Sunday 30 May 2021

BORIS GETS MARRIED - DOES ANYONE CARE ?

What is it about the British media that makes it so pathetic ? 

It's been reported that the Prime Minister, Boris (otherwise Alexander Boris de Pfeffel) Johnson, has married his fiancé, Carrie (Caroline Louise ?) Symonds in London today. Big news, an engaged couple who've been living together and already have a child have actually tied the knot; this is not entirely newsworthy stuff.

However, the media, in typical fashion, have looked for any angle to make it seem as though it's an event that matters. Is Boris being controlled by Carrie ? Is Carrie the real power behind the throne ? Why did they not tell the world about the date of the marriage instead of keeping it a 'secret' ?

Perhaps I'm old fashioned but for me the marital doings of a Prime Minister are not my business, nor those of anyone else, until they become entangled with affairs of state. If, when and where Mr Johnson and Ms Symonds choose / chose to marry is their business, not mine nor that of anyone else. Why the evermore intrusive press should believe otherwise is something of a mystery. Are they angered at missing out on a 'scoop' or is it just a result of an insatiable urge to know the ins and outs of the private lives of anyone whose name has ever appeared in print ?

This marriage is not news. It never will be news in any meaningful sense. It is merely fodder for the masses whose lives are so dull that they drool over the doings of anyone whose face appears on television or on the cover of a magazine, no mtatter how far down the scale of dreggery. 

Given tripe such as this, my contempt for the British press grows by the day. As for the future of mankind, obsessed by this kind of drivel, I've given up all hope some time ago.

Thursday 27 May 2021

THE WORLD ACCORDING TO CUMMINGS !

It's fairly clear that Dominic Cummings is a man on a mission. If you cross him, watch out !

Yesterday's appearance before a House of Commons committee proved to be a fine opportunity for him to 'grand stand', giving the world the benefit of his wisdom, both in foresight and hindsight, while throwing lorry loads of manure at those whom he now despises. Rather strangely, some of these are the same people with whom he worked, apparently in close harmony with, for prolonged periods, notably Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having worked with Mr Johnson to bring about Brexit and been his right hand man in Downing Street, Cummings now claims that Johnson is incompetent and that his being Prime Minister is almost unbelievable. So is Mr Johnson a man who deserved Cummings' loyalty and support, or is he an incompetent fool ? Whichever it is, Cummings' account shows him to have been wrong in his assessment at least half of the time.

Another who has come in for huge criticism from Cummings is the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock. Mr Hancock has been accused of being a 'serial liar' as well as simply being incompetent. In Cummings' view, Mr Hancock should have been, and almost was, sacked several times over the last year as he repeatedly misled or lied to his colleagues about his department's progress with various aspects of the government's response to the COVID epidemic.

Cummings made his assorted allegations while indicating that there was evidence to support them but failing to be very forthcoming with any. He offered to make available various text messages and other records of his own, but refused to be as open as the committee would have liked, citing the privacy of other parties. If his accusations are true, surely these other parties will be prepared to give corroborating statements to the committee and would therefore have no problem with being named and sharing their own records; if they do not, this will throw considerable doubt on Cummings' recollections and statements.

Cummings hates the Prime Minister and has a serious dislike of Mr Hancock. Both opted to take actions with which Cummings did not agree and ultimately Cummings left his role in Downing Street under a cloud; this cloud was, of course, at least partly of his own making through his highly ill-advised trip from London to Durham and thence across some 60 miles to 'check his eyesight', before returning to London, all during a period of extreme lockdown. At this time, Cummings was fully supported by the Prime Minister and yet, little more than 6 months later, he stormed out of Downing Street threatening all manner of recriminations.

Cummings has history. For a few months in 2002, he was Director of Strategy for the Conservative Party under Ian Duncan Smith; his 8 month stay in this role ended with him resigning and calling his boss 'incompetent'. He followed this job with 2 campaigning roles, firstly founding the short lived 'New Frontiers Foundation' and then 'North East Says No', an organisation dedicated to rejecting the notion of a regional assembly for the north east of England. Next came a brief period at the Spectator magazine, where he caused mayhem by publishing a cartoon of Muhammed before returning the Conservative Party to work for Michael Gove for 7 years. That he survived for such a length of time in this latter role seems to have owed much to Mr Gove's willingness to turn a blind eye, or deaf ear, to his assistant's working methods, there being a number of debatable actions attributed to him during this period, including at least one of bullying.

Even when working with the 'Vote Leave' campaign, Cummings continued to have difficult relationships with colleagues and his overall contempt for others seems to have continued up until the present day. Cummings clearly has little time for anyone who doesn't agree with him or act in accordance with his perceived notions of what is right. Anyone who does not accept his view of the world is automatically incompetent, thick, stupid or whatever other words come to mind. His own actions are always well-meaning, even when, as he has admitted, he may have been wrong, while others are simply stupid regardless of whether their actions are well-meaning or not.

Cummings has set his sights on destroying Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and, no doubt, a few others as well. Whether he succeeds or goes the way of other vengeful egotists is yet to be discovered.

Sunday 23 May 2021

NUL POINTS !

A self proclaimed 'Eurovision expert', interviewed on television a couple of days ago, said that she believed the UK's entry in the latest Eurovision Song Contest was the best we had managed for a number of years. While she didn't go so far as to claim that it might win, she was quite positive about its prospects.

Sadly, she was utterly wrong.

The dirge churned out by one James Newman was, frankly, awful. I haven't watched the show for several decades but I have listened to the Newman effort and I'm not even sure that awful is quite strong enough. The guy can't really sing, his presentation was terrible and the set surrounding him was indescribable. 'Nul Points' was probably more than it deserved.

The only questions that arise after this latest national humiliation are 1) why do we bother entering at all ? and 2) if we must enter, why can't we come up with a decent song ? In the distant past, we actually did have some good entries but recent years seem to have produced a succession of what might be termed 'turkeys'. 

One wonders how much the BBC pays into the Eurovision pot in order to have the 'privilege' of putting this tripe onto our screens. How ever much, it's too much. 

Friday 21 May 2021

HARRY - IT'S ALL ABOUT ME, ME, ME !

Poor Harry.

No one will deny that the revelations about the infamous interview of Princess Diana conducted by Martin Bashir in 1995 are shocking. Bashir lied and deceived in order to obtain the result he wanted and it seems that the hierarchy of the BBC at the time, including recently departed Director General Lord Hall, took a blind eye to the whole affair. A inquiry at the time concluded that nothing was wrong, though not it's clear that very much was wrong.

Following the publication of the latest report, by Lord Dyson, Prince William has taken the quite unusual step of making a public statement in which he lambasts the BBC for its failings and the effect which they had on his mother. He has not sought sympathy for himself but has concentrated on the damage done to Diana. If only his brother had done the same.

Poor Harry. While equally castigating the BBC, Harry has then turned the attention onto himself and his own supposed struggles. I don't deny that for a young boy, barely into his teens, to experience the publicity that surrounded his parents marital strife followed by the death of his mother in a horrendous car crash must have been traumatic, but for him to use the Dyson report into Bashir's activities as a basis for launching into more claims of neglect by his family, leading to supposed drug and alcohol abuses by himself is pathetic.

Harry is one of the most privileged people in the world, a close member of what is probably the most well known family there is; while the monarch does not have the political power of other leaders, her 'soft power', and that of other senior members of the family, is immeasurable but vastly greater than that of most national and even international leaders. As one of the most senior members of this bastion, Harry was in a position to do great things, to bring about change if change was necessary, and to provide long lasting and loyal support to the family, monarchy, nation and world. 

He appeared to be doing this when he joined the army and served with some distinction. Whenever he appeared on screen, he gave every impression of being happy and fulfilled and his involvement in the 'Invictus Games' was widely applauded. The occasional blip - such as being photographed taking part in a NAZI themed party - was put down to youthful indiscretion. Nonetheless, things seem to have begun to change after he left his military career and that change has escalated in more recent times.

Now, on the back of the Dyson report, he bemoans his own fate in an American television chat show and berates his family. It was they, not him, who was responsible for his binge drinking and other wild exploits which he attributes to claimed mental health problems. The family didn't help him and now he's having to undergo therapy, he says. Does it occur to him that his supposed mental health problems are nothing but the mostly minor irritations that most of us experience at points in our lives ? His grandparents went through the Second World War, experiencing far greater problems and deprivations than he has ever suffered, but they got on with life without whining and without the need for therapy. It appears that Harry is a victim of a modern society in which every slight problem is deemed to assume massive proportions and to be in need of professional attention.

If Harry had 'issues' I have no doubt that the Duke of Edinburgh would have told him, quite rightly, to "pull himself together and stop whining". It is a shame that such advice is not given more often, indeed, much more often, in these days in which every slight problem seems to be evolved into a mental health issue. As for Harry, the more he whines, the less he will achieve, for himself or for others, except within the closed world of US media celebrities which he now inhabits. The rest of the world will soon lose interest in this whining. highly privileged and super-rich little boy.

Tuesday 18 May 2021

WILD EYED CUMMINGS THREATENS MAYHEM - AGAIN.

 As the government and country gets on with dealing with the COVID epidemic, Dominic Cummings continues to believe that he is the real centre of everyone's world.

Whatever the truth about his dramatic departure from Downing Street last year, Cummings' behaviour in the last few months has been nothing but self-centred. His latest attacks on the government, and especially his former boss and close colleague Boris Johnson, are bordering on the manic. Erratic tweets, blog-o-sphere diatribes and a general wild-eyed manner all contribute to the appearance of a man on the edge of sanity. 

Cummings is threatening to wreak all sorts of havoc when he appears before a House of Commons' committee in a few days time but one wonders what effect he will have in the real world, the one outside of the "Westminster Bubble". Surely the more fanatical he appears, the more fantastical any claims he makes will seem. After all, he has clearly declared war on the Prime Minister which must throw doubt on the veracity of any claims or accusations that he makes.

Cummings was obviously badly hurt by his Downing Street departure but his actions since are those of a man purely out for revenge, which is hardly the behaviour of a supposedly highly intelligent political mastermind. Perhaps he was badly treated, perhaps his advice was ignored but does he consider himself to be such a genius that he is always right ? 

Maybe that's the way a man with an ego the size of Mount Everest actually thinks but it's hard to believe that others will see things the same way, other than those who have their own political agendas for doing so.


Monday 10 May 2021

STARMER'S RESHUFFLE - WILL ANYONE REALLY NOTICE ?

Following fairly disastrous election results, Keir Starmer has carried out a minor reshuffle of what is laughably referred to as his "Top Team". Will anyone really notice ?

The initial headline was the removal of Angela Rayner from her role as Party Chairman which was greeted with bemusement by most. If, as he repeatedly claimed, Starmer took full responsibility for the failings of his party's election campaign, why was he then apparently making Rayner a scapegoat ? To demonstrate the actual weakness of his own position, Rayner was then rapidly recycled into assorted roles including as Michael Gove's shadow, a senior position.

Less fortunate was the ineffectual Anneliese Dodds who has been almost invisible during her tenure as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Dodds has gone, to be replaced by the egregious harridan, Rachel Reeves, whose main ability seems to be to speak over, under and round all and sundry while rudely ignoring their right of reply. Dodds herself has been retained in the role of Party Chairman, though why is an unanswered question. If the gobby Rayner couldn't succeed in it, how on earth will the mouse-like Dodds ?

Other changes seem to be cosmetic rather than substantial. the long serving Nick Brown has received the order of the boot and been replaced as Chief Whip by his deputy, Alan Campbell. Shadow Leader of the House, Valerie Vaz, sister of the disgraced Keith, has been replaced by Thangam Debbonaire. Finally, one Shabana Mahmood has been given the job of Campaigns' Coordinator, a role previously held by Rayner, and Wes Streeting (who ?) has become something to do with child poverty.

There can be no doubt that Ms Reeves will make more of a splash than did her predecessor though the rest seem to be simply the replacement of one bunch of virtual unknowns by another. That the reshuffle wasn't more extensive appears to indicate that Starmer's own position is now very weak and there has already been talk of a leadership challenge, although this seems unlikely to materialise just yet. 

The Labour Party is in turmoil, virtually leaderless, certainly directionless. It's credibility will be sorely tested by the forthcoming By-election if the constituency of Batley & Spen, vacated by the newly elected Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, and where a Labour majority of 6,000 in 2015 had already been reduced to 3,500 by 2019. Losing this seat, once in the possession of the murdered Jo Cox, would surely place the spotlight very firmly on Starmer's leadership and could well be sufficient to bring about a leadership election.

Then there would be the question of who, out of the innumerable available nonentities, would replace him. Fun times ahead.

Saturday 8 May 2021

STURGEON STEAMS ON, BUT TO WHERE ?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being in 1707, following agreement between the governments of England (including Wales) and Scotland, and the passing of relevant Acts in the parliaments of both countries. In 1801, this union was superceded by further Acts which united Great Britain with Ireland and created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. All three nations had previously shared the same monarch from 1603 when James VI of Scotland had become James 1 of England, the Kingship of Ireland having been already taken on by Henry VIII of England in 1541.

Now, after more than 300 years of unity, Nicola Sturgeon wants to impose her fanatical desire for Scottish independence on both the people of her nation and also those of the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Kingdom has already been reduced by the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922 and the secession of a large part of the island of Ireland although this owed as much to religion as to politics. Sturgeon's plans have nothing to do with religion and are all about politics and her desire to be 'free' of what she sees as the malign influence of the UK's government in Westminster.

Back in 2014, David Cameron allowed the Scots to conduct a referendum on the simple question of whether or not they wanted to become an independent nation once again. The result was a reasonable clear one - they did not. The promoters of the referendum, the Scottish National Party, were very clear that this was a 'once in a generation' opportunity for Scots to make such a choice, and they still rejected the idea. Ever since, Sturgeon and her pals have used every excuse under the sun to claim that another referendum should be held rather more quickly than was previously suggested; actually, they want one within a year or two.

Before the current round of elections, Sturgeon was saying that if her SNP gained an absolute majority in the Holyrood parliament, she would see that as a mandate to demand a second referendum. Now seeing that the likelihood of an SNP majority is not great, she's changed her tune - now it's a majority of pro-Independence parties in the new parliament that will be sufficient, which takes advantage of the Green Party being in favour of separating from the United Kingdom.

Of course, Sturgeon only talks about the issues which support her position and ignores all else. Even if it's accepted that all SNP voters support independence (which is far from certain), that's only around 48% of the 63% of the electorate who bothered to vote. Adding in those who voted for the Green Party makes little real difference and with all other major parties opposed to another referendum, we're left with something like 30% of the electorate supporting pro-independence parties; for Sturgeon to claim that this gives her a mandate for another referendum is risible, regardless of the number of seats held in the parliament.

If she did actually get her way, held and won a referendum, what would that mean for both Scotland and the rest of the then former United Kingdom ?

Sturgeon has always claimed that the head of state would still be the Queen, but would hold for any future monarchs, or would Scots be looking for a Presidential system ? It has also been claimed that Scotland would retain use of the British currency and there would be no problems over borders or trading arrangements. In fact, as far as Sturgeon is concerned, life for Scots would be almost as it is now, with the single exception that she would be the boss; she glosses over the issues which would arise from her plan to take an independent Scotland back into the European Union.

Despite Sturgeon's optimism, an independent Scotland, especially one that is a very small and insignificant member of the European Union, would not have it so easy. The Queen may well be happy to remain as head of state but what about the future ? Might we see Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmond, even George Galloway, standing in a Presidential election ? What a horror show !

Continuing to use the pound sterling would only be possible if agreed by the parliament in Westminster and would leave the Scots tied to financial decisions made by Westminster and the Bank of England. Joining the European Union would, of course, require Scotland to adopt the Euro as their currency while there would also be the small matter of the border with England which would then become a border between England and the European Union; given the ongoing issues over Brexit and the position in Ireland, this could be a major problem. Would we have border posts along Hadrian's Wall, or some other line of EU defence, or would there be calls for England to accept EU rules in order to avoid such nonsense ? 

What would happen as the economies of the 2 nations diverged, as seems inevitable, has been ignored. Scotland has a large budget deficit and there has been considerable criticism of many of the services provided by the SNP administration; EU rules would mean tight financial controls would have to be imposed and the impact of these could be dramatic. Adoption of the Euro as the national currency would place Scotland under the control of the European Central Bank, rather than the Bank of England, and Scotland would then be required to follow whatever fiscal rules the ECB imposes. Scotland would also be tied to whatever fate awaits the Euro and the rest of the highly protectionist European Union. Trade with England could be significantly damaged as EU rules on borders, the single market and customs' union could well mean the imposition of tariffs and other border controls. Anyone living on one side of the border and working on the other may have unwanted issues to deal with as well.

By contrast, England would fare quite well. The financial support given to Scotland would cease to the benefit of taxpayers in the rest of the former union. Exports to Scotland are relatively minor, while disruption to imports from Scotland (principally whisky ?) would hardly be life threatening. England would surely care very little about the border issues which would be a major problem for Scotland and the EU. Indeed, would the EU even baulk at the very idea of Scotland joining them because of this ?

Sturgeon is a fanatic who will steam ahead regardless. One can only hope that the Scottish people would have more sense than to follow her down the road to disaster if, or when, given another opportunity to express a view about potentially breaking up a union which has existed for over 300 years to the substantial benefit of all concerned, in favour of surrendering their sovereignty to a different union of which their nation would be a tiny and wholly insignificant member, lying across the sea and attached to a serious trade competitor. The chances are that the European Union would turn out to be a much less supportive 'friend' than the United Kingdom has been for centuries.

How all this will play out is anyone's guess.

Tuesday 4 May 2021

PROMISES, PROMISES, BUT WE ALL END UP POORER.

Listening to Sir Keir Starmer on the radio and television this morning has left me wondering what is the point of politicians.

Year after year, leader after leader, election after election, political figures emerge from their comfortable homes and offices to promise voters the world. Better education, more jobs, better healthcare, better welfare provision, better policing, better air quality, greater 'diversity', 'equality' and 'opportunity' (whatever any of that means), better housing; you name it, they'll promise it. In truth it's the same nonsense every time and none of it is ever delivered.

What we get is higher taxes, more surveillance, poorer education, more street crime and drug dealing, roads with more pot holes than tarmac, millions waiting to see a doctor or get necessary treatment, worse public transport, less and less freedom of speech and action, more and more immigration and far less integration, more warehousing and industrial units despoiling our countryside, more lorries clogging up our roads and ever-increasing congestion, more and more rules and regulations to control our lives. 

This is not characteristic of any one party but is a phenomenon common to all. The headlines are always the promises, designed to win our votes and put whichever mob it is into the most powerful offices in the land. The downsides, if they're ever spoken of, are dressed up in impenetrable gobbledegook or hidden under mountains of promised 'extra cash' which never actually materialises. The 'drip drip' approach of the assorted encroachments on our quality of life, freedoms and general wellbeing goes on unabated until, suddenly, our village has become an industrial town, our park a vast warehouse and our wallets are empty.

Starmer is an oily weasel, but so are the other high profile politicians. All have only one thing in mind and that is to gain, or retain, power for themselves. Not one of them gives two figs for the common people whom they just see as cash cows, there to be sucked dry to satisfy whatever is the latest whim, fad or fancy.

Come Thursday 6th May, I will vote but only in an effort to keep the worst of these parasites out, not because I trust any of them or really want my life controlled by any of them. That said, I certainly won't be voting for any 'Police and Crime Commissioner', a job created by politicians, for politicians and with no purpose whatsoever other than to politicize law and order. 

I believe it was the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham (aka Quintin Hogg) who said that we did not really have a democracy in this country, it was an elective dictatorship. Every few years we, the common people, are given the chance to vote for whichever party we want to dominate us for the next few years; the choice is usually very limited and it makes little difference which lot wins. 

While on the surface, things might seem better at times, underneath, the country slides inevitably downhill and will continue to do so until either we get some real leadership and a return to what are now seen as old fashioned values, or there is a revolution. I won't be holding my breath to see which it is.