UNINSPRIING LEADERSHIP IS ALARMING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COVID UPSURGE IS DOWN TO THE UNCARING YOUNG.

While the precise numbers may be debatable, it is clear that the COVID-19 epidemic is spreading rapidly again. Diagnosed infections are at the highest level recorded and deaths are creeping up although improved understanding of the condition and its treatment is likely to prevent the latter from reaching the numbers recorded earlier.

Despite the obvious need for serious action and even a return to near lockdown in some areas, an assortment of political figures in the worst affected places seem intent on criticising the government and demanding that they be given the power to decide what is done in their own areas, claiming that they have better knowledge of the epidemic than those at the centre. That this is nonsense seems obvious, but clearly not to those looking to make political capital out of a national crisis. They demand that yet more money is magicked-up by the government to support anyone and everyone, while saying little if anything about the personal responsibility of all those concerned.

The virus is spreading most rapidly in the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire regions of England and it is very clear that the spread is heavily concentrated amongst the 16-29 age group who are then spreading it further to older and more vulnerable people. Whenever it has been suggested that the failure to control and even eliminate the virus is not the fault of the government but of "the people", there have been howls of rage from some quarters but it is now abundantly obvious that some elements of "the people" are, indeed. responsible. 

Seeing television pictures of crowds gathering in town centres, completely ignoring the guidance about wearing masks, social distancing and the numbers who can gather together demonstrates just how selfish and uncaring some of the people are. Hearing of large outbreaks at several universities is a further indicator of the careless attitude of many younger people who no doubt are relying on the known fact that they are unlikely to be badly affected by the virus even if they do catch it. These utterly anti-social and irresponsible individuals need to be named and shamed without fear or favour. Whatever the shortcomings of government policy, it is these stupid and selfish young people who are putting the health of the rest of us in danger, and who are responsible for the social and economic fall out of the epidemic.

Overcoming this epidemic relies on all of the people abiding by the guidance and rules set out by the government. It is time for the young to realise this and to begin to act like the supposedly grown-up, intelligent adults that they claim to be.

COVID-19 NUMBERS ARE UTTERLY UNRELIABLE.

Does anyone really know the extent of the COVID-19 epidemic in this country ?

Yesterday, it was announced that due to "technical issues", a significant number of positive tests had not been included in recently published figures. Inevitably, some have blamed this omission on the government, but surely the blame lies with those directly responsible for compiling the numbers. A simple review of the figures released on a daily basis confirms this.

Day to day, the numbers change. not by much but by enough to make one wonder what is going on. I don't mean the total numbers, but going back to the early days of the epidemic, the numbers of cases and deaths recorded on a daily basis change almost every day; not for every day though some days seem to change more often than others. This latest announcement of thousands of cases being 'missed' over recent days simply convinces me that the bodies responsible, mostly Public Health England, are utterly incompetent. I have lost count of the number of times they have told us that the numbers have been adjusted due to some error or other and one can only wonder how reliable any of the figures really are.

Thankfully I have not contracted the virus and have even had a negative test a couple of weeks ago, so I know the epidemic has not reached me yet. That said, the uncertainty surrounding the published numbers leaves me wholly unsure that I'm not the only uninfected person left in the country.

Public Health England is a useless organisation and it can only be a good thing that it's to be abolished. The worry is that it'll simply be replaced by yet another pointless and useless QUANGO, run by a gaggle of faceless bureaucrats, many of them the same as are in post now. Surely it is now time for a genuine re-organisation of the NHS and associated bodies that will allow for the creation of something that is properly competent, is responsive to patients, is not driven by diktat from 'on high' and not drowned in demands for statistics demonstrating how wonderful it is.

The truth is that it's not bad for those who get into the system but it's bloody awful for those on the waiting list. It almost never admits its mistakes, frequently lies in its published statistics and is horrendously bureaucratic in outlook. Envy of the world ? Don't make me laugh !

ps As an afterthought, it occurs to me that "technical issues" was a possible excuse suggested by Sir Humphrey Appleby when looking for a way to explain a government 'cock up' in an episode of the wonderful 'Yes, Minister' / 'Yes, Prime Minister' series. More than 30 years on - how little has changed.

TRUMP v BIDEN : A CHOICE MADE IN HELL.

Does anyone envy the choice facing American voters in just 31 days time ?

While it has often been the case that candidates for the most powerful position in the world have been less than inspiring, this time around they are positively awful. Donald Trump, the man in possession, is a bombastic and incredibly arrogant man in his mid 70s. His performance as President over the last 4 yeas has, to say the least, been problematic and he's probably been the most divisive President in modern times. Now, having poo-pooed the seriousness and danger of the COVID-19 virus epidemic and largely ignored the medical advice surrounding it, he's caught it and finds himself in hospital. As an elderly and overweight man, he is at considerable risk of suffering serious consequences and could even be unable to continue with his campaign for re-election.

On the other side of the ballot is Joseph Biden, a lifelong Democrat whose credentials may be even worse than those of Mr Trump. A long-time senator for the miniscule state of Delaware, Mr Biden is basically a non-entity. As such, he was chosen to be the vice-Presidential candidate alongside Barack Obama in 2008, being someone who would keep his head down, cause no waves and offer no challenge to his boss. All of this he seems to have achieved without difficulty and his reward, if that is what it is, is to be in line to become President next January. That a man of such little note and in his late 70s, and who will be 82 by the end of a first term should he be elected, is the best that his party can find to challenge the widely reviled Mr. Trump is rather frightening.

The choice before American electors is truly dreadful. Neither candidate can be called attractive, in a political sense, and many voters may be  inclined to vote against, rather than for, one of them; others may simply not bother to vote at all.  Victory for Mr Trump would mean 4 more years of chaotic and divisive leadership, while victory for Mr Biden would mean a return to the inertia of the Obama years, with the USA drifting aimlessly to nowhere in particular. Possibly worse would be the increased prospect of the very elderly Mr Biden becoming unable to complete his term and the baton being passed to his strongly left wing deputy, Kamala Harris. Regardless, it seems highly likely that Ms Harris would be the Democratic Party's candidate in 2024, by when Mr Biden will surely be considered too old to stand.

Perhaps the usual cries of "God Bless America" should be replaced with "God Help America", not to mention the rest of the world.