternative right wing party, they have remained left of centre. The modern day 'Gang of Four' clearly now espouse left wing views and policies - either they are hypocrites of the first water, or they never were Conservatives. Perhaps they are both.

None of these four has had the decency to offer their constituents  the opportunity to decide whether they now want to be represented by a Liberal Democrat or would prefer to have the Conservative representation they voted for at the last general election. More hypocrisy. Add in Rory Stewart, a man obsessed with himself, and the appalling Anna Soubry, and it seems that Boris Johnson's actions are actually clearing out some of the left wing elements and other dross from his party.

Good on him !

BREXIT OPPORTUNITIES STILL IGNORED.

The BBC remains relentlessly pro-Europe, left wing and anti-Conservative, as it's assorted news stories and reports of today confirm.

It's been headlining stories based on information supposedly received from unnamed government sources and analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a body whose predictions have become as unreliable as those of the Bank of England, International Monetary Fund and any other organisation with an overblown view of its own brilliance. 

According to the latest reports, discussions with the European Union are on the point of collapse and the government is putting in place contingency plans to disrupt the EU's future business. Reported  'leaks' from the EU side are entirely negative about the Prime Minister's latest proposals and a "government official" has "told the BBC" that the EU had not shown any desire to move towards acceptance of Mr Johnson's plans. It seems that "No Deal" is now the only likely outcome, at least according to these unidentified sources. However, given that the BBC is unashamedly pro-EU, might this not just be part of their contribution to Project Fear, insisting that all is doom and gloom ?

Allied to these stories, reports and leaks, the IFS has come up with a new set of predictions which claim that "No Deal" will lead to government borrowing reaching levels not seen in more than 50 years, and this on even the most optimistic "No Deal" scenario. Again, negativity piled on top of negativity, with little coverage given to the potential opportunities that will open up once the UK is free of the EU strait-jacket.

Instead of supporting OUR Prime Minister and OUR government in its negotiations, the BBC, much of the rest of the media, organisations such as the IFS and Bank of England, and many other high profile, but entirely self-interested and unrepresentative bodies, continue to focus on supposed dangers of Brexit, rather than promoting the very obvious opportunities. Why is this ?

Surely it is because these organisations benefit from the cosy and protectionist world of the European Union, a world run by the liberal left and one in which hard choices rarely, if ever, have to be made. The BBC's turmoil over the recent investigation into remarks made by the usually excellent Naga Munchetty demonstrates just how difficult this particular media outlet finds it to be open and honest, with its wishy-washy Director General being very easily swayed by a left wing assault on the judgement of his own complaints procedures. The BBC, and the rest, love the protective blanket provided by the EU's labyrinthine organisation and socialist doctrines; they'd much rather blame others for whatever goes wrong than accept responsibility themselves and so we have stagnation with no one making any meaningful decisions about anything, unless its the lowest common denominator that all can agree on.

If there is one ultimate benefit to be gained from leaving the EU it is gaining the right to make our own decisions, unencumbered by the need to obtain the agreement of 27 other nations, every one of which has its own vested interests. Why can't the BBC, BoE, IFS and the rest see this ?